Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BillyH


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

BillyH
[ Vote here] (27/5/5) ending 23:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

is a great guy. Kate's edit tool puts him at 2,459 edits; he has been around since March 3rd, 2004, and that is a low number of edits for that amount of time, but please note that he has the capability and personality to be an admin. He, in my opinion, would be great if made an admin. --WikiFanaticTalk
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here.
 * Wow, I'm honoured! I accept. BillyH 23:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Of course, I support. As long as he accepts the nomination, of course. --WikiFanaticTalk 23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support!  Disclaimer:    This vote is not intended to be offensive. Additionally, this vote should not be used for controlling operations at a nuclear power plant, bank, airport, or hospital. You may not sue me in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey, for any damages this vote may cause you.       --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 23:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support. but delist this as per the new RfA rules. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) De-What? Support. El_C 23:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support CambridgeBayWeather 00:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Hoovernj 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Name sounds familiar. --Merovingian (t) (c) 02:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. A year is more than long enough.  He has been very rational and civil in all the discussions I've checked, and is very respectful of others.  These are the prime qualities we should seek in admin candidates.  We don't want ALL admins involved in policy discussions.  Should be a most excellent admin.    Un  focused  06:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support having taken a look at his contributions Tintin 13:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Good one. Hey, everyone, vote for him! David Gerard 14:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. He's been around a long time and is always civil. Adminship really should be no big deal. Rje 16:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Extreme exclamation mark support! (The cabal made me do it) --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support.  Ral  315   WS  17:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Extreme Knightmare-fan support! --TimPope 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and only the main namespace directly serves that end. I agree that it is important for an administrator to demonstrate a wide spectrum of interaction, but I believe that BillyH has more than met that requirement. We need administrators from all parts of the spectrum of positive interaction, not everyone has to be a wikipolitican editing primarily outside of the main namespace. --Gmaxwell 17:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Interactions with him suggest that he knows policy well enough to be an admin, so I'm not concerned about the lack of WP namespace edits. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Extreme Mexican Support!. Just make sure you get involved in more discussions from now on. Tito xd (?!?) 20:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, the editcountis crowd needs to chill. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong support. Andre ( talk ) 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. James F. (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support, good editor. Billy doesn't edit much in the Wikipedia space, but from my own interaction with him, I know him as familiar with and interested in wiki policy, practice, and culture. He'll be great with the tools. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support This stuff that just because you have not had a lot of talk edits, you aren't qualified is silly.--Rogerd 02:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Undying port of su. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Carbonite | Talk 12:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support with a suggestion to generally become more active in the Wikipedia namespace. I appreciate what people below are saying but feel deferring support will just lead nominees to jump through hoops and perhaps revert to being themselves again afterwards.     Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   11:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Based on very low percentage of Wiki space edits. Also fairly low in talk. Keeping your head down and just working on articles is wonderful but I need confidence of familiarity with Wikipedia namespace. Marskell 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose For the same reasons as said by Marskell I must oppose this RfA. Private Butcher 23:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for reasons above and I've not encountered this user. PedanticallySpeaking 17:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, "reasons above" is clear enough, but "not encountered"? I don't understand this portion of your comment.  How is "encountering" someone any different than reviewing their contribution history?   Un  focused  17:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, when you don't encounter a user, it's perfectly acceptable to...erm, not vote. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose needs more interaction with the community. Type O Spud 20:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Looking at contibs Good User but only 79 Wikipedia NameSpace Edits --JAranda'' | yeah 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Usually, I don't like low edit comments from people who have a lower edit count than the person being nominated, and I'll comment on this one. 2,459? You know how much that is, right? --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 23:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair comments are fair comments. She(?) wasn't talking about over-all edits but about Wiki NameSpace. If the comment is on-topic you shouldn't bite. Can only admins vote for new admins? Marskell 00:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Zach (Sound Off) 02:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify, any logged-in users can vote for new admins, regardless of whether they're common editors, admins, bureaucrats, developers or Jimbo Wales. Anonymous IPs, however, are not allowed to vote. &mdash; J I P | Talk 06:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The question was rhetorical ;). Marskell 08:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral we do need active admins. I think you could wait another month or 2. Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral &mdash;Consistently good editor, but will support another time, given that he becomes more active in the Wikipedia namespace. User does not meet my voting standards, but he is certainly on the right track. Keep it up. →Jo urna list   >>talk<<  00:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, as per others above, the low number of edits in Talk and Wikipedia spaces is troubling. --Angr/undefined 14:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. Needs more participation in Talk and Wikipedia namespaces. Work on it and then I will be happy to support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I'd basically do the usual stuff, really. Deleting pages, blocking vandals, fixing copy/paste moves, etc. I'll basically carry on editing as I am now, but with the added bonus of the admin tools at my disposal.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. The Knightmare article, definitely. Being one of my favourite programmes ever, I knew it needed a big expansion. I'm also proud of Cliff Hanger, my Year in Television edits, and the Year in British music pages I wrote (1997 to 1989).
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. Funnily enough, my first real conflict has only recently started. There's a bit of a war on Berwick-upon-Tweed on whether the article should contain an exclamation mark or not, with my viewpoint that it should not be there. I'm trying to resolve this dispute on the talk page, though, and certainly not breaking the 3RR. I pride myself on never having to do this throughout my time on Wikipedia.
 * 4. {question by WikiFanatic} BillyH, (I know I have less in more time), you have 2,459 edits since March 2004. How do you plan to convince voters away from editcountitis? You have enough edits, in my opinion, but I'm wondering about other voters.
 * A. I'd say it's because I usually tend to edit articles in one go, rather than in several little ones. Take a look at these diffs, for example   . Admittedly I sometimes miss out something in one edit and have to correct it in another, but usually this is dealt with using the Show Preview command.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.