Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Billy 2


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

Billy
Final (0/8/0); Closed by Anthøny  at 20:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

- I am, first of all, a very trustworthy user. I have never vandalized. I have a good edit count, 3560. Also, my edit summary usage, both major and minor, is 100%.  Billy- talk  19:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I plan to take part in AIV, UAA, AFD, and protected template editing. As you can see, having the mop and bucket would allow me to help a lot in Wikipedia.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia, I would say, are my anti-vandal edits, and the articles I have created, which are Ben Bulben (the best of them all), The Black Curtain, The 12" Collection, Tie Your Mix Down: A Queen Tribute, Dragon Attack: A Tribute to Queen, and Stone Cold Queen: A Tribute. I am a very active editor.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Several times, I have been annoyed by vandals. I revert their vandalism, then they go on a rampage and vandalize my userpage. Then, I simply report them to AIV, and the problem is resolved.


 * 4. When should a so called "cool down block" be used, and why?

General comments

 * OK, how do we get rid of BillyH, who is someone else entirely? Dloh  cierekim'''  19:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See Billy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

*Comment/Question on setup of this RfA I'm confused with the "previous RfAs" linked. Are they correct? One links to an active admin? Can you correct/clarify this? OK I see that is somewhat answered to the right... then next question, why is that incorrect RfA listed at all?Gwynand (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Links for Billy:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Billy before commenting.''

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. Nothing much has changed since your last RfA in December, albeit possibly a little more article work, but nothing major. Insufficient answers to questions, not very active over the last few weeks (despite a sudden state of activity in January.) I don't trust you being an admin at this current time, unfortunately. Qst (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Per QST. General maturiy issues, also the fact that you transcluded this RfA with minimal answers and also improperly included a previous RfA for a different user. This should have been fixed before letting this go live. If anything, I would withdraw now per snow to at least deal with these obvious issues, let alone other long term ones. Gwynand (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I echo the above. Little change from your last RfA. I'd also like to see a little more experience in the project space before I can extend my support. Cheers. Have you tried WP:ADMINCOACH?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I'm concerned with the low Wikipedia-space contributions, as well a lack of contributions outside of WP:AIV. Also, you say you want to help edit protected templates, but I don't see many edit-protect requests or Template talk: edits.  And of course, I'd like to see some AfD/CSD work.  MBisanz  talk 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Per Gwynand, definitely not ready yet. --Charitwo talk 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Self-nomination, lack of wikipedia-space contributions, and poorly answered questions. Spend a little more time making contributions and think a little more about why you want to be an admin. Wsanders (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose No need for me to ask any addtional questions here. I can see from candidate's history that he does not have the maturity to handle the mop.  Q3 is particularly worrysome. This RfA also seems to be a close copy of his editor review from 2007. ArcAngel (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Wsanders and others. -- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
 * The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.