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

MichaelBillington[edit]

Final (89/1/1); Ended Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:14:27 (UTC)

MichaelBillington (talk · contribs) - Another one of "Oh! I thought he was admin already!" candidates for you. Michael joined Wikipedia in March 2006, and started actively contributing since May 2006. He's been active with all-round aspects of the encyclopedia. Not very proficient at article writing, he has contributed by creating various pages/stubs and Wikignoming over articles like Delta Blues (horse), ASCII art, Spam (electronic) etc. Michael is an active checkuser clerk, a regular spartan in our constant battle against spam. He has a tonne of vandalism-reversions to his credit. Michael has been regular on the Wikiproject on Open proxies with ample experience over disputes and users making contentious edits. Apart from gnoming and regular contributor work, Mike is a respectable, co-operative and a friendly user, who is kind and helpful to the newbies and regulars alike. He is the developer of Mike's Wiki Tool for fighting vandalism and one of the Vandal Proof developers. A system administrator on the English Wikiversity, with more than 12,000 blocks to his credit, this guy is a complete tool! :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelBillington
Guy is well-known around the press circles too – [1]. ;) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I Accept --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: It's hard to ignore that speedy deletions have become anything but speedy lately. I already know the basic criteria, and have experience working with this at Wikiversity, (for anyone that doesn't know, it is the newest of Wikipedia's sister projects). I also hope to be able to help with the multi-wiki effort to enforce the open proxy ban, which is something I have also been very active with on Wikiversity. I'm keen to do what I can on the various 'requests' pages also. Sir Nick mentioned that I was a clerk for WP:RFCU (since December or so), and as part of that, there are always a few socks that will need blocking. I've been on the wiki for a while, so am aware of most of the policies. If time allows, WP:RFPP and WP:AIV (not to mention the image backlogs and copyright problems) await. 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: That's a tough choice. Right now, I like the look of the 2005 Wizard Home Loans Cup article, which I started a few weeks ago. If I can get time, and sufficient sources, I'm hoping to write a bunch more of year articles for various Aussie rules competitions. I spend most of my time on Australia-related subjects (football and Victorian geography are a large part of my watchlist) and computer-related subjects. There are of course thirty-something other articles to my name, all of which I'm happy to have made available freely on Wikipedia. 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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: I am involved with a lot of anti-spam/anti-vandalism, so there are always users who wish to contest my actions. As many of these users are unfamiliar with how wiki talk pages work, I leave my e-mail on my user page, which means that many of these disputes are resolved off-wiki. To list a few, I have been contested (almost always by the owners of the sites in question) over reversions on Fleshlight, Employment website (also related pages) and ASCII art, among others. I have never edit warred, or broken 3RR however, as is evident by my empty block log. 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
4. You seem to have a fair use image, Image:Solaris10.jpg, on your user page, your awards subpage, and a talk archive. I'd remove it, but I'm loathe to edit another user's pages when the image is so small and the user could do it themselves. Could you get around to removing them? Picaroon 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Short answer: Yes, Long answer: I've gone through and substituted the image for Barnstar.png in all 3 cases. It was given to me as an award or sorts at the start of October. Thanks for telling me that, I hadn't noticed until now that there was a fair use image among my barnstars. 05:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very Strong Support – riana_dzasta 12:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Why wasn't he nominated ages before? Strong Support! The Evil Clown Please review me! 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. It is true that I was quite concerned about Michael and that I opposed his previous RfA. However, during the last four months, I've kept an eye out for him and I feel he has proven himself to be a mature, intelligent, reliable and trustworthy Wikipedian. Michael has assisted me with admin-related jobs such as identifying/confirming open proxies and I feel very strongly that he has the knowledge, skills, maturity and personal commitment to the project to become an outstanding administrator. I have recently considered offering to nominate Michael myself because I do believe that he is ready for adminship and so this may be considered a co-nom from Bay 13. Sarah 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes. PTO 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support Great user, and I'd have been more enthusiastic had Mike's first RfA not been smalled. Make it into a wikilink if you want, but the full text should be of the same size. Xiner (talk, email) 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Gnangarra 14:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support the nom said it, thought he was one... Majorly (o rly?) 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support, great guy. Terence 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Excellent candidate. Will (aka Wimt) 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Sounds like a great, great admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support definitely. Pascal.Tesson 16:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. MaxSem 17:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Very qualified candidate -- bit of a "cliche" moment here! :) Xoloz 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Keep-on-rambling support - good luck! The Rambling Man 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 'Support Does good grunt work around here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Good candidate. -- Jreferee 18:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - will make an excellent admin. -- Nick t 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - per Sarah. --Guinnog 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support. Michael is a knowledgeable and helpful user on Wikipedia (see his clerical work at WP:RFCU and WP:CHU). He was on my to-nominate list. Nishkid64 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Bucketsofg 19:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Good, well-rounded experience. Will make a good admin. WjBscribe 20:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Sure thing. Just Heditor review 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yup. Daniel Bryant 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, indeed. --Coredesat 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Looks like another great admin-in-the-making. —Krellis (Talk) 23:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. I supported last time, and nothing has changed my mind since then. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I have come across this editor and feel sure he can be trusted as an admin. --Bduke 00:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. S.D. 01:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Naconkantari 01:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Seventy ... dot ... 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote struck - sockpuppet of blocked user. Orderinchaos78 05:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support' Looks capable, level-headed and practiced. Kukini hablame aqui 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Experience in various admin-type jobs qualifies Michael for the mop. YechielMan 03:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support -- Gogo Dodo 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Mature, experienced editor who deserves the mop, in my view. Orderinchaos78 05:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Sound, experienced candidate. Tyrenius 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support OITHWAAA™ ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Real96 06:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Well qualified for the mop Crested Penguin 08:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Good addition.--MONGO 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per above. Addhoc 11:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support definitely has the experience. Would surely be an asset to the admin team. - Anas Talk? 12:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Yup.' Thought he was, etc. Gave me my first barnstar, I seem to recall. Enjoy your mop. Handle with care! --Dweller 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Shoop da Woop support: strong candidate, will do great things for the project. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oh! I thought he was admin already! Yuser31415 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Looks-like-you-might-pass-this-one! Support All the good things happen when I take time off :P — Deon555talkdesksign here! 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I thought he was..... Support — Lost(talk) 22:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - I know it's a cliche, but: I thought he was... - Richard Cavell 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support He's not an admin, but he should be. Seen many positive contribs coming from this account. James086Talk 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support -- I have no reason to doubt this editors usage of administrator tools. - Longhair\talk 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Khoikhoi 03:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support This user clearly demonstrates the qualities of an admin.--PrestonH(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!) 04:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Of course. —Moondyne 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Good experience. —dgiestc 07:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. You couldn't escape adminship forever! Mwahaha! --Slowking Man 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support I once offered to nominate him; I still think he's a good candidate. · AO Talk 11:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, Very capable. Modernist 12:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Good contributor with experience. utcursch | talk 12:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - sounds like someone who is doing great work already, and will only help even more if given the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support looks excellent.-- danntm T C 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Moreschi Request a recording? 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. I thought you were one, too. But now it seems that is going to become official. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support per Tyrenius.--Runcorn 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, understanding that this would be a strong oppose if the nominee were the one who actually posted the thing over at the noticeboard. It is not a good thing to do, but I can hardly fault the nominee for other people's mistakes. -Amarkov moo! 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Dude! You're, like, fabulous. Go go go forth and clean well with a will. Pigmandialogue 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per above. VegaDark 10:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Based on contributions and actions, seems to be a very solid individual who will be an asset as an admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. I don't see any reasons for significant concern. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support → The user seems experienced enough. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support-Seems good and experienced. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Good Candidate, Admin tools are warranted. Dfrg.msc 08:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Michael 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support – Especially per his answer to Q3 where he has been active in dealing with spam and vandalism. Looks good. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I am suprised his is not an admin already! ffm ✎t 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. ElinorD (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support It's about time --Infrangible 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - trustworthy experienced user. Metamagician3000 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Yeah, you can have it. Please don't abuse the mop. StayinAnon 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. El_C 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support One of the nice, helpful users in a place full of idiots (i.e. IRC). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support kaiti-sicle 08:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Would make great admin -- Punk Boi 8 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved this vote from being a "comment" (per indenting) below, given the update of the tally count to indicate that he was intending to support. Punk Boi is a young child, and I fear he was mistaken in his placement; I hope I've interpreted his intention here correctly. Please reverse me if you disagree. Punk Boi can't be contacted because he's currently blocked for one month per ANI. Daniel Bryant 09:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support hells yeah T. Kewl the First 09:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose While it seems that the community has quite a bit of trust in Mr. Billington, I must respectfully oppose his candidacy (quite strongly, at that) based on previous concerns brought up during his last RfA, most notably his predisposition to willingly skew consensus in his and his mates' favours. gaillimhConas tá tú? 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a postscript to my original statement of opposition, I'd like to point out that this RfA is currently being canvassed for support at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements is a longstanding (since 11 November 2005) and widely accepted solution to the problem of how to inform without canvassing. Gaillimh is entitled to his opinion on it, but it is utterly inappropriate for him to try to influence this vote by characterising the legitimate use of this tool as a deliberate attempt to subvert this process. Hesperian 03:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Informing those who are likely to support this RfA is pretty much the exact definition of canvassing mate :) gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing is actually defined as overt solicitation, which this is clearly not. Your position is fundamentally cynical and unfair to the candidate.--cj | talk 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'd be happy to discuss the definition of "canvassing" on our respective talk pages, the only thing unfair to the candidate is our drifting away from the topic at hand which is, of course, Mr. Billington's request. As such, while I admire your faith in the candidate, I disagree with your estimation and respectfully oppose his candidacy. gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither myself nor cj have voted in this RfA. You wouldn't have a clue whether or not we support the candidate. Hesperian 03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting neutral announcements on Wikiprojects has never been considered canvassing. WP:CANVASS clearly defines canvassing as crossposting on user talk pages, although the issue of IRC canvassing has been debated on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing in my view is asking for a vote on talk pages, or for people to vote a particular way. Advertising at Portal:Australia if you are not well liked could well be suicidal to one's chances as becoming an admin (and it has happened before). Orderinchaos78 09:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to here Michael's take on this. Picaroon 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replied on your user talk page. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. — Comment, can I ask why in the original, withdrawn RFA, why your start date is listed as December 14, 2005, where above it is March 2006? I'm probably missing something... SGGH 14:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. comment this was discussed on the previous RfA in that his account was created on Dec 14,2005 but his first edit wasnt until March 2006. The current nominator was the one who raised the issue and opposed that nomination struck out this section of my comment as Sarah only listed this RfA at WikiProject Australia Gnangarra 14:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Gnang, I've responded to this in my own spot under support. Sarah 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category