Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Billinghurst


 * Declined by nominee. --Pi zero (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

— adminship
I am nominating Billinghurst for administrator. They are an administrator on Wikisource and do a lot of of work on meta. The user hangs out on and has been providing a lot of assistance with spam related content. As a contributor to a non-Wikipedia project, I believe they would respect local rules. The purpose in nominating them is so they can assist with spam filters, read deleted edits to fix things, etc.--LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Billinghurst has global steward rights. This explains the low edit count. --LauraHale (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions and comments

 * Does the nominee accept nomination? --Pi zero (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If the nominee does accept nomination, what does the nominee have to say about how they would and would not use the privs? I'm concerned not merely with the nominee's intent (which I have no qualms about), but with the nominee's understanding of what not to do.  (Granted, a contributor to a non-Wikipedia project is more likely to appreciate the need for caution.)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Umm, this was a little unexpected. Can we pause this request in this format, and instead look at this in terms of the outcomes that you would like to achieve, rather than step into straight admin discussion, as it is obvious I am not an active member here. FWIW 1) Yes, I know which buttons to press, and basically know not to press them. 2) I would generally decline adminship as I am not fully conversant with your rules, and recently declined adminship at WD for similar reasons. If the help that you are looking for here is the means to actively allow someone to add/amend abuse filters then there are alternative two directions that your community can take. 1) Allow stewards (of which I am one) to do so, and that is simply a policy decision here (and to note that this I did with some consultation with some of your community a couple of days ago); or 2) Look to the ability to directly assign and remove abusefilter rights independently (enWS allows admins to assign this right to users) This would be done via a bugzilla request. You would be looking to have changes made to [//noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php settings] in the wgAddGroups and wgRemoveGroups sections to have 'abusefilter' by sysop or by bureaucrat, compare Special:ListGroupRights and s:Special:ListGroupRights where the extra group exists.) This would allow you to assign the right to whomever you wish via whatever process you define, though not to see deleted contributions, which is a separate right within the wiki system. To note that as a steward I can already see deleted contributions, and the back-of-house for 800 other wikis. If the end route you require me to take the adminship route to give the assistance that your community desires, I can happily promise to keep my fingers out of the main ns pie, etc. Billinghurst (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Though it would keep me out of your PENDING queues. Billinghurst (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest highlighting in the nomination that you hold steward rights. I frequently hit the "contributions" link on admin requests, This had be going: Eh? Whut? Admittedly, I like the responses to Pi zero's queries above, though. But, I'm inclined to support because abuse filter can be hideous to debug. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Brian, the admin nomination was a surprise to me. My suggestions of alternate means to achieve the same thing are noted above. Billinghurst (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want my contribs Special:CentralAuth/Billinghurst — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

 * As nominator. --LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked some questions, above. --Pi zero (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)