Stewards/Confirm/2014/Billinghurst

The following discussion is closed: This election is closed and these pages are an archive of that event.

Billinghurst

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: en
Personal info: I plan to continue in the role of steward, if the community is willing to confirm me. I have pretty much undertaken the tasks I said that I would, the majority of it in global spam defences. My mop has been active and consistent in my areas of strength, and I have undertaken activities in other areas as required. Stewards have worked cooperatively and respectfully; as a team sharing the work, sharing advice and requesting assistance as necessary, some robust discussions, and it continues to be a harmonious and pleasant group with whom to work, and I commend them for their passion, diligence and efforts. — billinghurst — billinghurst sDrewth

español:

Idiomas: en
Información personal: translation needed

русский:

Языки: en
Личная информация: translation needed

Deutsch:

Sprachen: en
Informationen zur Person: Ich beabsichtige die Stewardtätigkeit weiterhin auszuführen, wenn die Gemeinschaft mich wieder wählt. Ich habe im Allgemeinen die Tätigkeiten ausgeführt, die ich sagte machen zu wollen, wobei es sich größtenteils um die globale Spambekämpfung handelt. Meine Rechte habe ich aktiv und kontinuirlich in den Bereichen wo meine Stärken liegen genutzt, aber auch um in anderen Bereichen zu helfen, wenn es nötig war. Die Stewards haben kooperativ und respektvoll zusammen gearbeitet. Als Team haben sie sich die Arbeit geteilt, ebenso wie Ratschläge ausgetauscht und um Hilfe gebeten wenn es notwendig war. Es gab Diskussionen, aber es ist und bleibt eine harmonische und freundliche Gruppe, mit der man arbeiten kann und ich möchte sie für ihre Leidenschaft, Fleiß und Anstrengungen loben. — billinghurst — billinghurst sDrewth

Comments about Billinghurst

Keep incredibly active, no concerns whatsoever. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No concerns. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course. --Alan ^(talk) 18:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No serious concerns. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -Mh7kJ (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Érico Wouters ^msg 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JurgenNL (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. T C N7JM 18:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; rather active! --MF-W 18:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very active with the spam blacklist and other steward activities. Certainly keep. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent work as a steward. LlamaAl (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stryn (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK --►Cekli 829 20:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — TBloemink _talk 20:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – 21:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously just symbolical Keep... ;-) — Danny B. 21:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly active, experienced, and helpful. INeverCry 22:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Southparkfan 23:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure. --DangSunM (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very active--Hosiryuhosi (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – active and competent, and more importantly, seems to have a good heart. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Avi (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, active, kind, helpful, respectable. Can I regard him as mentor? ;)--K egns 01:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Glaisher [talk] 04:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wiki13 _talk 10:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- No issues. In my capacity as an individual, and not as a representative of the WMF. --Philippe (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work! Laaknor (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pundit (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IW 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active, Nice and Hard Working. --Golden_burg111 16:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evenhanded, stable, responsive. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dekel E (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is one of the most active stewards and he did a good job. --Zerabat (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Risker (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —레비 Revi 06:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Höstblomma (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Base (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guycn2 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AGK [•] 19:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Igorwindsor (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard working steward. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 22:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No problem.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 10:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Defender (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strongly; hardworking, and the most active steward right now Trijnstel_talk 18:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ganímedes (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Armbrust (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. Mathonius (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he looks rather active. Elfix 18:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 12:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, great work. Bernard (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wears the Super Steward T-shirt with pride. Invaluable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I love you all~~ ✒ Bennylin 13:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b / [ t ] 19:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Midnight Gambler (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Arkanosis ^✉ 11:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Courcelles 14:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 16:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I'm against useless mass locks of "spambots" and thus I am not willing to see his term prolonged unless Billinghurst intends to change his rather liberal use of the lock button. Vogone talk 16:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I do the same everytime I have the possibility. Maybe I missed your point but leaving tons of xrumer-generated accounts is, in best scenario, a breach of our security. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I doubt you resist to unblock a mistakenly gblocked IP, which is what I mean with a, for my feeling, too liberal use of the buttons. Vogone talk 17:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I trust both you and Billinghurst so I'm pretty sure there's some misunderstanding. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interested in the conjunction of ideas by Vogone, account locks are different from global IP blocks, so I am missing that point too, sounds personal. Apart from that the statements are an opinion not supported by fact. I have one of the highest block removal rates. Unblock requests are at SRG, open to all stewards, and visible to users, thoroughly reviewable. Show me a case where I have refused an unblock where I have mistakenly blocked an IP. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contentwise I agree with Vogone. I don't get anything out of locking accounts with no edits who will most likely never edit either (I did that for hundreds of socks in January which were created months ago and will never edit which is why I still don't think that this has been quite useful for Wikimedia); that was completely different a couple of years ago when real spambots created hundereds of index.php pages crosswiki on a daily base. Anyway, it's your time and as long as it doesn't harm anyone, I'm the last one to tell you how to spend your time on. —DerHexer (Talk) 17:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I am against pointless locking of spambot accounts. The issue is what is pointless? There are numbers of accounts that are locked with zero edits as they have been caught by the abuse filters. There are numerous accounts that are created and spam (and those that attempt to spam) on creation, there are those that are created and haven't spammed, until some of them spam one/two/three/.../six (day|months) later. When I investigating active spam, when I detect the other spambot accounts, 'lock them when you see them' is my approach, rather than go back and have to clean up their mess later. I certainly don't trawl the wikis looking for lonely spambot accounts. Similarly, we have some spambots that go xwiki, and some that do not, some chose to globally lock, and others do not. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone might say it's useless or almost useless but it is harmless for sure. I personally endorse lock on sight of software-generated accounts though the both views about it can peacefully live together ^^

I must also underline the "index.php attack" (along with the "test, just a test" series) was just the preparation of the current ongoing spamming. I don't see any decrease in spam but simply more effective countermeasures. We are currently experiencing a peaceful period in spam because of the strong actions taken by many people including the extraordinary efforts by Billinghurst, Trijnstel, INC, Beetstra, etc. Above all the aggressive spam-pit blocking campaign, the deep inspections on loginwiki, the reactive management of the abusefilter and the solid use of blacklists and COI-bots gave us the incredible results of managing 850 wikis with few then a dozen of incredible volunteers. I don't think any paid webmaster ever made such a complete success on so many *open* wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Holder (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - blocking for Blockcount - no thanks. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gamma127 (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Rillke (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -jkb- 20:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 14:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legoktm (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 09:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Activitity levels are a bit low— oh wait, those were thousands. Jafeluv (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Keep. — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 10:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No problem.--KhabarNegar 12:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hoo man (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]