Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Billz

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

Billz

I now feel that it is time for me to apply for administrative privileges in order to block vandals and revert pages faster. I am becoming increasingly frustrated at the amount of vandal attacks on Simple English Wikipedia and the time taken for an administrator to respond, due to the increasing amount of inactive sysops. On many occasions, I have been reverting vandalism for half an hour in a vicious circle, which is causing major disruption to other users, before an administrator blocks them. According to Interiot's tool (Here), I have over 3,400 edits on this Wikipedia and have been a editing for nearly four months, which I believe has given me enough experience to use Wikipedia effectively and efficiently. I usually spend between ten and fifteen hours per day here, which can be seen by my large number of edits each day. If I am not on Simple English Wikipedia, I can be contacted by email, which I have set to automatically check for new mail every minute and will give me text and sound notification of incoming messages. I enjoy contributing on Simple English Wikipedia because each day is a new challenge and gives me a great sense of satisfaction. More information about me can be found on my user page. Thank you. Billz (Talk) 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten to fifteen hours a day? According to that, you spend about 52% of every day on Wikipedia. If I take off 8 hours of sleep, you only spend about 2.5 hours of your time while you are awake away from Wikipedia. 78% of your time awake is on Simple. I'm sorry, but this isn't healthy. You need to go outside sometimes, you'll get RSI, damage your eyes etc. Really, take a break. It's dangerous. Archer7 - talk 13:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the graphs here, I do usually spend between ten to fifteen hours a day patrolling Simple English Wikipedia. Obviously, due to various commitments, I can not always spend this amount of time here, although I do try to aim for at least ten hours, where possible. I spend this sort of time here because I really enjoy editing and contributing to such a great project. I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, where I enjoy assembling and repairing PCs and attending computer fairs. By using a high quality TFT monitor and an ergonomic keyboard, I do not suffer from eye strain or RSI. Thank you for your concern. Billz (Talk) 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - You have indeed been very helpful in fighting vandalism. It often takes administrators far too long to block such vandals. It would be a great help if you were an administrator. --Ionius Mundus 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support is a very good user!!!!!!!! --Vector (write to me please) 08:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support! Has helped make this encyclopedia grow, and has kept the vandals at bay. Would be great as an administrator. - Tangotango 08:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Archer7 - talk 09:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Good vandalfighter and nice user too.-- Tdxi an g 10:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was wondering when you would apply! My only concern though is that you would exercise a bit of caution with your powers as an admin, as not everything you have tagged in the past has been blatant vandalism...! Blockinblox 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to have this concern because if I was made an administrator, I would be very careful with what I do delete and I would fully check beforehand whether it is of some use. Thank you for all of your votes. Billz (Talk) 15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Someone should have nominated you a while ago. Seems very dedicated to SE WP, and we need all the anti-vandal help we can get. --LBMixPro ^<talk|to|me> 05:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems dedicated to SE, from everything I have seen. We could do with another active admin to stop vandals. Luna Santin 05:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice guy, with a lot of experience and knowledge. --§ Alastor Moody _{(talk + contribs)} 23:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dedicated chap. Knows what he's on about. Won't abuse the mop. T. Moitie|Talk|Esperanza 00:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Yes, unfortunately we have many administrators who are not active, and so there is scope for more administrators. I think Billz shall use the powers carefully. I wish him all the best! One thing more - please be careful about your health: an old proverb says - Health is Wealth. Archer is right. --Bhadani 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: You certainly are a capable editor, and you certainly do enough for SEWikipedia. Comparing My editcount with yours, which is like 4 times as much (for 08 2006, I think it would be good to step back. I think a good editor also needs an abiliity to step back, and view things with a little distance. -- Eptalon 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I do spend a lot of time editing and improving Simple English Wikipedia, however this isn't going to change whether I become an administrator or not. During August, I really found my feet here and this is reflected in my high edit count during that month (Over 50 per day on average), but due to internet problems at work, my edit count will be nowhere near the 1580 I clocked up during August. I understand that your vote is your choice, but I will try to keep editing on Simple English Wikipedia whatever happens, so please do not worry about my health. Thanks. Billz (Talk) 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for this....but the number of edits Is not important..it's important that an admin bust be present, helpful in all the situation with the new users, the admins and the normal user...billz is a very good user....he is much present and controll the majors of the pages modificated....I hope he will became a GOOD sysop....like his time as user...good lack Billz!!!!! --Vector (write to me please) 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for those kind words, Vector. I try to be on Simple English Wikipedia as much as possible and be as polite and helpful as I can be in all situations. I believe these are the qualities which make a good administrator here. Billz (Talk) 21:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to say so, I am not really against you becoming an admin; though I know what I am talking about (if you look in the history, you will find my own (failed) application here). During that time I had between 600 and 800 edits/month, or about 20 a day. This was hard to keep up, given that I have a daytime job, and sometimes I go out on weekends. Since then, I have stepped back, and became a happier, though still unprivileged editor). To put it into a nutshell, I'd prefer an admin to be on this wikipedia less, but rather have more of a social life (which also influences on the knolwedge about things one has. This can be important ot see the other side, aka NPOV). In short, I dont stand in your way, if you think you must go ahead. I simply dont feel comfy about the long hours (And I know what I am talking about, I have a computer job as well..). And no, its definitely not about editcount. -- Eptalon 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do use computers a lot, but I also do have a great social life when I can. I have a wide circle of friends, from whom I have learned a lot of knowledge about computers, science and maths. I have never put Wikipedia before my social life, because as you can see from my graphs, I do pop in and out for various reasons, whether due to work or other commitments. If I am asked to go out somewhere by a friend, I will try to go where possible and I wouldn't ever think about not going because I have work to do on Simple English Wikipedia. I can totally understand your viewpoint, but I can assure you that I am happy in my life at the same time as helping Simple English Wikipedia. Billz (Talk) 21:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose -- User has been acting irresponsibly at Big Bang reverting reasonable edits by myself and has a warped sense as to what NPOV represents. He seems to think that it's okay if unverified qualifications that "no one was there at the beginning of the universe so no one knows how it began" are included in the spirit of NPOV. This is the most ridiculous sort of philosophizing that can go on. He hasn't helped solve the conflict, has only help escalate it. It would be a shame to see such an incompetant editor promoted to the rank of administrator. --216.125.49.252 21:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that Billz upon reading this comment promptly removed it from this page even though it is directly applicable to his candidacy. He then proceded to continue edit warring by reverting my well-justified edit to Big Bang. This is not conduct becoming of a potential admin. --216.125.49.252 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Billz looks dedicated to what he does; I think he would do well as a sysop. PullToOpen ^π/_φ 20:16, 7 September 2006 (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.