Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bob rulz

bob rulz
Final (7/12/1) ending 03:55 September 27, 2005 (UTC)

– I am officially nominating myself for Administrator. I feel that I have made thorough, relevant, and intelligent edits to the Wikipedia community since August 2004, and as a signed user since October 2004. My only major break in editing was over the last three weeks, when my computer was broken. I hate vandalism on this website and I always attempt to thoughtfully work out edit wars and other situations. I love contributing to this website and support myself to be an Administrator on Wikipedia. bob rulz 04:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support
 * 1) No reason not to. Martin  08:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, seems like a good bloke. &mdash; J I P | Talk 11:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Not having seen bob ruling around the same places I've been, I smaple checked some of bob's contributions, seems to be fine and see no reason not to support. Alf melmac 12:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bob_rulz is an asset to Wikipedia. If he hadn't self-nom'd, I'd have nominated him myself. He contributes to numerous articles, and is the type of user who contributes content which needs alot less editing. If more Wikipedians contributed as much quality content as Bob_rulz, there would be alot more articles written much better. &mdash; [[User:JonMoore|&mdash;Jo nMo ore  20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Valuable edits and contributions to dispute resolution. Pasboudin 00:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I see no reason against this candidate, but providing edit summaries would be much better.--Jusjih 08:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as long as you use more edit summaries--Alhutch 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose: Only 3% of the user's edits are outside of user and article name spaces. Lack of contribution in other namespaces is problematic. Uses edit summaries just 22% of the time. I like to see a minimum of >80% and prefer 90%. --Durin 15:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. --Sn0wflake 15:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Durin.   Journalist C./ Holla @ me! 
 * 4) Oppose More community interaction is needed for successful use of admin powers. Bratsche talk 21:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I'm sorry, since your article work is good. But the other namespaces, Wikipedia: and wikipedia talk: in particular are very different beasts to the articles. Also, there's not a lot in User talk:, which makes one-to-one interaction tough to guage. A little more experience behind-the-scenes would do the power of good. Also, don't underestimate the importance of providing an edit summary at least 99.9% of the time, including minor edits! It makes RC patrol less painful, and studying ones watchlist more productive. In the meantime, keep up the article stuff! -Splash talk 11:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose The Fascist Chicken 21:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Your article edits are good, but more Wikipedia: and User talk: namespace edits are needed. Jaxl | talk 03:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Ignoring edit summaries makes RC patrolling that much harder on the rest of us.OwenX 01:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Too few Wikipedia space edits. Type O Spud 03:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Sorry, far too few WP namespace edits to make me comfortable supporting.  --Alan Au 04:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose due to lack of experience and other reasons cited above. Bahn Mi 20:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Good writer/editor - but paucity of edit sumaries is troubling. Johntex\talk 22:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I can't really see any problems in Bob's contributions, although edit summaries could be used with more frequency. I don't remember much interaction with Bob though (neutral), good contribs (positive), under use of edit summaries (mild negative) and little community interaction (mild negative for an admin) = a Neutral vote. Thryduulf 10:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * More edit summaries please. Oleg Alexandrov 04:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I am most looking forward to the quick revert button, blocking unsigned users who constantly vandalize, editing the main page, and protecting pages that are suffering from constant edit wars.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am particularly pleased of the work I have done on Climate of Salt Lake City. Several other Utah-related articles, such as Salt Lake County, Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, Transportation in Salt Lake City, and Utah. I am also proud of the changes I made to Civilization III and my creation of the Xel'Naga article, which I created when I was still an unsigned user. I have made various climate, geography, transportation, and history facts for various cities and counties, especially in Utah. I have also done quite a bit of work rewriting hurricane and hurricane season articles at various times. Minor grammatical and sentence structure changes, word usage, making sentences flow, and giving thorough and well-written overviews I feel have always been my strong points in editing.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. The only edit war that I have been in is the recent series of edit wars in the Hypnotize article involving User:Mike Garcia and various others. However, that situation has yet to resolve itself. Other than that, I have been in few edit wars or conflicts with any users.