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

Final (43/3/1) ended 05:06 November 7 (UTC)

DrBob ( talk · contribs) – DrBob has been a Wikipedian since ... 2001 !!!. He's a quiet contributer of very high quality work (mostly related to optics) and has a little more than 1900 edits. You may also recognize him from the reference desks. I've noticed DrBob cleaning up more and more vandalism lately so I believe he has good use for the admin functions. -- Duk 03:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• Thank you, Duk. I accept the nomination. -- Bob Mellish 04:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support and nominate -- Duk 05:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Support Bob was really good in answering my question on optics in RD about a year back. (I'm sure he'll have forgotten my question) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Support, we could do with a few Bobs. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 07:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Support, looks experienced and reasonable. -- Monkbel 10:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Support. Dr. Mellish, if you get a chance, can you please have a look at Photonics? Thank you. El_C 10:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 11:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
8. BRIAN 0918 • 2005-10-31 12:27
9. Strong delete, admincruft. — JIP | Talk 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Support, does good work in optics articles. -- Kefalonia 15:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Support Quality, intelligent edits. Good coverage across name spaces and uses summaries. Helping out at the help desks is a big help! Marskell 15:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Support 2001?!? Good heavens, he's a sure bet. Xoloz 15:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Support and fight time/edit countitis. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 16:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Fir e Fo x (RFA) 18:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
15. 2001? 1900 edits? Surely I'd oppose, but I guess I've changed haven't I? Support. Privat e Butcher 20:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Support, if he is not a safe bet, I have no idea who is. -- Sn0wflake 23:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Support Vsmith 00:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Support Quality editor, can't see him abusing admin functions. —Morven 01:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Support. Why not?-- Sean Black | Talk 01:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
20. Weak support please increase your inter-user communication levels. Other than that you look good.   ALKIVAR ™ 04:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply

    Fair enough. Wilco. -- Bob Mellish 18:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply

21. Support MONGO 23:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Support, maybe few edits considering his four years here, but they're significant edits, like creating whole articles like Cauchy's equation and Lyot filter and Filter (optics). -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
23. Strong support. Very trustworthy; adminship should be no big deal. +sj + 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
24. Support CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
25. Support. -- NormanEinstein 14:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
26. Support. Shimgray | talk | 17:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
27. Support Johann Wolfgang 18:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
28. Support. Not everyone should have Wiki-obsessive-compulsive disorder. It's nice to see a sane person nominated.  :-) Should make a fine admin. Un focused 21:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
29. Support Justinc 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 02:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
31. Support, shows sufficient commitment to the project. JYolkowski // talk 03:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
32. Support. When a guy had made nearly two thousand edits but very little user interaction, that doesn't tell me that he's a bad editor, it tells me that he's a good enough editor that nobody gets in raging arguments with him. I think that's decidedly mop-worthy. And I'm not much of an edit-count man anyway, so as per everybody above as well. Lord Bob 17:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
33. David Gerard 17:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
34. Tony Sidaway ^Talk 19:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Measures up. I don't agree with the reasoning of the objections. reply
35. Support. Content is the reason most people come to WP. Charles Matthews 22:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
36. Support Less interaction=less conflict-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply
37. Support belated, thought I'd voted on this already. Dlyons493 Talk 04:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC) reply
38. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC) reply
39. Support Need more admins. This one will do fine. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC) reply
40. Support:Support: DrBob is doing a valuable job here, but admin. powers are not needed for him to continue in his sterling work, but they seem to be given on request now, so why not. He has to be better than some of the others, and his edits are at least sensible and useful. Giano | talk 21:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC) reply
41. Support. Excellent editor who surely will use the tools wisely. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply
42. Support Adminship should be easy to get. But only if they are just as easy to get rid off, if they can't handle the temptation of power. It looks like DrBob is very unlikely to come up for deadminship in the future after a solid history.-- Silverback 17:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply
43. Support. -- Ancheta Wis 21:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose not enough communal interaction. freestylefrappe 20:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose. I agree. In four years, he's made only 128 posts to article talk and 55 to user talk, which means he's barely interacted with other editors. Also, an overall 1,944 edits spread out over such a long period doesn't show much of an interest in Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose. What SlimVirgin said. Low communication levels don't show an inclination to adminship or its tasks. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 03:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral. Everything seems to be pretty good amazing, but only about 50 edits in user talk indicating low interaction.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Just a quick comment from the nominee, because of some of the high drama we've had here recently. My edit count is pretty low for someone who's been here so long (though some of my early edits seem to have been lost with software changes), mostly due to the fact that I've taken occasional breaks from editing over the years. Anyway, if you're voting against my nomination for whatever reason, don't worry that I'll be taking it personally - if I don't get the nod, it's really no big deal. I'll still be editing whatever the outcome. -- Bob Mellish 04:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:DrBob-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. -- Durin 14:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Use of edit summaries is 83%, 76% over last 500 edits. Average edits per day is ~6.5 per day over last 90 days, 9.4 over last 30. 30% of total edits have been in this calendar year. -- Durin 14:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

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. Probably similar to what I've already been doing most of the time; keeping an eye out for vandalism, RC patrol, and in addition helping out at WP:RM, since I quite often hit the typical problems of moving/renaming badly named articles.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Apart from my pictures, which I have a lot of fun with, I'm quite happy how Rainbow turned out (though it could use some reformatting), and I think Lens (optics) is at least a Good Article, though not really FA quality yet. Tucson, Arizona is shaping up pretty well, too. I enjoy manning the reference desk, which (although it's not strictly related to the encyclopedia) I find that quite often questions come up that show a gap in WP coverage.

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. Most of my conflicts have been relatively minor, perhaps because little of the stuff I generally edit is particularly controversial. Most problems tend to come from new users who just need pointing at the relevant policy, and it usually pays of to do this rather than biting their heads off. Persistent problem users rarely stick around for much longer than two weeks (with a few big exceptions), and I find a "wait it out" policy reduces stress without creating an edit war. I've had a few issues with British vs. American spellings (mostly policy discussions), but I'm finding them less important recently.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.