Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RoyBoy

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

[edit] RoyBoy

Final (18/2/1) ended 03:55 September 29, 2005 (UTC)

RoyBoy (talk • contribs) – RoyBoy is a great user- I found him doing RC patrol, having to request a block for a persistent spammer in an edit summary. I think RoyBoy would do well with the tools. He's been here almost a year; 4519 edits are plenty for those who care about edit countitis. Ral315 02:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Before I burnout doing RV's manually, I accept. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator, of course. Ral315 02:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, and may I suggest that Opera's tabbed browsing makes RC patrol easier? --Carnildo 04:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

   Much thanks, dedicated Firefox user though; I also employ the CDVF. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

3. Support - I love your light-hearted approach to Boothy and being a firefox user tips it over the edge (You must have good judgement). (Met my standards are). --Celestianpower ^hab 10:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Support from film lover. - Darwinek 10:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Absolutely. Andre (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Support I haven't met this user in my wanderings, but have sample checked edits for an overall impression - hand the mop over. Alf ^melmac 19:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. He needs a mop. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. if boothy443 bothered to vote, he must be good. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

   ........ --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

9. Extreme lesbian support! --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
10. Support El_C 06:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Support as I see no reasons to oppose this candidade.--Jusjih 08:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
12. Cool. JuntungWu 17:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
13. Support: sometimes, apart form several other factors, supporting users’ stand indicates nominee’s standing; in some rare instances, opposing users’ stand may indicate the quality and utility of a candidate for elevation to adminship. I also like RoyBoy’s attitude, and wish him all the best. --Bhadani 17:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

14. Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

15. Extreme Phroziac support! -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
16. Certainly. -- Essjay · Talk 22:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Adminitrator should be able to administer which is visible in this candidate. WP is not an experiment in anarchy, and silence creating noise is destructive in my most humble opinion. We are here to talk and arrive at some consensus, and not to talk like deaf and dumb people by gestures and gesticulations - these comments are in response to other comments in this voting process. A very strong support. --MissingLinks 16:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
18. Good editor with lots of experience, showing courtesy and good judgement in my interactions with him. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 05:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

   I suddenly feel unclean. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

   Think of it as a rite of passage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

   Although he doesn't vote oppose always -- (☺drini♫|☎) 07:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

   I'd prefer to see a reason with boothy's votes too, but it's not like he hurts anything, if he's polite. :) --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

   Voting guideline says: "Please include a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination. ... Don't be afraid to oppose a nomination for fear of hurting a user's feelings; do, however, always explain the reasoning for your vote." I consider giving a reason to oppose a courtesy, but so far it is not yet very mandatory to validate the vote.--Jusjih 08:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

   Hey RoyBoy, do not feel unclean, sometimes such oppose votes make one cleaner as one is forced to introspect and understand the reasons for attracting opposition. I believe that mostly persons must be having very cogent reasons to oppose, but there may be 100s of 1000s of reasons for not sharing their thoughts in an open forum. I think it is our duty to protect the “privacy” of such “shy’’ users. I would request you to please do not insist for the reasons. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

   I've made no such request, nor is it our duty to protect anyone in an open forum, myself included... it is a courtesy. But perhaps to clarify to you and others; there is little point in introspection if the problem is unspecified. Just as saying someone is "dirty" or "wrong" does not help in understanding what needs to be cleaned or corrected; and one ends up feeling dirty and wrong all over, without cause. Thank you for the support and kind words. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

   Boothy does have admin standards and they can be found on User talk:Acetic Acid somewhere i dont remember. Type O Spud 03:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

   here. Type O Spud 03:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

   Thx, already came across it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Based on the candidacy presented here, I think administrative capabilities will be a good fit with this user's portfolio of skills at a later date. An administrator has more responsibility and more autonomy associated with their account. For example, if one "[burns] out quickly" while performing RC patrol without administrative functions, I am inclined to feel they would not be used in an as refined and precise manner as they should be, when given. There is also a strong sense that critique is not handled as gracefully as they can be. Administrators often encounter situations which require diplomacy and more moderation; some of the responses presented at the moment do not seem to highlight adequately level-headedness and willingness to learn. Finally, there are many situations where one will need to evaluate based on introspection alone without external guidance. For example, what purpose did it serve to first use the words "unclean", "dirty", and "wrong"? Certainly, they are somewhat intensifying modifiers and their reception and reaction to them should not be surprising. Respectfully, HC 17:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The word "unclean" was a tongue in cheek comment and "dirty" and "wrong" were examples to clarify why I was unsatisfied with Boothy443 vague opposition, and perhaps to have him consider the reaction to his actions; something he doesn't seem willing to do considering there was an RfC concerning his lack of communication. You OTOH have provided a detailed reason to oppose, which provides me an opportunity to respond. My level headedness is indicated by my edit history, dealing with controversial subjects in constructive ways, and being able to create a Featured Article with others. I see this as a temporary soapbox to bring something to the table; not a place to be bland or timid; because if you are, I think that makes for an ineffective admin. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, that last sentence in your reply is the most singular and directed comment made on an RFA. I certainly would not have chosen to employ that response as an alternative to "blandness" or "timidness". To say the least, those comments are not particularly welcoming for myself, or for anyone for that matter. Why should this forum be an exception to WP:BITE? I am almost inclined to suggest that it is rather overbearing and abrasive - and I would hope that this is not characteristic of interaction you intend on using with the community at large. Based on your most recent post on this page, I respectfully disagree that you have the capability to reach convergence constructively and, I would imagine, without negativity.

Although I understand your disappointment towards the lack of feedback given by Boothy443 regarding your candidacy for adminiship, I would not have interpreted his/her silence in the manner that you have. To quote a Swiss proverb, Sometimes, you have to be silent to be heard - and certainly those silent few signatures have resulted in a tremendous legacy of discussion. --HC 04:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Who's the newcomer I'm biting? And I'm glad to hear you would have interpreted Boothy443 differently (I'm still surprised at your response to my meak objection, but if english isn't your native language then I can understand); I'm unsure how your interpretation of Boothy443 should impact on me... unless you wish to infer your course of action is correct, and mine incorrect. Frankly I consider your assertion of a "tremendous legacy" to be quite curious and to be at odds with the content. If you want a legacy look at my talk page, where I receive thanks for my assistance, and requests from a newcomer User:Nightscream for help.

Nice proverb, but the point I originally made with metaphorical language, and continue to make is that in this context silence doesn't help me introspect, learn, nor modify my behavior or policy. If Boothy and yourself are afraid I'll bite newcomers because of my answers below; so be it, at least I can understand it and keep it in mind since you took the trouble to mention it. That's why I prefer dialogue over silence on an online text forum where that proverb isn't productive. Thanks for the constructive feedback. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I've never heard of this user. Type O Spud 03:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Me feeling really gr8 talking to you and seeing you here to participating so constructively in the serious affairs of wikipedia. Nice to see you here – in a way you are like me: like a fresher in the classroom. Do not worry dear, YOU with hardly 49 edits, including only 9 edits to articles, is not expected to hear much about several users. Gradually, your horizon shall expand. And, I marvel at your ability to go so deep inside wikipedia with only 49 edits to search hidden links, as your comments elshwhere in this voting process reveal – great work! Respectfully yours, --MissingLinks 15:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I suppose this is a good a time as any to mention that I think there should be a fourth question for admins. Something along the lines of "What Wiki-policy would you change/tweak, and why?" - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Ok, then Ill ask you the question. Please go to the appropriate section and answer!

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

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'll help with RC patrol, but as mentioned I get burned out pretty quick while doing it. Part of it is the short bans employed with intentional vandals; I'd advocate stronger bans for people who truly attempt to disrupt Wikipedia with repeated spam or harsh vandalism. PS: I'm also very angry at all the hotkey combinations Wikipedia and/or Firefox enables; because I lost my previous answers with an unintentional double key stroke.

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

A. Worked a lot recently on Blade Runner which recently got FA article status thanks a lotta Wiki-loving, with the goal being to dominate Casablanca (film) article... dunno if that was accomplised. My 800 Club is doing good work for all the poor souls with 800x600 displays... like fixing User:Tony Sidaway's menu :"D. But I'm most proud of Abortion-Breast_Cancer_(ABC)_hypothesis since in my opinion it is the best article on the subject. Makes the Religious Tolerance article (which is very good BTW on this troublesome subject) look fragmented and out of date.

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. User:214.13.4.151 continues to make trouble on abortion, I usually revert explain why I reverted, 214 ignores me or and/or brings up something humourously irrelavant and I try to make my case to It. I've come to learn to allow a third party come in, arbitrate... and 214 is contained... for a few days. I've encountered a few creationists in my Wiki-travels and most I've debated into submittion (see archive 7). However, User:Ungtss annoyed/insulted me once and I semi-insulted him back; which I apologized for (in order to continue the discussion) and he decided not to continue. To my credit I have a disclaimer on my user page which states I don't like scientific ignorance. Apart from that I've been a good RoyBoy, and find compromises and ways to collaborate on Talk pages. So I'll keep on keeping on... with the things... that need to be kept on. "Have a better one."

4. "What Wiki-policy would you change/tweak, and why?"

A. Well now I'm on the spot now, aren't I? :"D Uh, as mentioned in answer one I think the banning schema Wikipedia currently employa is too generous. I feel it creates extra work for admins (to reban) and makes Wikipedia less secure from known vandals (because they can come back in a day or two). Considering the repeated criticism a Wikipedia article "is as good as the last person that edited it" we can be more pro-active in ensuring that last person isn't a vandal. Of course with tools like CDVF the response time is getting quite reasonable (actually I'd really like an analysis of RV times before and after CDVF, as a basis of comparison and a marker for further improvement to the program and RC patrol process); but I'm perturbed even within those few minutes on high traffic articles readers will encounter the unpleasantness of vandals. I consider that (and good admin retention) a higher priority than encouraging vandals to come back and experiment and (I think the subconscious philosophy is) eventually join Wikipedia.

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.