Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Royboycrashfan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Royboycrashfan

Final (51/11/10) ended 23:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Royboycrashfan (talk · contribs) – As of now, Royboycrashfan has been active for five months (not including April), four of which he was heavily active. During this time, Royboy has amassed over 6400 edits, with high edit counts throughout talk pages, project pages, and in articles. He is extremely active in RC patrolling, stub sorting, and in AfD, with a solid grasp of Wikipedia's policies. From what I have seen, Royboy is a more than qualified editor who is dedicated in improving Wikipedia, unlikely to ever abuse admin powers.TBC??? ??? ??? 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Royboycrashfan 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support All these good nominations lately --Jaranda wat's sup 23:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, I actually thought that he was already an admin, however cliché that is. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Support meets a lot of my criteria. I'd like to see a little bit more talkpage edits, but that's no big deal. — Deckiller 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support, obviously --TBC??? ??? ??? 23:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support does a lot of good work on AfD --Deville (Talk) 23:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support, does good work and I have no reason not to support. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 23:59 (UTC)
    Weak support Everything looks in order, but I would prefer longer answers to both my and the standard questions. JoshuaZ 00:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC) changing to neutral.
  6. Mild hot. Mike H. That's hot 01:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - How can I oppose a guy that corrects my spelling (Even if it was an intentional typo :P) --lightdarkness (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Great work. Covington 02:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Great editor that needs a browser edit if possible. :p No j/k. Excellent editor, could do good with a mop! ~Linuxerist L / T 02:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support - His work on articles for deletion is notable. - Richardcavell 04:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Seen good work, lots of involvement in things like afd, too. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support - Hahnchen 08:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, I've met him at AFDs almost every day, definitely. --Terence Ong 09:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, good contributor to many areas of Wikipedia, meets my standards. Would be strong support if not for the short question answers, btu I'm still happy to support this user without any reservation. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 09:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - looks like a fine editor. Weatherman90 14:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support - Admin is no big deal. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support - I've seen him on AfD too, and he does good work there. Sandstein 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support™. --Rory096 17:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:27, 3 April 2006]
  22. Support. Good editor, will make good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support he's an all-round good editor that would make a smashing admin. --Jay(Reply) 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support _-M o P-_ 21:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, although the answers do leave a lot to be desired. However, Roy is dedicated and will grow into the post. Will be interesting to see your switch from AfD voter to AfD closer. Deizio 22:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. I see this guy around, he'd be a great admin. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Weak Support - satisfies my criteria, the answer on Q2 worries me abakharev 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Would make good use of the mop. Mikker (...) 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Experience, edits and enthusiasm, perfect. -- Patman2648 19:50 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Weak support - good vandal fighter but rather terse answers to questions 2 and 3. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support--Jusjih 15:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support--StabiloBoss 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Answers to questions could be better, but I have no real concerns TigerShark 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support; Very involved, very intelligent editor, no major concerns. Grandmasterka 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Seems to have taken some heat for answers to standard RfA questions, but I find honesty such as "I see myself as more of a good editor rather than great." quite refreshing. I also liked what I've seen in his contribution history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. As far as I can tell, he knows his way around the project, and seems level-headed. --Elkman - (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Joe I 04:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Strong support, fabulous editor, strong vandal fighter, active in the community, helps with scut like stub sorting, and a Degrassi fan to boot! I think he'll make a terrific admin. -- Samir (the scope) 04:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support - good editor. --Khoikhoi 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support he is a valuable and cool-headed contributor over at AfD, would make a great admin. --Hetar 05:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support good work on AfD, seems level-headed enough for adminship MLA 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Weak-support would realy like to see further expantion of the questions... but no reason to oppose. Seems like he could be a good admin. ---J.Smith 23:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  44. Weak support have good observations of Royboy, especially having been vandalized 40 times, but the answers to the questions are cringeworthy.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support from what I have seen, will make good admin. --blue520 11:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support good user. Eivindt@c 22:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support, very active user. -- King of Hearts talk 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support very good user. While I would like to see more detailed answers to the questions, they are no reason to deny adminship to a worthy candidate.--Alhutch 21:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support though as others have said the answers to questions could be better. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 10:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support will make good use of the mop. --Alf melmac 17:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose As pointed out in comments section, answers are quite brief. I like to see a bit more thought go into an RfA response. Xoloz 03:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. It looks to me that the only thing this editor has other over candidates is a reasonably high edit count, but it seems to be all "quickies" like RC patrol and AfD debates. Edit count isn't everything, and if you must have numbers, the participation in zero WikiProjects would seem to be relevant. His answers to questions are terse and unsatisfying. I want to know what Royboycrashfan has done for the encyclopedia, not the meta-encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose. Citing WP:WINAD as a reason for "speedy" deletion on an AfD, after all the AfD work the candidate has done, seems to indicate a lack of familarity with policy, or rashness of judgment ([1]). Lukas (T.|@) 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per above, no images. --Masssiveego 07:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter if a user has uploaded any images or not. No uploads does not equal bad person. Moe ε 18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose after looking over answers to the standard questions, I decided to oppose. I would like to see a little spark than that. Basically a good editor, I would possibly support next time.--MONGO 07:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose sorry but I just can't support someone who puts so little thought into their RfA answers. Take it more seriously and I'd consider supporting next time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Very low (only 65) talk namespace edits. AucamanTalk 16:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose with a heavy heart because of the terse and unsatisfactory answers to the questions below. If you make them longer, I would be glad to reconsider. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose because he doesn't need the position to do what he wants to do. Royboycrashfan is a good editor and helps with many cleanup chores that do not require an administrator position. I'm not convinced, from Royboycrashfan's answers, that he will use an administrator position to do any major sysop chores. This nom seems to be more of a status symbol than a mop and bucket. I vote to rename the position of "administrator" to "janitor" to make it clear to everyone that this is not a privilege, but an added responsibility. --Dragon's Blood 20:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    Not necessarily true. I work on RC Patrol and AfD, in which some tasks involve admin work. Royboycrashfan 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Hasn't been here terribly long and answers are weak. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Unfortunate oppose, but a lot of good points have been brought up above. NSLE (T+C) at 01:20 UTC (2006-04-08)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Answers to questions are on the short side, I'd like to see what else Royboycrashfan has to say. Might change vote depending on answers. Solid editor all around though. KnowledgeOfSelf 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per lack of detail in questions. JoshuaZ 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Can't support, can't oppose. Moe ε 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, needs a bit more experience. JIP | Talk 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. If he reanswers the questions then I'll change to support, because he's a good editor and will make a good administrator, but some semblance of effort would be nice. Proto||type 08:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Not swayed either way. Good editor but adminship request hasn't convinced me. --kingboyk 17:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. This guy has everything going for him, except for the questions... — Rebelguys2 talk 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral per Lukas above (under oppose). Pepsidrinka 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. Borg makes a great point. PLEASE answer the questions with more thought so we voters don't have to hold back...— Deckiller 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral as per Rspeer and Dragon's Blood. While I have seen RBCF around and he seems like a good guy and a good editor I see little reason for him to be an admin. He is active and does make valuable contribution but I do not see them going up with him being an administrator. SorryGuy

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 91% for major edits and 92% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 23:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • See Royboycrashfan's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • Answers are the weakest that I seen in a long time though and will give you plenty of opposes, rewrite them. You are still a good editor Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 23:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think they'll give him "plenty of opposes," but I do agree that they're vague and need a fair bit of elaboration. Mike H. That's hot 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would take interest in vandalism by rollbacking vandal edits and watching WP:AIV (as well as related pages), deletion mostly by closing debates, and backlogged processes such as stubs and other janitorial work involving categorization or wikification. I have already had much experience in these fields and I would be interested in making some changes for the better if necessary. I see myself as more of a good editor rather than great.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: None in particular; I enjoy doing what I do. The last statement for my answer in question one pretty much sums up my answer for this one.
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: I haven't wound up in any major conflicts, but if I do, I would remember my personal motto: Strive for reasonability.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 Given your answer to question 3, could you give us some examples of minor conflicts and how you handled them?
I have questioned the quality of a few things and talked them over, but they have almost always stayed.
2 You have only about 60 general talk edits (and over 1400 user talk edits). Could you please discuss this extreme ratio? I haven't been very involved in many WikiProjects which explains the low main talk edits, but my user talk edits are mostly related to RC Patrol. Like I said, I hardly wind up in conflicts.
3 If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be? If I could, I would improve the search system to make is much easier for somebody looking for a specific article, template, image, et cetera. New users would be more encouraged to join if we increased the helpfulness of the features we already have.
4 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com? I would not do something potentially controversial without consent. I don't want to make a bad impression on anyone and I'd like to be cautious without being too careful.

Question from Blnguyen

1 - Can you give some examples of articles where you have put in substantial effort in creating or improving?
I have made major improvements to Mario Party 7. Awhile ago, I made several helpful changes including cleanup, tone, etc. I was also somewhat involved in adding context and expanding it beyond a stub. I have not visited this article in a long time (haven't played the game in a long time either), but I would say I began a series of major edits.


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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.