Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Royalbroil

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Royalbroil

[edit]

Final (48/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royalbroil (talk · contribs) - Royalbroil has been editing this project for over 2 years. He has made over 18,000 edits with nearly 12,000 of those being to articles. Royalbroil is a talented content writer, having received 33 DYK credits for articles recently started or significantly expanded by him. His content writing is focused on articles relating to Wisconsin, NASCAR and the International Race of Champions. He played a substantial role in bringing Mario Andretti to good article status. As well as his text contributions, Royalbroil has uploaded over 800 free images to Wikimedia Commons for use in articles on this and other projects.

Although focused on writing content for the project, Royalbroil has also gained experience of the various policies and process admins deal with. He has been involved in reverting vandalism and has shown that he knows when vandals should be blocked through reports to WP:AIV. His deleted contributions show familiarity with the use of prod templates and the speedy deletion criteria, including identifying copyright violations. His contributions to deletion discussions show an understanding of relevant inclusion guidelines and he requests page protections in appropriate circumstances. Royalbroil has also been helping with DYK updates to the mainpage - including sometimes having to chase up admins to finish the process as here. Were he an admin himself, he would no doubt participate actively in that area and reduce the occasional delays that can occur. The smoother the DYK turnaround, the more Wikipedians will have the chance to have their work recognised on the mainpage.

Royalbroil is a very experienced Wikipedian who is familiar with all the areas admins tend to deal with. I think the project would benefit considerably from giving him access to a few extra buttons. WjBscribe 19:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Royalbroil 01:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: First, I intend to keep my primary focus on doing what I do best, which is working on articles. It is the primary mission of this encyclopedia.
Adminship would be beneficial to Wikipedia if I were able to update the Did You Know (DYK) section on the main page. I recently noticed that DYK had been scheduled to be updated 9 hours earlier. I finished loading the incomplete Next Update and searched through the contributions of all of the admins who were willing to promote the Next Update to the main page. I also requested that it be updated at the Administrators Noticeboard.
It would be helpful in fighting vandalism. I watch over 1000 articles, and I occasionally encounter IP addresses that need temporary blocking to stop their disruption. On rare occasions I have encountered accounts that were apparently created with the sole purpose of causing vandalism. There have been several times that I have encountered articles which need temporary semi-protection, especially NASCAR drivers articles. I watch two of the NewArtBot new article watchlists. The bot is an incredibily helpful tool. I occasionally encounter an article that meets speedy deletion criteria. Upon locating articles that require administrator action, I (as a new administrator) would verify that I am following proper procedures before acting.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Several areas come to mind. I have significantly contributed to 33 articles that have run in the Did You Know section on the main page. I started the template {{User Did You Know2}} to keep track of how many DYK articles I contributed towards, and it has found wide acceptance. My favorite DYK article that I contributed toward is still my first nomination. The Brothertown Indians are a relatively unknown tribe of Native Americans who lived near my small hometown who had a major dubious distinction in U.S/Native American affairs. I contributed significantly toward one good article. Early this year I asked for coaching help at WikiProject Motorsport because I wanted to improve the Mario Andretti article to Good criteria. I knew that Formula One editors had experience improving articles to feature status. User:4u1e was kind enough to help, and we each contributed our area of expertise to accomplish a good article.
Another area that I am proud of is my involvement with four motorsport WikiProjects. I helped lay down infrastructure at three of these WikiProjects. I have participated in numerous discussions at WikiProject Motorsport. These discussions have resulted in standardized infoboxes for circuits, sanctioning bodies, etc. Contributors from around the world ensure that the new templates will work in articles from various motorsport genres throughout the world.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Two incidents come to mind. The first incident occurred early in my editing history. I was concerned that the article Necedah Shrine was severely biased - too critical against the shrine. The ensuing discussion got us nowhere. I requested a third party review. The only changes that the reviewer recommended were several word choices that were more encyclopedic. All were in contributions that I had made to the article. I abided with the third party revviewer's suggestions and left the article as originally written. It remains unchanged to this day.
The second incident was my opposition to my nominator User:WJBscribe's RfA. I was the only opposer after around 80 people had supported. I knew one "oppose" didn't matter at that point, so I was bold enough to oppose because I was concerned that he might be uncivil against vandals. I felt significant pressure to change my !vote because others wanted a perfect tally. At the same time several articles that I was significantly involved with got nominated for deletion. No articles that I had done significant work on before that had been nominated for deletion, and none have been since. After I confronted WJBscribe about what was happening, I spent 2 hours reviewing his past 2000 edits. I found that he had done only positive edits, so I changed my oppose to a support. WJBscribe has proven that my oppose was completely wrong: he is a very capable admin and a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. I took a short wikibreak. During the wikibreak I determined that my skills are best utilized if I concentrate mainly on improving article content and discussing things at the WikiProject and article level. I later became more active reverting vandalism on article pages.
Optional question from Keepscases
4. What would you do if you noticed that some particular user's edit summaries consistently read as horrifyingly depressed, even suicidal? Keepscases (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I have run across a simular situation with a major contributor who seemed down. I offered them words of encouragement, telling them how much I appreciated their edits. I offered to work closely together on improving articles since reverting vandalism was tiring them out. While they haven't taken my offer at this point, they still are actively editing Wikipedia. Royalbroil 04:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Malinaccier

5. Upon becoming an admin, how much time would you spend on specifically admin-related activities compared to just editing the encyclopedia? Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I anticipate that my contributions would continue to focus primarily on building an encyclopedia. I estimate that admin-related activities would take up 10% or less of my total editing time. Royalbroil 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Royalbroil before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support as nominator. I am confident that Royalbroil will make an excellent administrator. WjBscribe 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, good clueful editor. Daniel 02:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support: Already a great editor, why not move up to sysop? - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support Good luck. --Oxymoron83 02:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. My experience has been that Royalbroil can disagree amicably and is not wedded to ego. I expect good things. ··coelacan 03:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Keepscases (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No problems here. A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom. --John (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - a dedicated editor, and I had similar thoughts suggesting Royalbroil for RfA myself, so it's great the ball is already rolling. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A great editor, Royalbroil has done a great job with WikiProject Wisconsin. I hope Royalbroil will be part of WikiProject Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strongest Support - because. Rudget.talk 17:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Jmlk17 21:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Per Q3 more than anything else. A combination of being bold about something that you felt important, combined with the ability and choice or revisting your contribution is excellent. We always need more admins who will take action, yet will also pause to review and consider those actions. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Looks really impressive. Keep up the good work! GlassCobra 21:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, looks fine to me. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Solid, all-round record & no concerns. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Excellent answers to questions, reliable nominator, and upon reviewing RB's contributions and the nomination statement, I see no reason to oppose. Anthøny 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Thanks for answering my question. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Contributions are impressive and I have zero concerns that leave a reason to oppose.-MBK004 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support for contributing a lot to Commons and being a good Wikipedia user. NHRHS2010 talk 04:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Of course This is a Secret account 05:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Contributes to articles, and has experience, Modernist (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Good answers to the questions. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  25. Support User seems to have very good judgement and could be trusted with the tools. Also, I heard he sleeps down in the soil. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --evrik (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per many above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support *MindstormsKid* 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - It has been quite some time since we worked together (due to change in my editing patterns), but I remember you as being a positive influence on the project. --After Midnight 0001 00:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per nom. Seems like a balanced user, open to feedback and working by consensus. Good answers to questions, no reason not to sysop. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - I ran into Royalbroil while on newpage patrol when he removed a CSD tag I had applied to St. Luke's Hospital (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). Although I tagged it as a copyright violation and moved on, he stuck around and worked with the author to fix the problems. When I came back on review to remove the tag from the improved page, I found he had actually beaten me to the punch. This combination of policy knowlege and unwavering dedication to helping new editors will undoubtedly make him a fine admin. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 05:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Seems to be a good contributor. • Lawrence Cohen 05:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I have not worked directly with Royalbroil, but I have found his commentary at WP:AOWR to be insightful and his work excellent. --SesameballTalk 07:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Good candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support editor with impressive record, also style points for amusing username. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support "Royalbroil is a very experienced Wikipedian who is familiar with all the areas admins tend to deal with" sounds about right. -- Jreferee t/c 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. No problems... --DarkFalls talk 08:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. After reading WJBscribe's nomination, and Royalbroil's answers, I am convinced this user will make a good administrator. Acalamari 00:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support — This user marks patrolled pages. ✤ JonHarder talk 16:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, seen him around, looks good. Wizardman 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - I have run across this editor doing a variety of constructive tasks in various places. Plus he is an experienced content provider. Plus he communicates clearly and isn't flippant. (Glad he toned down his signature though.) Mattisse 18:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. SupportHas been around since June 2005 and has over 11000 mainspace edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support--More than qualified. --Sharkface217 06:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support An absolutley great editor. Caster23 talk contribs 18:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - the "promised" ten percent of his time here will mean a lot of good to this project. Greswik (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - has made pretty good contributions.--Jerry 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --M/ (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Royalbroil&oldid=1142540808"