Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RobyWayne


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

RobyWayne
Final  (20/4/3) ending 20:12 October 17, 2005 (UTC)

– Nominee joined Wikipedia in April of this year. He has been heavily active since August. He's done a large amount of work on redirection repair, disambiguation repair, stub sorting, category sorting and RC patrol. He's been active in AfD, frequently welcomes new users and tries to help them, and has been cool and level headed. What Kate has to say. He has also developed a script to update statistics on himself, which I've suggested he turn into a tool for all users. He exceeds all my standards for adminship, and I fully expect he'll meet or exceed most everyone else's as well. --Durin 21:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I humbly accept this nomination. >:  Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist &bull;  E@ 20:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support Per above. --Durin 21:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, thanks! >:  Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist &bull;  E@ 20:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)  Please see comment below.
 * 1) Support. Regardless of that mistake above.  R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support First off, Durin basically has RfA as his main focus on Wikipedia, so while his vote might not be as impressive as say, a Support vote from Boothy443, or seeing a Delete vote on WP:AFD from Kappa (both of which are incredibly rare for those of you who don't know them), his views carry alot of weight. Add to that point that he showed me some Wiki Brotherhood in supporting my my RfA and that his stats are far better than most Admin Candidates, and he definately has my vote as well as my support in trying to collect assistance in him becoming an admin.
 * I'll go into more detail on my Wikiphilosophies page, but in my opinion, this so far has not been fair to RobyWayne in my opinion, and i'm appointing myself as his advocate here because i've seen too many good people make a mistake(or in this case, not even a mistake, you can vote for yourself if you like, it's just an unwritten rule that you shouldn't), and be unnecessarily hurt by it. Karmafist 00:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Tintin 01:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support CambridgeBayWeather 02:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Ryan Norton T 02:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support because he voted for himself. Everyone has the right to vote on RfA. This kind of thing should be encouraged.  Grue   13:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Merovingian (t) (c) 15:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support script looks nifty and edit # suffices. freestylefrappe 23:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support even though he is a U of L guy :) Go Cats!! --Rogerd 01:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, a positive user with a fantastic capability to contribute to cleaning (eg:link repair - ideal for admin activities. --Commander Keane 02:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Fir  e  Fo  x  16:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - The self voting does not bother me at all - it is an honest mistake that many Wikipedians make. Excellent, dedicated work on various cleanup tasks - these are very much appreciated here on Wikipedia. I would however, prefer to see marginally more edits to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespace. There are other areas in need on Wikipedia, such as WP:CP, WP:IFD and WP:RM. Should administrative functions be granted to you by the community, would you consider helping out at these places at your leisure? --HappyCamper 01:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * HappyCamper, thanks for the comments regarding areas for improvement. I am constantly looking for tasks that I can perform to help the community.  I did delve into WP:CP on a few occasions and, recently, was indoctrinated on the new db-copyvio category.  I would have more WP:CP activity if I came across them more often in RC patrol, but am versed in how to handle the situation.  Admittedly, I have not had involvement in WP:IFD and WP:RM, but have now watchlisted all these, plus WP:CP, and will take an active role after monitoring activity for a short while to get a handle on how things are run.  Again, thanks for the tips and your guidance.  >:  Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist  &bull;  E@ 03:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What a difference a well thought out response like this makes! I get the feeling that you thoroughly believe in doing things better and better for Wikipedia, that you'd be willing to learn along the way, and that you'd stay level-headed when the "going gets tough" with holding the proverbial mop. This sentiment was not there when I went through your edits the other day. Your answer was one of the most frank and honest I've seen in a while here, and I liked it very much. It was very well balanced - and it made my day. Thank you. :-) -> Switched to support! --HappyCamper 00:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support--Kewp (t) 20:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, RobyWayne does great work, and as Commander Keane noted, he has a very positive attitude. I believe he will make a fine admin.  Rob e  rt  23:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support anyone can make a mistake. It's not clear that you must not vote for yourself. It's like on Afds when it's not clear that nominators need not to vote too (the nom itself is a vote unless explicitly stated) -- (drini's page| &#x260E; ) 05:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --ScottyBoy900Q 20:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support self-vote is a single mistake among otherwise well-judged contribution.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   01:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, as per HappyCamper and CommanderKeane. Tito xd (?!?) 04:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Martin  15:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) You can't vote for yourself. Andre ( talk ) 20:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify why this oppose remains: I believe RobyWayne did not, when he voted for himself, understand what a grant of adminship from the community means. People can change, but they cannot do so in a matter of days. I continue to oppose and perhaps will support at a later date if this nomination fails. Andre ( talk ) 02:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Andrevan. Been here actively for only 2 months, most edits are either user categorization and disambig, so I dont see th need for admin powers.  Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 02:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As I noted, nominee has been active in AfD, CfD, etc. 99 edits in those areas. He's also been active in RC Patrol. 64 edits in that area. Substantial areas of his work have been in cleaning and fixing. This is entirely in line with admin responsibilities. He's been on Wikipedia for six months. I spent much of my first months on Wikipedia just reading so I could learn the ropes. I expect he has done the same. With >4,000 edits which aren't being undone by others, I think he's demonstrated his skill and experience. Furthermore, you self nominated with half the # of edits he has, and with a similar amount of time actively editing, and a similar amount of time overall on Wikipedia (see Image:Jobe6-edits.gif). You didn't oppose yourself? :) --Durin 18:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I would probably have voted oppose on myselft at the beginning of September now. but he only had a few edits in April and i had quite a few useful edits in November of last year. Also his edits are usually minor disambigs and redirects. I didnt see any major contributions of his that were outstanding. Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 22:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Astrotrain 17:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for now - not enough time of heavy involvement in the project -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral, Good user, but voted for themself, which isn't good in my book. Privat  e   Butcher  22:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Not enough effort in article talk and not enough time in yet.--MONGO 03:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I want an admin to have at least three months active - IMO it takes that long to become decently seasoned and get a feel for the community. If this round fails, try again in a couple of months ;-) - David Gerard 15:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * I apologize for the delay in my acceptance as a family emergency arose shortly after I was notified of the nomination. >:  Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist &bull;  E@ 20:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I find myself apologizing again. ;-) I have been lurking and participating in RfAs for awhile. During that time I saw individuals list their name under support.  It seemed pointless and I viewed it is as that individual saying "duh, why wouldn't I?".  When the unexpected nomination came last week, Durin warned me to read the instructions related to RfA to make sure that I followed them to the letter.  I even read the portion about "self-nominators" should not vote for themselves.  I hesitated putting my own support on my own RfA as it seemed rather conceited.  Again, it just didn't cross my mind in that regard as many have already noted that it probably should have.  I still appreciate any and all comments on this RfA that has started off on the wrong foot to help me grow as an editor.  I look at this as a learning experience.  I will still have the same capabilities that I have today for fighting vandalism and blatant CSD's and my commitment to the project won't waiver....I'm addicted :-).  >:  Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist &bull;  E@ 22:38, 10 October 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. Chores have such a negative connotation. ;-).  When I wish to take a break from editing, I often find myself on RC Patrol.  I enjoy perusing all of the new submissions to Wikipedia.  Many of them are quite fascinating.  Some articles, however, need some tender loving care.  If possible, I will take a one- or two-line submission and attempt to expand on it, format it to Wikipedia standards, stub and categorize it for someone else with more experience on the topic to expand.  Unfortunately, there are quite a few submissions which are definite (and blatantly obvious) candidates for speedy deletion.  I especially like the addition of copyvio as a CSD category.  Being an administrator would allow to me continue patrolling recent changes for the obvious offenders and handling them without creating a backlog for another administrator to take care of.


 * Also while on RC Patrol, I tend to focus on edits made by users that are not logged in and definitely on edits made by those individuals on User namespace pages. Having the ability to revert vandalism is an essential tool in keeping Wikipedia a clean and safe environment for everyone.  It doesn't take long for me to manually revert vandalism, it just isn't as efficient as with "the button."


 * I would like to assist in the backlog related to unsourced images, AfD, CfD, TfD, and other areas of Wikipedia as needed. As can be seen from my contribution history, I am not afraid to tackle the sometimes mundane tasks that come with the mop and bucket.


 * Adding Copyright Problems, Images for Deletion and Requested Moves as stated in my response to User:HappyCamper above. >: Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist  &bull;  E@


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My first edit on Wikipedia was actually creating a new article for WAVE television.  I was reading the Louisville, Kentucky page and surfed through some of the links and found them to be red.  Whoa!  At the top of the page it said I could edit here!  I remember fretting for quite sometime comparing my fledgling article with other similar pages to see if I had all the i's dotted and t's crossed.  Of course, I didn't.    Shortly after creating the article, I learned about stubs and categories and having other people changing what you wrote!!  It is truly an amazing experience to start that way.


 * Though some may not find disambiguation and redirect repair a rewarding opportunity, I feel that they can be a significant contribution to the ease of use and readability of Wikipedia. The more we aspire to make an easy-to-use repository of knowledge, the better we will be perceived as a community and a project.  One could have the wealth of all knowledge on earth in one place, but if it is not easy to use or comprehend, most individuals would be turned off by it.


 * As noted above, RC Patrol is also a contribution to the community that I am pleased with. I endeavor to expand and correct where possible to keep articles of only a few lines and turn them into stubs, annotate them with appropriate stub and category tags and send them on their way.


 * I also enjoy welcoming new users. It is interesting to see all of the new "faces" as they come into the fold and introducing yourself to them and offering your support and assistance is gratifying.


 * Lastly, and not a direct contribution to Wikipedia in general, but to the editing community, the Durin-inspired statistical analysis that I put together in my spare time.


 * 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 suppose that I have been lucky or uncontroversial in my editing that I have not run into any editing conflicts. I have no problem accepting constructive criticism of my work and am always looking to improve myself.  When first joining Wikipedia, I had prepared myself for the presumed devastating affect of an AfD.  Though, I haven't had an article I have worked on nominated for AfD, I did have a template I worked on nominated for TfD.  Once I read what other individuals' thoughts were on the matter, I was persuaded to vote delete, as well.  Working within a project of this size, I believe it is okay to assume an custodial role over certain articles or subject matter--but it is still a community of peers that is ruled by consensus.  I think it is fair so long as there is active participation.  Thus, I don't stress easily, enjoy communicating with other editors about their thoughts on matters and definitely try not to take anything personally.
 * 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.