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

Royroydeb[edit]

Final (0/10/0); ended 19:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW by Sven Manguard. Graham87 03:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Royroydeb (talk · contribs) – I would like to be an admin following my experience working at this place.Though I mainly work in football related articles, I also take interest in history,biology related articles as well. RRD13 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:I would like to involve myself in protecting/unprotecting pages, work on backlogs and on page deletions.Blocking vandals will be another stuff because for vandalising football related articles ,there are many.But my focus would be the same-improving the articles of the projects I mentioned above.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:I created new articles about footballers playing in some minor leagues.I have added Statistics chart to a number of articles like Rubén López García-Madrid,Arturo Navarro,Jonathan Carril,Darryl Duffy,Henri Antchouet,John Johnson,Juan Belencoso etc.I also regularly update the statistics related parts (example - after each match played by Leverkusen and Rovers I perform a pcupdate on the articles of the players) and indulge myself in reviewing Good articles.I consider these as my best contributions though I have also helped West Ham United F.C. to be a GA
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:As can be seen here I had a conflict in Sanju Pradhan article.I put the sports succession box without giving reference that he was made EB captain.Actually I am a dieheart EB fan and know everything about the club.I was not aware that reference for it was necessary as there are many footballers who are captains and vice captains but no reference of such are given in their repective articles.At last I was able to find a reference and resolve the dispute.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. A quick glance at your activities to date tells me that you're a pretty solid editor, and I do think there's real potential here. I feel as though I'd be more comfortable supporting sometime within the next 6-12 months after you've expanded your experience into areas such as counter-vandalism, deletion processes, etc. I also think it would help for you to continue working on articles as you've been doing; you seem to have a keen interest in the GA process, which is definitely not a bad start, and over time you'll develop a better understanding of how things work there. One piece of advice I would give is to keep an eye on the syntax of your prose — for example, you may want to get into the habit of spacing after using a period, comma, question mark, or exclamation mark. That's about all I can say. Otherwise, keep up the good work! :-) Kurtis (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Have to agree with Kurtis, unfortunately. Your heart is in the right place, but communication is an important aspect of adminship, and in addition to the concerns about your sentence structure on discussion pages, I'd like to see you using edit summaries much more often. Additionally, your answer to question #3 leaves much to be desired; the linked revision history shows rather extensive edit warring on your part, as well as a lack of understanding of basic content policies (sourcing, WP:OWN). – Juliancolton | Talk 04:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I don't see much experience in the admin related-areas. For example, there's only 4 edits made at RfPP. While not a requirement for editors, I would recommend that you use more edit summaries in the future. Elockid (Talk) 04:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. I must echo the points raised by Kurtis and Juliancolton

    Please do not take this as a discouragement in any sense, rather an incentive to improve on areas of WP indicated. It will give me great pleasure to support you in your new RfA in october 2014, when I am confident you will have developed experience and good practice in the areas indicated, and explored some more areas of WP which you may be presently unfamiliar with. A good potential candidate. Keep up the good work and redouble your efforts! Kind regards Irondome (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  5. As somebody who reviewed your GA nomination of French Revolution, I have serious doubts about your understanding of the GA criteria, and much more importantly, your ability follow written instructions. The instructions page tells you to "Check the article against the Good article criteria and make any improvements you think are necessary". You made a single edit to the article and then nominated it, *without bothering whatsoever* to address the chronic referencing issues that the article had (and still has). You might also want to wade further into admin-related tasks, and perhaps correct your sentence structure -- it's a terrible look that's reflecting badly on you. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Unfortunate Oppose -- Per your answer to question #3 and the rationales given by the above users. Don't be discouraged. I'm sure you're a great guy and a great editor. Good luck. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 15:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose at this time, per apparently limited breadth/depth of experience. In particular, I question the wisdom of suggesting that personal information be "sprinkled" to improve a biographical article. Maybe there's some context I'm missing, but the language used doesn't suggest the caution required by policy at WP:BLPNAME. Per others' advice, please don't be disheartened, and continue with your editing in order to be better qualified next time. -- Trevj (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose – Sorry, it's a little early. Besides, while I am not failing you solely for the GANs that you have done, you need to work more in administrative areas of Wikipedia. You are a great editor, and you should try again. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Relatively short editing history and a random look at the candidate's article creations are enough for me to oppose at this point. They need to work on the issues raised on their talk page. Widr (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose per Speedyphil. You have to understand our guidelines before being a good editor, let alone an admin. Wizardman 19:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Category