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

Kingboyk

final (53/1/2) ending 16:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Kingboyk ( talk · contribs) – It is both a pleasure and a privilege to nominate a serious and dedicated user like Kingboyk for adminship. He has been with us since September '05, and throughout these months he has proven remarkable ability to discuss and achieve consensus and agreements wherever he contributes. Today, Kingboyk has amassed over 3,400 edits, perfectly distributed among namespaces, and has deep knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and procedures. He is a thoughtful and sensible voice in AfD, where he is actively involved; one can hardly browse this project without constantly stumbling upon his thoughts, and often you simply can't help but to agree with his solid positions. As an editor, he has also provided us with top notch material at many articles, specially regarding The Beatles and the excellent Apple Corps. Being a programmer, Kingboyk is also performing significant work in order to improve the Mediawiki software with hopefully soon-to-become official enhancements (although you'll have to ask him for further details on the subject if you're interested, as understanding such technical issues is way out of my league!)

But, most important, I have only good things to tell of his kind, civil and all around extremely friendly attitude - I simply invite everyone to check his Talk Page and browse through his many contributions to corroborate this. IMHO, this is the most important quality in an admin, and I'm convinced that we'll have an excellent and valuable mop-wielder in him. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 14:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- kingboyk 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support with utmost pleasure as his nominator. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 14:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Sneak in before this is official ... Kingboyk is that good. I first ran into this editor during AfD discussions of various Category:micronations articles. What could have been a contentious exchange turned into a collaboration on refining criteria: Category_talk:Micronations#Comments_on_criteria_sought. (you can see him in action from the AfD discussions linked from there) His constructive, consensus seeking and gentle editing style is just what we need in an admin, in my view. Plus, anyone that dear Phaedriel nominates is aces in my book. Happily support! ++ Lar: t/ c 16:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support -- I usually prefer candidates to wait a little longer for adminship, but in this case, I'm making an exception. An outstanding user, with dedication to the project that speaks for itself. - Longhair 16:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support Would like to see this user more active but other than that, he's a fine candidate. Moe ε 17:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support -- Ugur Basak 17:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support Strong candidate for adminship. Very positive.-- Firsfron 17:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support without hesitation. Essexmutant 18:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 19:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support Stonking credentials and very persuasive recommendations above. Waggers 20:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Strong Support -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support -- Latinus 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support edits look fine.-- MONGO 02:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support - Looks as though this editor would use the mop for what it's ment to be used for. -- Zsinj ^Talk 03:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support. He edits, he debates, he's civil. What's not to support? Ifnord 03:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support. Good job. psch e mp | talk 03:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-02-26 05:39Z
18. Support, good user. -- Ter e nc e Ong 06:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support, certainly deserves it. -- Dragon695 06:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support Good all-round user. DaGizza ^{Chat ©} 08:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support - some great editing here. -- Thorpe | talk 11:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support A good user. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support. — Kirill Lok s hin 16:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support.Contributions look good and he seems quailified and trustworthy.-- Dakota ~ ° 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Strong support I've never seen a contribution from this user that gave me doubt as to their ability and good faith. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 03:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support - good user. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support, very nice indeed. Raven4x4x 08:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support. Yes. -- Malthusian (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support, excellent AfD contributions and general awesomeness. Proto|| type 10:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support Great user, excellent potential for the adminship. gidonb 23:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support, participates actively in AFD. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support. Some very good finds in AfD, all with superior reasoning behind them. Isopropyl 04:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support. Looks great. -- Mmeinhart 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support. Was surprised he wasn't one already! Vanky 12:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support. PJM 14:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support. +sj + 19:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support - I worked with him on AFD once and could see he would make an excellent administrator. ... Scott ⁵¹¹⁴ 01:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support I've seen him around in a positive light always, and besides, if Phaedriel trusts him, so do I. Ban e z 06:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support. Mushroom ( Talk) 16:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support. Easy decision. - Colin Kimbrell 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support: Looks like he will be a very good admin. -- Cymsdale 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support youngamerican ( talk) 00:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support-- Jusjih 00:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support-- Heah ^talk 02:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support, could have sworn I supported a lot earlier when I read this and looked at your edit history, guess I never got around to it though. VegaDark 04:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support, nothing but positive interactions with this one. Besides, I can't argue with the nominator's case. Well I could...but...:>-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support Great contributions to afd (and in general). OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 17:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support as per nominator, should make a fine admin. Hall Monitor 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support Pile-on vote for all the obvious reasons. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 11:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support - new but keen, instincts seem to be sound, answers to questions are good. Just zis Guy you know? 18:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support Mjal 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support Although this user is relatively new, I feel that User:Kingboyk would make a good admin. Prodego ^talk 14:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. 91% of edits have been since early January 2006. ~2.5 months seems a bit low for an adequate understanding of Wikipedia process to have been obtained. Furthermore, while Kingboy has considerably more edits in the WP namespace than I do, most are WP:AFD or relating to the ArbCom elections. A great user, but some things just have to come with a bit more experience, in my humble opinion. -- tomf688^{{ talk}} 22:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Rob Church ( talk) 23:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

1. Something's a little whacked with the formatting of this RfA, hitting the vote here link brings you to someone's sandbox... Ifnord 03:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

   Tried to fix that. Hope I got it right, it's hard-ish to test an edit link in preview... I think it's because Phaedriel and Kingboyk were working on this to get it right before going live (as they should have, see the Guide to requests for adminship) and missed the sandbox move back? ++ Lar: t/ c 03:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

   Yes, sorry about that, it was pointing to Phaedriel's sandbox. Of course as I don't vote on my own RFA I didn't notice :) It's fixed now. -- kingboyk 12:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 16:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• See Kingboyk's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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. As a reader and editor wiki has been a journey for me. As a reader I often start at a page of interest, clicking links and tidying up as I go, never knowing where I might end up. As an editor, I started off by creating (fairly lame) stubs on my local area, until my confidence grew and I realised it really is okay to edit 'important' articles. I think my journey as an admin will be the same, should I be given the mop, bucket and badge.

Initially, adminship will help me with the editing and janitorial duties I already carry out. I've found myself unable to move pages when a redirect already exists at the target, spotting a blatant vandal in realtime and having to post to the noticeboard while s/he rampages their way through the site, and finding a backlog of 82 pages at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and not being able to help out - as I write, the backlog is over 50. As a new admin I also expect to close AFD debates, easing myself in by starting with those which have a very clear concensus.

Beyond that it's the wiki journey again. WP:ANI and WP:AN will be on my watchlist, and I'm ready to serve as time permits. I have made the acquaintance (and hopefully friendship) of some wonderful people here at Wikipedia, so I have no shortage of role models or people to turn to for help and guidance should I need it.

Please Note: I have had no internet access at home for a couple of weeks, so I have had to cut down on project namespace work and janitorial duties. My AFD activity, recent changes patrol and with your permission my new admin activities will resume when my connection is switched back on "early this week". Wikipedia is my main free time pursuit.

Internet back on, business as usual (or until I decide to do some work, I can't edit full time for ever). -- kingboyk 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

A. There are several. As Phædriel mentioned, I have cleaned up Apple Corps (although it still needs more work), and I created the Apple Corps category tree. The Beatles' Let It Be has benefited from a lot of my time - Let It Be (album) has been cleaned, and Let It Be (film) demerged into a very promising stub. The KLF, The Shamen and related articles are my current projects.

I'm proudest of my work on Badfinger and Cheltenham, since they have been good examples of collaboration. The recent huge improvement on Badfinger (from a {{cleanup}} tag to - IMHO - potential Good Article candidate) has been largely the work of User:ZincOrbie. I corresponded with him when he was an anonymous IP, encouraged him to create an account, and I've cast an editorial eye over his edits since then, chipping in when I can. We have a great new contributor and I'm proud of that.

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 rarely revert and rarely get reverted, but it sometimes happens. My policy is to be bold initially, and provide a thorough edit summary, but if there's ever a reversion or disagreement it should go straight to the Talk page. I've edited some controversial topics such as Disputed status of Gibraltar without any problems.

Conveniently, Lar has already mentioned and linked to my most stressful moment here. My wiki journey took me from Radio Caroline (an interest of mine) into the controversial area of micronations (not particularly an interest). I found duplicate material relating to Sealand in numerous articles, which I cleaned up. I also happened upon a couple of articles which seemed to me to be deletion candidates. After some thought and discussion with an admin, I nominated them for deletion. This did cause a temporary 'hoo haa' but I stood firm in my assertions of good faith and endeavoured to work for the good of the encyclopedia, and as Lar noted it all worked out nicely in the end. -- kingboyk 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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.