Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Walton monarchist89

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

Walton_monarchist89

Final (3/6/4) Ended 19:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Walton_monarchist89 (talk · contribs) – I have been editing for c. 1 year, focusing on articles relating to history and politics. For some of my best work, check out Nobility and Wakeham Report. I have also recently joined the AMA and am currently involved in my first advocacy case. I have never been blocked, accused of sockpuppeting, or involved in any other inappropriate behaviour (although my shared IP address has been blocked many times due to vandalism committed by other users on the same network, but that isn't my fault). I have always wanted to become an administrator and feel that I have proved myself as a responsible editor. Walton monarchist89 14:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted (I nominated myself) I have withdrawn my RfA. Walton monarchist89 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would like to help with preventing vandalism, particularly politically-motivated vandalism (I have been involved with the North Korea and George W. Bush pages, both hotspots for this kind of vandalism). I anticipate helping with protection and semiprotection of pages, blocking vandal IPs, and general administrative and cleanup duties.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Nobility, which was praised by some other expert editors (see my talk page for their comments). I also cleaned up the German militarism section under Militarism and completed articles such as Wakeham Report, Birmingham Political Union and Admiralty Selection Board.
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: No, I generally get on well with other users and have had few disagreements. I did have a brief disagreement with a user on the Talk:Nationalism page, but conceded their point once authoritative sources were produced, as per Wikipedia policy.
General comments
  • See Walton_monarchist89's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support I went through the user's contributions and they were very prolific. User has a 'clean' history and I think he has handled his first advocacy case quite well, despite the fact that it's an extremely difficult case.--Eupator 23:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Walton is super! He would make a great addition.--Caligvla 15:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Trustworthy editor, that has made good contributions. Hello32020 17:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I hadn't encountered Walton before seeing this RfA and my immediate reaction was to hesitate because of the WP:POV embedded in his username. For the record I am a staunch anti-monarchist and am very wary of giving admin tools to any editor who would push that POV. However after working through several hundred of Walton's edits, I am very happy to support this candidate. Not only does he not push his own point of view, but he has made good, well-sourced edits that support the opposite of what I would guess are his views (for example [1]). I cannot say how impressed I am with a contributor with clearly expressed opinions who time and again puts WP:V and the encyclopedia ahead of his clearly expressed viewpoint. Absolutely the right attitude for an admin and I have great confidence that giving Walton the tools will help improve Wikipedia. Gwernol 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to neutral - see below Gwernol 19:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose The answers to the questions (particularly #1) appear insufficient. Additionally, the candidate has demonstrated inexperience with RfA ([2], [3], [4]). Don't be discouraged, but instead try again around March. -- tariqabjotu 18:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Tariqabjotu. I'd like to see a little more experience, and keep in mind that you can preview each edit before it goes through. Michael 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Not enough experience on Wikipedia namespace or article namespace. Also has weak answers, especially Q1. Nishkid64 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose - unfamiliar with policy and RfA, little experience ST47Talk 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (after 2 edit conflicts) Oppose insufficient experience. I don't understand why people are saying he's a prolific editor. Is there something wrong with the edit counter? 124 mainspace edits, 19 WP and 427 total edits...I hate to be the only one with editcountitis, but no. Also unimpressed with answers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose The user's answers to all three, not just the first, questions make me think he/she does not understand what an administrator does. KazakhPol 19:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Normally, I'm against editcountitis, but 1 Wikipedia talk edit shows a lot less discussion about Wikipedia than is good for an admin. Also, not enough experience actually vandal fighting. Article writing is good, but admins don't get tools for more article writing. Get involved more in policy discussions, do more vandal fighting, maybe some AfD work, and try again in a few months. -Amarkov blahedits 19:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Met Walton Monarchist when s/he did a tactful update of an article which up til then had a lot of "revert nonsense" "restore facts" "rvv" as its recent history. (Nobility, March this year). I was impressed. I would support unconditionally were it not for his/her habit of ignoring edit summaries. They're so important when wading through article histories. This is my single reservation. Telsa (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain per Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship Walton monarchist89. I'd be happy to consider this RfA if it is restarted, if/when this happens. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I can't in good conscience support an editor with only 425 total edits: its just too few for you to have a good, demonstrated grasp of policy. Admins must have a wide and deep understanding of policy, as they are tasked with enforcing it. Even if you limit your use of the admin tools to just a few areas, such as preventing vandalism, you have to know the wide sweep and detailed application of many of our policies. I won't oppose you however as I remain impressed with the work you've done and believe you have the makings of a very fine admin. I recommend you take a look at my Admin Tips which describes my personal views of what a good admin candidate should do. Its a good idea to get involved with WP:AFD and WP:RFA discussions to improve your exposure to policy. After that I'd recommend a editor review in another few months and if that goes well, come back to us. I have every expectation you will get a satisfactory outcome next time round. Gwernol 19:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Gwernol has taken the words from my lips. Admins need a working knowledge of policies and guidelines if they are to enforce the standards for civility and good conduct amongst editors and the standards for good article contributions. This can be demonstrated by being a good editor yourself and making lots of useful contributions, finding sources and references for facts and claims, etc. It can also be demonstrated by patrolling the new and recent changes pages, reverting vandalism found there, warning vandals according to the vandal criteria, marking pages with speedy deletion tages as appropriate and bringing vandals to the admin intervention noticeboard too. Other things to do for example would be to join a Wikiproject such as Esperanza and look at their admin coaching programme. This will give you lots of assistance in understanding and acting as an admin. You can also assist at the help desk and reference desk. Contribute to some, all and/or other programmes such as these and you will become first-class admin material very quickly. I would be happy to support someone with evidence of this in their edit history in the future. If you choose so to do, I imagine that your skills will be sharpened in about 2-3000 edits' time. (aeropagitica) 19:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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/Walton_monarchist89&oldid=1079939176"