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

Walton monarchist89[edit]

Final: (68/12/8); ended 17:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Walton monarchist89 (talk · contribs) - Walton has been with Wikipedia since February of 2006, and has been contributing at a high level for 6 months now. He has amassed over 4200 edits, 1300 in the mainspace and 1000 User talk edits. He frequently contributes at AFD, RFA and has contributed with policy discussion. Whenever he has interacted with me, or whenever I have seen him interact with other users, it has always been with a high level of civility and never with personal attacks. I sincerely believe that Walton would make a terrific addition to the administrative team and can be trusted by the community to do the right things. Kntrabssi 17:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: I actually had this same nomination in the works, and I was trying to get in touch with the user for it. Since the last RfA, Walton monarchist has made great progress in participating in the project. The spread of edits are nice, and the user uses active rationale in participating in XfDs, not just "per nom" stuff. I urge the community to support this pair of hands. Teke 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination (sorry forgot to do this earlier!) Walton Vivat Regina! 18:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My optional statement: I'd like to thank Kntrabssi for nominating me, and to say that I feel I've learnt a lot in the last couple of months. Whether this RfA succeeds or not, I will listen to constructive criticism and learn from it. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:50, 13 April 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: As I'm an active participant in all kinds of XfD (not just AfD), I would be actively involved in closing XfDs, particularly at CfD where we have a backlog. I'd also work on clearing the backlog at CAT:CSD; I've tagged many articles for speedy deletion in the past and am very familiar with that policy. I'd also help out at AIV when there's a backlog, as I'm a seasoned vandal-fighter. (Don't just take my word for that - see the vandals themselves have said about me! [1][2]) Those are the admin tasks with which I'm most familiar through my existing experience, but I'd obviously be able to get involved in other areas as and when it's needed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm not a big article-writer, but I did do a massive rewrite of Politics, which was Start-Class when I started work and is now listed as a GA. Other article-writing credits include Left-right politics (still a work in progress), expansion of Political history, Wakeham Report and Hereditary title. Mainly my interests lie within politics and political history, which is where I do most of my writing. Sadly, I think a lot of the political science topics (as opposed to controversial political topics) tend to get neglected, and I'm continuing to help out with those as an active member of WikiProject Politics.
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: I've never got into any serious conflict, but I will admit to doing one major thing wrong during my time on Wikipedia. After the failure of my last RfA, I was feeling very depressed and left a rather uncivil comment for KazakhPol in response to his oppose vote. I later apologised for my reaction, and KazakhPol and I have had no further conflict. Aside from that episode, I haven't had any conflict myself, although I've been involved in resolving other people's conflicts as a member of WP:AMA, and an early member of the newly-founded WP:ASSIST, a project which I helped to get on its feet (I even designed the userbox!). Generally, I think I'm quite good at civil interaction and discussion with other users.
Optional questions from Gwernol
4. In a number of recent RfAs you have mentioned that you will support all RfAs, since adminship is no big deal. Can you describe the circumstances in which you would oppose an RfA (if any)?
A: I would conceivably oppose an RfA if the user in question had a clear record of POV-pushing, edit-warring or constant incivility, or if the nomination was clearly frivolous (e.g. the user had made 10 edits, all to their userpage). I've never seen such an RfA, but in those circumstances I would vote oppose, or abstain from voting. Generally, if I see an RfA I can't support, I don't vote on it at all; I follow the guideline that "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". :)
5. What is your understanding of consensus and how would you judge it when closing AfDs? When would you ignore or weigh as less important the opinions of certain editors?
A: Consensus, in the context of an AfD, is not a simple majority vote. To close an AfD as Delete (particularly a controversial one), there must be a large majority arguing for deletion. If there's any question of where consensus lies (e.g. a 55%-45% split), I would close it as No Consensus. To answer your second question, the only time I might ignore opinions left on an XfD is where a simple vote is given with no rationale (which I have seen before), or when a long string of suspicious single-purpose accounts have commented. In the latter case, I might re-list rather than closing.
Optional questions from Spawn Man
6. Hi there - You currently have made zero uploads to Wikipedia & as far as I know, none to Commons either. 1) How would you expect to help delete or tag unfree images & content uploaded to Wikipedia if you have no experience in it yourself? 2) How can we be sure you even know how to properly liscence images if you haven't even partaken in one of the basic tasks in Wikipedia?
A: I admit I don't know much about images and image policy, which is why I didn't list it in q1 as an area in which I would participate. However, I agree to the terms given in your Oppose vote, and will make an effort to start uploading images.
Update: I have now uploaded two images, Image:Caldecotte_Lake.jpg and Image:All_Saints_Milton_Keynes.jpg. Both were created by me, and I have released them into the public domain as per Wikipedia image use policy. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6b. What kind of camera did you use? — CharlotteWebb 08:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Digital. If you want the model number, then I'm sorry but I don't remember. It was a few years ago, as per the source information I provided with the images. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is a question I often like to ask 2nd time RfA-goers - what exactly have you learned from your last RfA experience & your behaviour on it?
A: At the time of my last RfA, I freely admit that I didn't really know what adminship represented, and had no idea what sort of standards were expected. In retrospect, I deserved to fail. That RfA taught me that I needed to edit more regularly and gain more familiarity with Wikipedia processes before I was ready for adminship. I went for an editor review in January, obtained extensive advice from other editors, and improved my editing standards and awareness of policy. I've also admitted in q3 that my behaviour in response to KazakhPol after my previous RfA was unacceptable, and I apologised to him for that reaction.
8. Do you consider yourself an article writer or an editor who takes part in administrative tasks more, or a mix of both?
A: I probably participate in administrative tasks slightly more; as already shown, I have strong experience of XfDs and vandal-fighting. However, I don't neglect article writing, and as I explained in my answer to q2, I have made numerous contribs to core political science articles. I don't think I'm either exopedian or metapedian; both sides of Wikipedia are very important, and a good admin candidate should have experience of both.
A question from bainer (talk)
9. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: I'm not personally a big fan of WP:IAR, and would avoid exercising it as an admin; generally I would follow the processes, as they're there for a reason. However, it might be appropriate to exercise WP:IAR as a response to blatant Wikilawyering and abuse of process. Generally, escape clauses such as WP:IAR and WP:SNOW are really there to be used in response to WP:POINT violations; although it's rare, users do occasionally abuse processes such as XfD as a form of trolling. However, I do want to clarify that I would very rarely exercise IAR, and would be even less likely to do so with admin tools. For instance, with the admin tools I would not speedy-delete anything that did not meet the CSD criteria, even if it was obvious junk - I would most likely use a prod instead. I apologise for this rather rambling response; I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I judge each situation on its own merits, but am very cautious about invoking IAR, and would be even more cautious about it with the admin tools.
Further explanation: Since my comments above have caused confusion to some users, I also want to give an example of when I would ignore a rule. Say an admin speedy-deleted an article which was obvious junk, but didn't meet the CSD criteria. If one were to be pedantic, the "procedurally correct" action would be to take it to DRV and argue for its undeletion, so that it could be put through the full AfD process and get deleted again. But that would be a waste of everyone's time, not to mention "process wonkery", so I wouldn't do it. As to my comment about not necessarily speedying obvious junk, I would also like to observe that 95% of obvious junk is speedyable, either under G1 (nonsense) or A7 (no assertion of notability), both criteria which can be interpreted quite broadly. But I do think there is a case for giving articles the benefit of the doubt, and using an AfD if there is any likelihood of controversy. Generally, although I trust my own judgement, I would prefer to trust the community's judgement than my own.
I've changed the above statement because it's clearly given rise to some misinterpretation. As I said earlier, I would prefer to trust the community's judgement than my own. So if there was any doubt, I would send to AfD rather than speedy-deleting on my own authority. However, that doesn't mean I'd practise "process wonkery".
Charlotte says
10. Directly above you have said you "would prefer to trust the community's judgement [sic] than [your] own". I'm curious to what extent this is true. At what point would you draw the line rather than knowingly take a detrimental course of action which a handful of "the community" had voted in favor of? To help me better understand your views, please give me an example or two of situations in which you might feel that the community's judgment has gone too far. Keep in mind that your thoughts on a real incident that has actually happened (whether or not you were involved) would be more informative than a hypothetical one (which may or may not be considered plausible). — CharlotteWebb 10:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I looked through past AfDs in which I have participated, and I found one example of the situation to which you refer. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayRadioPlay!, the Keep !votes actually slightly outnumbered the Delete !votes, so if one were following "community consensus" the result would have been either Keep or No Consensus. However, it was pretty clear that most of the Keep !votes were from single-purpose accounts (which were likely sockpuppets or meatpuppets, or canvassed from an external forum), and they gave largely spurious WP:ILIKEIT arguments which did not meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this situation, I believe the closing admin was right to close it as a Delete, as the article made no real assertion of notability and contained no reliable sources. Generally, the level of "community consensus" generated by an XfD should take second place to following the policies and guidelines, which are determined by a much broader community consensus than any individual XfD. This is not to say that !votes should be routinely discounted where the closing admin disagrees with them; they should be counted as long as they are grounded in policy. Likewise, I would not automatically discount "Delete per nom" or "Keep per FredBloggs21" !votes. Where the consensus is not obvious on an XfD, I think closing admins have a difficult balance to strike; they can't ignore consensus and follow their own opinions, but they also shouldn't ignore policy and/or common sense in the interests of following consensus. Hopefully I would do neither.
Common sense should also tell us that sockpuppets, meatpuppets, etc. are not bona fide members of "the community". I had not intended for them to be within the scope of my question. I was talking about wrong decisions made by real users, a situation where your own judgment would hopefully be a factor, but it looks like I'm almost out of time here. — CharlotteWebb 09:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support I have seen this editor many times in AfD discussions and have always been impressed with their reasoning. Also, Walton seems to have taken the criticisms from the previous AfD to heart to make himself a better editor and a better admin candidate. Caknuck 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as a co-nominator. Teke 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Adminships no big deal(!) (Oh yeah, does great work in XfD's too!) Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - While I haven't always agreed with his AfD positions, they've always been well-reasoned and civil. —dgiestc 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Joke Question from dgies :
    1. How would you handle an AfD nomination of this article?
    If I were to comment on such an AfD, I would probably have to vote Keep. Although the article itself cites no sources other than songfacts.com, the Sex Pistols are certainly a notable (albeit distasteful) band, and the song is quite well-known in British popular culture. Overall, I would probably vote Weak Keep but needs a rewrite with multiple independent sources. My own views, of course, have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, as Wikipedia is not censored. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one of the most notable and notorious records ever to be released in the UK. It's notability is beyond question; what a shame - and how woeful it is - that the article has no citations. --kingboyk 12:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - per above, --Tom 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Excellent editor; more than experienced enough for the tools. Xoloz 20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support He has plenty of experience, and I've seen him around. YechielMan 20:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as (late) nominator. Kntrabssi 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support a civil and knowledgeable user from what I've encountered. Acalamari 21:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Incivility concerns appear to not be sufficient to oppose (IMO). Captain panda 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. This started out as an oppose... but then I realised I really couldn't oppose for this. Basically, my only interaction with this user was centered around Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Da.Tomato.Dude assorted usersubpages. Walton was civil to me, but I totally disagreed with everything he said, and I still do. The fact that you were so willing to support User:Da.Tomato.Dude in the keeping of her pages, implying that I didn't value her contributions greatly offended me. I'd also like to note that I still think you're totally wrong and you seriously need to rethink your standing with regards to matters like this, since as you can see, of the 21 edits Da.Tomato.Dude has made this month, 20 have been to user/usertalk and unrelated to the encyclopedia, and one a minor edit to an article. I found conversing with you frustrating since everything you said was total rubbish, and I believe I've been proved right. However, despite all this, I support your request, and just hope you never find yourself closing any MfDs like that, as I'm confident that's the only time I'd regret supporting you. And to anyone who questions why I mentioned all this, it is important because I do wish other users to see what happened here, since some concerns have been brought up. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nice show of maturity, Deskana. That defense of Da Tomato Dude bothered me as well but it certainly didn't stand in my way of providing a co-nomination. I'm glad to see that you, the recipient of the grief from many many users during that MfD, do not hold it against Walton monarchist89 (or that you would any other user, for that matter). Teke 04:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - trustworthy editor. Civility issues appear to be trivial and easily outweighed by his positive contributions.Addhoc 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per all above and my interaction with him, no reason to oppose. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I have seen him around AfD and RC quite a few times and I'm of the belief that he would make a good admin. Most of what I was going to express has already been said but I would like to respectfully point out that I fail to see the problem with regard to Walton monarchist89's userboxes. Some people might take offense but there's hardly any topic that's free of controversy. More importantly, I don't believe that it's desirable (let alone feasible) to demand that admins hold no opinions or restrict themselves to non-controversial issues. Administrators, just like editors, are first and foremost people. We can't ask editors to check their opinions at the door when they become admins. In my humble opinion, all we can ask of an admin is to not let his or her beliefs dictate his decisions and I have seen no evidence whatsoever to indicate that this could be a problem in this case. -- Seed 2.0 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. I have always been impressed with him. I thought he was an admin. -Mschel 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. --[[user:Umedard|Umedard [[User talk:Umedard|<sup>Talk</sup>]]]] 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support wonderful editor. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Support This editor has made some uncivil comments and some foolish choices in the past. However, after careful examination of his contributions, I feel that his beneficial contributions far outweigh this. I think that what someone did in the past should not be as heavily weighted as what they are doing now, and this editor appears to have proven that he will not repeat any of his uncivil behavior. So, despite previous incidents, I am leaning to support. Ninja! 00:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Meets my criteria. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Contrib history speaks volumes about dedication for the project. I experienced Walton as open-minded and cooperative, and whenever I crossed this user's way, he's been perfectly civil and level-headed. Regarding minor concerns addressed by others: saintliness is not an adminship prerequisite, is it? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Hard-to-swallow support After seeing your highly disturbing userboxes I confess that I immediately started perusing all your edits in the past 30 days, just looking for a good excuse to oppose. I was frustrated to discover an experienced user carrying on a particularly fine job. And what's worse, you are clearly a very friendly and communicative user (your civility record effectively diminishes the diffs provided by Picaroon, which seem more like a bad choice of words rather than raw incivility). So I guess I just have to be fair now and cast a bitter support, since you're definitely apt to become an administrator.--Húsönd 02:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Zero Sum Support Just here to cancel out the "boo-hoo I don't like his user boxes" crowd. NeoFreak 03:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Well I thought you were already an Admin..Good Editor..--Cometstyles 03:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, based on my recent interactions with this user I had already been thinking about writing this myself. Got beat to it, I guess. Userboxes aren't a tremendously big issue for me, nor are past errors. We've all screwed up at one time or another. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Terence 06:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support; examining this user's recent contributions and a random sampling of others showed experience and quality work. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support This chap seems to be a valued contributer and very competent and that should be the only issue. I find it very strange that some people find this editor's userboxes 'highly disturbing'. Thinking Elizabeth II should be Queen of England and opposing Marxism isn't exactly membership of Al Queda is it? If these are 'polarising' opinions then any political user boxers should stop anyone becoming an Admin, and that's clearly not the situation. Wikipedia thrives on diversity and the fact that someone doesn't share another person's political beliefs is no reason to think they can't do a good admin job. Strange how sometimes the people most stridently in favour of freedom and diversity in theory are most opposed to it in practise. Support for British Monarchism is, in Britain, about the least contentious position you could possibly hold on anything. Nick mallory 11:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the boxes I found disturbing were not the Queen/Marxism ones. Of course that "the fact that someone doesn't share another person's political beliefs is no reason to think they can't do a good admin job". That's why I'm supporting this user.--Húsönd 12:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough Husond, but there are other people in the oppose section who made this argument. E.G. opposing him because he exhibited 'a particular, divisive political point of view, i.e., (British) monarchism.'
  28. Support Good when I've seen him around. And, not that I share all his views or like userboxes, he should bring them back. Johnbod 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Great user whom I have full trust in performing admin tasks. I'm not particularly convinced by the strength of the opposes. Michaelas10 15:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, civilly addressed my concerns. --Mus Musculus (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Weak Support generally I think Walton is doing a very good job and will make a fine admin. My support is weakened though, because of his recent, almost indiscriminate support of RfA candidates. Several of the candidates he supported have been either borderline or (in my opinion, of course) have demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy. For all that we say adminship is "not a big deal", an admin who doesn't understand and follow our core policies can do serious harm to the project. This gave me reason to seriously consider if I trust Walton's judgment. On balance though, I believe Walton's clearly demonstrated personal understanding of policy mean he'll do a good job with the tools. Gwernol 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, per Deskana, Husond and Gwernol. Good contributions and good communication skills outweigh some awful userboxes, past and present. I am diametrically opposed to this user politically and I doubt that I will ever agree with him on any single issue. However, I trust him not to allow POV to affect how he uses the tools. A good few mistakes there, but also evidence enough for me that the candidate has learned from them, or else they are harmless like the grammatically incorrect userbox. I hope I won't regret this, but here goes. --Guinnog 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I feel that I would be able to trust this user with the tools of adminship. He has been a great user from what I can see, and I believe that he would be a great administrator, and he would be able to help Wikipedia in great ways. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 18:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Majorly (hot!) 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I've seen him around and have no concerns about his performance. I, for one, think the desire to be an admin a good thing. We allow people to self-nom so why not let people state it as a goal on their own pages. I do! We should encourage people to work toward the trust and support of the community that is evidenced by adminship. What do you want to do, force someone to be an admin who doesn't want it? There's not a problem in my thinking with the userboxes. At least we know of his potential biases and can better watch for any problems. His choice to self-revelate is his choice and shouldn't count against him. I vote yes! JodyB 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - seems willing to work with the community and compromise. Also, I'm supporting for pretty much the opposite of the reasons that Kelly Martin cites below. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. per Elkman and Kelly. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Mmmm... controversial boxes... yum! I didn't know the queen aroused such ardent feeling in the breasts of her loyal subjects. Anyhow, I support. -- Y not? 08:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Good applicant - nice rounded experience in pre-admin duties both in wiki and mainspace edits. I think he is a trustworthy potential.--VS talk 12:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Seems like he'd do a good job. Oppose voters are not convincing though I've got to give Kelly points for "One of your userboxes contains a grammatical error. This shows poor judgment" That brightened up my day a little :) Haukur 13:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Per his answers to the questions, and his contributions and interaction with the community lately, I think he will be a good admin. Here is my trust. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 15:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support more zero sum support here. --Selket Talk 18:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - as per the others above, I do dislike those (now vanished) userboxes, but I've never had any problem with him as an editor. Yes, I dislike his views, but I'm sure he'd think the same of me - I've never seen any evidence of it affecting his work. To be honest, I thought he was an admin already. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Changed from oppose due to completion of tasks. Nice enough user, willing to change & I don't think he'd abuse the tools. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Abeg92contribs 10:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Goood and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 15:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support This support claim is specifically a response to those who voted oppose. I read every single point of them and looked at every diff brought as evidence. People are opposing for ludicrous and pedantic reasons that do not show this user would abuse the tools. SchmuckyTheCat 19:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Have seen this user around on various XFDs and am generally impressed by the opinions brought up there. The concerns brought up about his userboxes are of little concern to me, user has not given indication that his personal beliefs/opinions will cloud his judgement with the mop. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I'm not a big fan of WM's "give adminship to anyone who wants it" stance (and that's putting it mildly) but that does not outweigh the trust I have for him based on seeing him around at XfD's. I also like the sound respect for the community expressed in the answer to Q5. Pascal.Tesson 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. No concerns; neither the opposition below nor his edit history provide any evidence that he would do damage as an administrator. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Per strong Afd participation and no problems elsewhere. As for some of the oppose votes, his comment at the Walter Humala Mfd is not only civil, but exactly correct. There is a difference between honesty and incivility. And userboxes, unless they are obviously and intentionally divisive, are among the worst reasons to oppose I have ever come across. --Tractorkingsfan 08:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, sound and article writing user. Civil and respectful too. Will not block on the whim, will explain if asked, will retract and apologize in case of a mistake. This is a set of features that many admins, unfortunately, lack, but not this one. --Irpen 09:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Tony Sidaway 12:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Don't like this business with the Category:Conservative Wikipedians and Category:Monarchist Wikipedians. Wikipedia isn't a soap box, and abusing categories in this manner is very problematic. Certainly not compatible with community trust as a Wikipedian. Switched to support but I think Walton should take heed of Doc's point: the criteria for speedy deletion change as trends in problem articles change, and the written policy tends to lag behind them.[reply]
  55. Is he perfect? No. Am I? No. Is anyone? No. The opposers have some good points that I urge Walton monarchist89 to take heed of, but basically I trust him not to abuse the tools, having seen nothing to make me think that he would - and having seen plenty of good stuff as well. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Great user, I've a good experience with him. --Neigel von Teighen 18:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Why The Hell Not? I don't give a damn about your userboxes, etc. You seem like a good editor, and that's good enough for me. Ral315 » 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support see no legitimate reason to oppose. Would make a good admin.--Jersey Devil 20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Introspective and has done enough homework to show me he's taking it seriously. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Trusted user who understands process. -- Jreferee 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per noms. PeaceNT 14:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Will make a good admin, no evidence will misuse the tools. Davewild 17:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Seems to be a good contributor who always contributes his views in RFAs and appears to have a hard edit count to match. I support, good luck Walton. —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Seems to meet candidacy criteria, good editor, issues raised by opponents don't seem sufficiently substantial to prevent adminship in light of overall record. --Shirahadasha 01:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Why not? Frise 06:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I'm impressed by the tact Walton has shown in a recient AMA case. He has some very good and useful skills. --Salix alba (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. No problems. the wub "?!" 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. I find the answer to the questions about CSD more than satisfactory. If something doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, don't speedy it. Period! "Obvious junk" is not a completely objective and indisputable categorisation. ((prod)) it, instead. Leaving an non-speedyable article an extra 5 days won't make any difference. Any issues with the userpage seem to have been corrected (although I can't see what Giulani has to do with "zero tolerance on vandalism"). Lastly, although this is not an accurate representation of what constitutes a personal attack, the comment itself is not a personal attack and I won't oppose on that basis. -- Black Falcon 18:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I deleted my initial post as I had not anticipated being able to type a rationale before this AfD closed (and also to remove a pointless sentence). This is clearly no longer the case. -- Black Falcon 18:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Incivility (this isn't the only occurrence - his name stood out here because of something he said once, I believe at CFD - but I'm not in the mood to dig for it) and complete misunderstanding of what personal attacks are. Picaroon 19:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the two diffs unproblematic. It's true that citing a user's low edit count is not tantamount to a personal attack (heck, we do that here at RFA all the time), but in context, what mattered was that low edit count did not dictate a user-page deletion. In the Walter Humala MFD (the first diff given by Picaroon), Walton's reprimand of the nomination was seconded by User:Doug Bell, who is an admin, and User:Chrislk. I think the only thing to learn from all this is Walton's inclusionist stance, which I glean also at AFD. But that's not a reason for me to oppose. YechielMan 20:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when has an admin endorsing incivility made it any more acceptable? Picaroon 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I question whether those incidents cited really convey the image of someone who is unable to perform the Administrators' duties. The civility case cited is a perfectly legit way to express one's beliefs (hardly uncivil compared to some scathing remarks on other MfD and RfAs) and he stated what he wanted to say in an eloquent manner. ALTON .ıl 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "This is a ludicrous and pedantic nomination" is considered eloquent? You and I must be working from different definitions. Picaroon 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, being words that most users would have to look up. In short, the nomination was both ludicrous and pedantic, but besides that, he expressed his frustration (which we all, indubitably, have) in a concise manner. Perhaps, yes, his choice of words may have been too strong, and I'm sure calling another user ludicrous would constitute a personal attack, but still I don't think, under the circumstances, such a remark invalidates his ability to carry out an Administrators' function. ALTON .ıl 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going on wikibreak shortly, so I won't be around for further conversation and reconsideration. The closing bureaucrat can discount my oppose if Walton gives a good explanation as to why his comments weren't top notch. Picaroon 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't discount it; other editor's should evaluate your comment and decide whether or not to oppose as well. ALTON .ıl 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I don't want to "poke the opposers" I was asked for an explanation. The comment on the Cremepuff MfD was one I later apologised for, and my apology was accepted: [3]. I accept that Dgies was not making personal attacks, and he and I have not had any conflict of any kind since then. (In fact, note that he supported this RfA). The Walter Humala MfD comment was not intended as an attack on Ryulong, but rather as a vote of support for Walter, who I felt was entitled to have these pages in his userspace. If Ryulong had taken it personally, I would have apologised. Also note that two other editors endorsed the reprimand in question. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to add that I wasn't calling Ryulong himself "ludicrous", I was calling the nomination ludicrous. Ordinarily he is a user that I have great respect for, but I disagreed very strongly with his MfD nomination, and said so. If he were to take offence, I would of course retract the comment; I don't want to violate WP:NPA, and am normally very careful not to do so. Walton Vivat Regina! 13:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's easy to apologise and then happily mention "I apologised and my apology was accepted" - humility is important in an admin and there's something satisfying about saying or reading "Oops, I didn't realise..." or "Oops, that wasn't supposed to happen like that" when someone notices you've done something wrong. New users, however, will often meet an administrator before they meet editors - that gives admins a super-critical responsibility - not to be incivil to new editors. I hope that Walton will manage this if promoted. -- Nick t 14:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I remember this user asking a question that indicated serious inexperience, recently. I do not remember what it was in regard to. KazakhPol 20:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pretty shaky. Unless you can provide a link to the comment in question, I would kindly ask you to change this to Neutral in light of lack of evidence. Since this is my own nomination, this will be my only comment on the RfA. Kntrabssi 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    KazakhPol, please find the incident that you're referring to. The oppose vote has no real meaning if there is nothing that can back it up. As for Kntrabssi's comments, there is no need to change your comment to neutral. However, if you keep your oppose as it currently is, then it will most likely be ignored by a bureaucrat since it is vague and not too helpful at the moment. Nishkid64 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose due to display of several polarizing userboxes. I don't typically care about userboxes, but I think some of these will agitate new users who might be looking for admin help. That will not help diffuse situations. --Mus Musculus (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Candidate has addressed the issue, supporting. --Mus Musculus (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you reconsider your oppose if the user removed the userboxes? I'm never one to question the oppose opinion, and I do respect it. So this is just a question of merit should the problem you have be rectified. Teke 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the userboxes in question. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I've not evaluated your other strengths and weaknesses, but your user page, user name and signature all serve to promote a particular, divisive political point of view, i.e., (British) monarchism. I'm on record for opposing any admin candidate who uses his identity and user space to promote any sort of divisive ideology whatsoever. We are an encyclopedia, not an ideological battleground. Sandstein 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet you state your political ideology on your user page? --Selket Talk 00:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This response exemplifies the Ad Hominem fallacy. alphachimp 07:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose per Picaroon. Adminship's not a big deal, but being civil in discussion certainly is. Plus, his MfD comments of late actually force me to move to a strong oppose. [4] he basically launches a personal attack on the nominator of the MfD, [5] he doesn't seem to understand the concept of userspaces, [6] he basically shows he never read WP:SOAPBOX, and [7], he bases he vote solely on an essay rather than policy. I cannot support this RfA. There might even be more that I have yet to uncover, but this candidate really worries me.--Wizardman 17:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I know it's not really appropriate for me to dispute oppose votes, but I'd just like to explain why I made each of those particular comments. I don't expect you to change your vote, I just want to make sure you don't think less of me because of it.
    • The comment on Ryulong's Penguin Cabal wasn't meant to be a personal attack. If you read the comments after it, Wooyi and I were joking about it, and I did actually say (in brackets) that it had no bearing on the MfD, and shouldn't influence anyone else's !vote. I'm sorry if it came across as uncivil, and if Ryulong himself had complained, I would have apologised immediately.
    • In the second MfD, the user in question simply had a userpage with a biography of himself on. I was under the impression that this was a practice permitted by WP:USER, which says ...Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. I'm sorry if I misunderstood policy.
    • In the third MfD, I was only trying to say that comments like "troll magnet" and "offensive philosophy", which was what some MfD voters were saying about User:Anarcho-capitalism's user page, didn't seem to be taking an NPOV view.
    • In the TfD on TrollWarning, the essay WP:BEANS was cited by the nominator, and I was agreeing with them. It also wasn't the sole rationale for my vote.
    You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not challenging your vote. I just don't want you to think less of me overall, or mistrust me, because of those particular comments. If you still think it's a serious problem, I will withdraw my candidacy and do whatever I can to make amends to you and the other users concerned. Once again, I'm really sorry that things ended up this way. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I'll look over your other stuff. It would make me feel better if you said you'd avoid MfDs for a little while, but I probably laid in on you too hard above. I'll your over your Afds/cfds and the like. If I like what I see there I may change my vote.--Wizardman 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hereby pledge that if I get adminship, I will not close any MfDs relating to userspace. I admit that I have some difficulty being neutral and objective about such cases, and I understand why you have questions about whether I'm trustworthy to close MfDs. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose→Changed to Support↑ - This is actually quite funny, as we'd been having this conversation whether or not I'd oppose you if you ran for adminship. And, like I said, I'd oppose you. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you'd abuse the tools intentionally & I also think you're a decent guy, however, as I explained, you just have too much negative factors for me to support. 1) I always suggest at least 6 months between RfA attempts. Right now its only been 5 months since your last RfA. 6 months is a nice rounded number. Considering also your behaviour on your last RfA, it would be safe to say that 6 months would be the least amount of time for you to wait. 2) You do indeed have too low a mainspace count for me. 2K & I usualy feel comfortable to support. 3) Also, an editor is to know about fair use pictures & how to spot one. However, you have made zero uploads to Wikipedia. Even if you've uploaded content to Commons, everyone should at least have 1 or so files that they've uploaded to Wikipedia. 4) Although you registered in Feb 2006, your first few months were relatively inactive. I usually count months with over 50 edits as an active month. So if I applied that, you'd pass my 6-12 months minimum, but you'd still be at the lower end. Average edits per page. 5) You have no Wikiproject edits as far as I can see. This shows little collaboration towards articles etc etc, so a minus. 6) Last & not least by far - FA's & GA's. You have a GA, not enough to cancel out your low mainspace count, lack of wikiproject edits, no uploads & shorter time here. If you had a FA or two, that would cancel out a couple of those for me & I'd probably support or at least vote neutral. This is hard for me, as it is one of the few times I really want to oppose, but feel I shouldn't based on my principles - which is a shame as my conversation with you was highly enjoyable & my experiences with you so far have all been positive. :) Thanks, Spawn Man 08:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May reconsider vote once Walton answers questions & agrees to a few things - Agrees to upload one image to Wikipedia with correct liscencing & agrees to endevor towards 2K Mainspace edits as well as satisfactually answering the questions. If this is all agreed to, I will probably support. :) Spawn Man 08:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only one issue in your list, but I must admit finding it problematic that you require image contributions to Wikipedia in order to support an adminship bid. Some people simply don't have a camera and/or are not interested in contributing that way. I don't have a problem with requiring that candidates have made contributions to encyclopedia-space, of course. I even more so have an issue, though, with your suggestion that image contributions to Commons don't count for your criterion; since it's the case that uploading free content to Wikipedia itself rather than Commons is discouraged, although not prohibited, it almost reads that you require the uploading of non-free content to Wikipedia under a fair use claim. Some users may have a moral issue with contributing non-free content to Wikipedia, and I don't see it as right to be encouraging it just to gain adminship. If you'd like to discuss this, feel free to drop a notice on my talk page - I've probably cluttered the voting page enough by this anyway! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, I don't recall ever saying that 1) I didn't count contribs to Commons (I say that the user "has none...") or 2) Require he upload unfree images with a free liscence. As I stated before, the user & I had a long discussion about why I would oppose/support, & one of my issues was the lack of uploaded material to both Wikipedia & commons. I would never ever suggest that anyone should wrongly upload a picture with a wrong tag - that is illegal & I'm both confused & amused you've extracted that from my oppose up there... All I wanted was for the user to know how to upload & how to liscence properly - I've amde this request before & some ahve uploaded book covers or building photos etc. The user mentioned the only reason he hasn't uplaoded was because he didn't want to take photos of the boring stuff he has in his surroundings. Hoepfully this clears up your misconception, even if it is amusing. Thanks, Spawn Man 11:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! I read However, you have made zero uploads to Wikipedia. Even if you've uploaded content to Commons, everyone should at least have 1 or so files that they've uploaded to Wikipedia. as meaning that you want image contributions to Wikipedia as distinct from Commons. This was probably encouraged by my not thinking of Commons as Wikipedia (it's under wikimedia.org, not wikipedia.org, after all) and thus assuming that when you mentioned Wikipedia it was a term that excluded Commons. Apologies for the misunderstanding! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    NP lol -- Spawn Man 11:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing b'crat - this user has a history of "trying" to pull pranks on RfAs :D Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Candidate indicates on user page that he wishes to be an admin; that's a strike against. Grammatical errors on user page; another strike against. Candidate has a "this page has been vandalized # times" userbox, indicating poor judgment (such userboxes attract vandals; having one indicates that one doesn't understand that drawing attention to vandalism encourages it, not a good trait in an administrator). After all that, the candidate's user page tells me nothing about the candidate, other than that he is fond of userboxes, and there is certainly nothing there to tell me anything about the candidate's encyclopedic editing. Sorry. Candidate has not convinced me that he understands that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and demonstrates poor judgment; I cannot in good faith do anything other than oppose. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd take his honesty over back-channel, email lobbying any day. My userpage has been vandalized half a dozen times without any userbox from me adding "provocation" - your own userpage gives provocation not only to personal attackers, but Satan himself. Your entire object is based on his userpage - is that "good faith" at all? Shouldn't it be based on his contributions? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And my userpage gets vandalized on a regular basis too, but I don't memorialize each occasion. I used to have a "this page has been vandalized 17 times" thing, too; I removed it -- not quite two years ago -- when someone vandalized the counter itself. The presence of a vandalism counter on an editor's user page indicates to me that the editor does not understand how to dissuade reputation, which is definitely a deficiency in an candidate administrator. It also suggests that he hasn't discussed with more experienced editors whether having such a thing on his user page is a good idea, also not a good trait in an administrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly Martin has a history of opposes based on userboxes. Frankly this is ridiculous. Michaelas10 15:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How do grammatical errors on a user page indicate that someone is going to be a bad admin or abuse the tools? Come to think of it, how does anything on the candidate's user page indicate that he will abuse the tools or become a controversial admin? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Grammatical errors indicate carelessness and a lack of attention to detail. Neither is a good trait in an admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of interest (I'm not questioning the oppose vote), which grammatical errors were being referred to? Outside userboxes and barnstars, the only text on my page is in Spanish, which is not my native language. But I'd like to know which are the errors in question, so I can correct them. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One of your userboxes contains a grammatical error. This shows poor judgment: it means you put the userbox on your user page without even looking to see if it contains a sensible statement. Not the sort of carelessness that I think is appropriate in an administrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I still don't know which one you mean, but I won't argue with you. (Although it would be helpful if you pointed out the specific error, so I can correct it for future reference.) Walton Vivat Regina! 16:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My bet is it would be "This user has significantly contributed to 1 Good Articles on Wikipedia." It caught my eye anyway. Incidentally, when you indent commments in a numbered list if you add # it will preserve the numbering. --Guinnog 16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough (I now feel like an idiot for not spotting that). It's a standard template, unfortunately, so to change it I'd have to copy it into my userspace and use a modified version. I'm not saying it's not a good reason to oppose, just trying to find the problem. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A single careless mistake on the part of an administrator isn't going to break Wikipedia entirely. I think image deletion is the only irreversible administrative task; anything else can be fixed. On the other hand, an administrator with an axe to grind... oh, never mind, I've got work to do and I don't feel like talking about this any more. I'll just say that RFA is broken, and that's much more than a careless mistake. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly Martin, this opposition over userpages and userboxes has got to stop. I personally think it is extremely point-oriented. Userboxes are allowed on userpages, as long as they are within the rules. Walton monarchist89's userboxes and userpage are within those rules. A couple of mistakes on a userpage does not mean the user will be a bad admin. It's also been pointed out that several of your own userboxes are divisive. You are criticizing others of divisive userboxes yet you do nothing about your own userpage. Why don't you set an example and remove the userboxes on your own page which others have considered divisive? Otherwise, other users will continue to go after you on your userpage-based opposition. Acalamari 17:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually find this quite amusing! This hilarious oppose is so outrageous that it's funny! Geesh, my user boxes say "This user is a lemming, or at least thinks so...", I 'd hate to think what you'd say Kelly if you voted on my RfA. In any case, I totally agree with what Acalamari has just said - I find your feminism & Satan user boxes quite divisive. As Walton says though, that particular userbox is a set one, & to change it would mean he'd have to create a user modified one just to placacte your wishes. I'm sure you've never made any grammatical errors though, right? Why Kelly, just above you made this sentence - "...which is definitely a deficiency in an candidate administrator..." Everyone knows that "an candidate" should be "a candidate"... Ah well, nobody is perfect. Not everyone can be much more better like your Kelly... ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 00:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you two on about - to change the userbox you would need to copy it to userspace - does nobody around here realise it's a bloody Wiki and almost everything is editable, especially a bloody userbox with a grammatical error, if nobody realises that, I despair at what you think Wikipedia is. -- Nick t 01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it's a standard template saying "This user has contributed to X Good Articles on Wikipedia", transcluded using ((User Good Articles|1)), where 1 is the number. I have now edited it to make it say "Good Article", but I had to subst it on to my userpage first, else it would screw up the template used by everyone else. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't bother substing. It'll be fixed using m:ParserFunctions, and it's too much for you to be expected to know that. –Pomte 12:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly, your reasons for opposing are little short of bizarre. "Candidate indicates on user page that he wishes to be an admin; that's a strike against" - pardon? Why is that the case? And do you really consider that to be important enough to deny the project an administrator? "Grammatical errors on user page; another strike against." Well, Geni's (to pick the first example off the top of my head) page is chock-full of them, yet he was a very efficient admin (during the period he was an admin; recent events there are beyond the scope of this discussion). — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We're opposing people now because of a single syntax error in a template on the candidate's user page? (Sigh.)
  2. Oppose per his comment 'I would not speedy-delete anything that did not meet the CSD criteria, even if it was obvious junk'. Huh? Process following is more important than removing obvious junk? If the candidate has too little confidence in his own common sense to exercise it even in 'obvious' situations, then I see no reason to trust his judgement. --Docg 09:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And if he had said: "I will speedy obvious junk even if it doesn't meet the CSD criteria" then some other people would get nervous and oppose over it. RFA candidates are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Haukur 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming he said what he meant and not what he thought the audience wanted to hear. Your response seems to assume that this is a popularity contest and I've not leaving him any way to be popular. RfA candidates should tell the truth - and if the truth is process-wonking, and low confidence in their won good sense, they should be opposed. Perhaps they won't be - but they should be. I'm happy to be in a minority on this.--Docg 12:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure he's saying what he means, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm just saying that on some issues it's hard to say anything without annoying someone enough to oppose. Haukur 12:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. So don't try. We'll all agree on one thing: to oppose any two-faced politician. --Docg 12:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to state that the vast majority of obvious junk does meet the CSD criteria (most of it can fit under CSD G1 as nonsense, or A7 as no assertion of notability). But if there was any doubt, I'd send it to AfD rather than relying on my own judgement - I think that's what the concept of consensus is all about. I wasn't meaning to imply that I would practise "process wonkery", although I do believe that process is important. I hope that clears up what I was trying to say; sorry if I didn't explain it very well in my answer to the questions. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the CSD criteria aren't working, let's fix the CSD criteria rather than punishing aspiring administrators for following them. How can Wikipedia function, what happens to organizational morale, if people are punished for following the rules? Best, --Shirahadasha 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I've seen the user get involved in debates here and there and I honestly don't think the user has, as yet, the necessary experience and understanding of what Wikipedia is to become an admin. I think for me there are also question marks over how the user interacts with other users. Hiding Talk 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - I disagree with the 'benefit of the doubt' idea for CSD. The Behnam 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per question 9. A7 interpreted broadly? Please keep him away from tools that allow for deletion of content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not that I want to nitpick but the above two opposes are essentially "no, too careful with CSD", "no, too careless with CSD". I suspect that at least one of Behnam and Jeff have misunderstood Walton's point and maybe a clarification might be a good idea. Pascal.Tesson 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a valid nitpick given the circumstances. I've reviewed the changes, and I'm still a little concerned about it. I'll put more thought in over the next few days, but caving so easily to the criticisms of possible "process wonkery" (a dirty word at Wikipedia for absolutely no good reason) doesn't sit all that well with me, especially when it comes to issues of content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I got accused of "process wonkery" by some voters because I said I wouldn't speedy anything that didn't meet the CSD criteria, even if it was obvious junk. I was trying to address those criticisms. Unfortunately, I seem to have dug myself into an even bigger hole, having annoyed both the inclusionists and deletionists. I would therefore like to reiterate that I am neither, and I intend to follow the policies and processes laid down by the community as a whole. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We should also consider context. Walton monarchist89 does not have the mop presently, so right now it is about demonstrating profeciency of knowledge so that he can adapt it to use. After that, practice makes perfect. Assume good faith that the user is not going to willy-nilly delete things either by policy wonking or by being rouge. This is a trick question since there is no right answer. Having the bit is almost like starting over, or moving up "forms" (the user is British) to a different school. Teke 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Civility issues, and general lack of understanding of the purpose of userspace and WP:NOT. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose If being an admin is "no big deal", then why would the user want to even become one? Jmlk17 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er...I don't mean to be rude, but all I can say to this is, "What?" Seriously, what does this have to do with the RfA? Opposition is to weigh heavily for good reason, so some more explicit reasoning would be nice. If not, that's your choice. The user wants to become one so that he can do further work in the project that he currently cannnot perform, since it requires an RfA first to gain the buttons. Please do clarify for everyone's sake. Teke 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I'm no fan of WM's RfA stance either but I'm all with Teke on this one. At the very least, you should rephrase that opposition: any RfA candidate deserves better than such pettiness. Pascal.Tesson 03:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As this oppose was phrased as a question, I will answer it. I want to be an admin because I believe it's the capacity in which I can best serve Wikipedia. Adminship shouldn't be a rank or a status symbol, although it has inevitably become so. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have it at all. But as long as the admin tools are needed, then we need admins to exercise them. My penchant for !voting "Support, adminship is no big deal" in RfAs reflects my view that the process is too tough at present, and that most long-term, trusted users should be entrusted with the admin tools. As far as I'm concerned, this is just so that users like myself can contribute to Wikipedia to the best of our capacity. In any case, if I'd said "I want to be an admin because it is a big deal, and I want power and status for myself", then everyone would have opposed me, and quite rightly. I hope that clarifies my motivation. Walton Vivat Regina! 08:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per civility concerns and HighInBC. Naconkantari 06:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. 2000 mainspace edits a minimum. The encyclopedia is what this is all about. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral No doubt a good editor, but those diffs provided by Picaroon are worrisome. As an administrator, you should expect to face things that may outrage you. However, erupting on an editor's reason for deletion and accusing him of making a bad faith nomination, and then going on to say he should be reprimanded is a violation of civility guidelines. You could just as easily communicate your point by keeping your tone civil and providing your arguments in a persuasive manner. Also, the second link provided by Picaroon doesn't really look like a personal attack. Dgies felt that the focus of the user's contributions on Wikipedia seemed violation of Wikipedia policy, and he may be incorrect, but the manner in which he communicated his thoughts is by no means offensive. Nishkid64 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did apologise to Dgies about that, and my apology was accepted [8], as explained in my comment above. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral as per the diffs provided by Picaroon above. The civility issue is important for an admin, considering the number and variety of editors with whom one is required to interact. A cool head and civil tounge are as important as a knowledge of the policies and guidelines combined with the ability to apply them as required. (aeropagitica) 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - My impression of this editor is that he is a quality editor - civil, and well-informed about policy. However, I would like to see more direct contribution to article improvement - i.e., more mainspace edits. -- Pastordavid 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - adminship is no big deal. :) Really though, you are generally a very reasonable contributor, but I cannot support due to the recent shallow RfA votes, the inclusionist tendency to reprimand others at MfD (they're not uncivil but I think they come out the wrong way, though of course this is just an opinion), and Q5: re-listing a debate full of single purpose accounts is just likely to attract further single purpose accounts. You should consider the arguments themselves. Also it seems you wouldn't discount !votes that contradict policy (IAR?). –Pomte 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Opposed by Doc for saying that process is important and by jeff for saying that A7 can be interpreted broadly. Sounds almost middle of the road to me, but the combination of these opposes isn't quite enough to get me to support someone I don't know very well. Of the two oppose reasons, I think Jeff's is better; process is important and admins that respect it are far less likely to become problem admins. GRBerry 15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I do believe that process is important, and I would respect the community's wishes rather than deciding things on my own authority. If something didn't meet the speedy criteria, or there was some question as to its deletability, I'd send to AfD and let the community decide, as per correct procedure. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per Pomte's concerns and Picaroon's diffs. I also feel that this is a bit too soon since the last RfA, and had advised Walton previously (at least twice) to wait for at least another month until some issues had been sorted out. This request will probably pass, but I advice Walton to take note of the comments made here. – Riana ऋ 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. — CharlotteWebb 09:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - still not feeling the support, but upon further review, not feeling a need to oppose at this point for what was likely a misunderstanding on my part. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 20 April 2007 (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.
Category