Wikipedia:Editor review/Walton monarchist89

User:Walton monarchist89

Walton monarchist89 (talk · contribs) My last RfA, some time ago, failed because I didn't have enough experience of system-related tasks or enough awareness of the admin process. Since then, I've tried to gain more relevant experience by patrolling new pages, reverting vandalism, and working on dispute resolution with the AMA. My fields of expertise are history and politics, and in contributing articles on these subjects I've consistently maintained NPOV, and been applauded for some of my work on certain articles. I've also done minor edits, fixing links and clearing up the quality of written English on some pages. I want to know if it's worth doing another RfA, and if so, is there anything I need to do beforehand to improve my standing? Walton monarchist89 17:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews
Review by delldot:
Hey Walton, looks like you're doing a great job. Some points:

It looks from your talk page that you're friendly with other editors.
About RfA, most users like to see a span of at least 3 or 4 months between RfAs. If you make too many, you're thought to be "browbeating the process". About familiarity with process, you're a better judge of that than me, but here's a pop quiz: Do you know why many RFA !voters would have a problem with your answer to question 1? What would your answer be if you wrote it today? If I were you I'd wait 6 months and at least about 2000 edits, generally considered the bare minimum these days. The RfA process is brutal, check out WP:GRFA to see what I mean. You could also lurk around RFA and determine whether you are more like the people that are passing or those that aren't.
High number of talk edits, suggests that you're good about discussing changes on talk pages.
WP space and WP talk space edits are still low since your last RfA, which could come up as a problem in your next one.
Good use of edit summaries lately. You may want to change it in your preferences so that it prompts you if you go to save without one, so you can get that last few. Some folks in RfA look for 100% edit summary usage.
Nice work reverting vandalism. If you plan to make it a habit, you could use one of the antivandalism tools such as VandalProof. Also, always remember to warn vandals using warning templates. I noticed some cases where you didn't (e.g. [1]).
Very nice work creating articles. You're obviously a serious contributor. Don't forget to add categories to the articles and create links to it from relevant pages, so the article won't be lost.
I see you participate in xfd's, which should help a future rfa. It also looks like you're doing well with the AMA stuff. You seem to be familiar with policy per your posts on talk pages (e.g. [2]).
All of this suggests to me that if you take a few more months and make a few thousand edits in pretty much the proportions you have been, your next RfA will go splendidly. Keep up the good work! delldot | talk 17:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by – Riana ^ऋ

Quite honestly, I can't think of much to add to delldot's very thorough review. You're a good user, and will definitely make a good admin sometime in the future. Your answers to questions seem sensible, well-grounded in policy, and nothing troubles me there. I would, however, wait at least another few months between RfAs. The reasons for this are (a) you don't want to look like you're gagging for adminship. Even though we're desperate for admins (just check out some of the backlogs here and there), RfA voters still don't like people who look like they're too eager for the job; and (b) it's just best to give it some time, to show that you're truly sure of what you're doing, that all the mistakes/shortcomings/whatever from the first one have been resolved, and that you're ready for the responsibility. Second RfAs often pass with overwhelming success (a recent example would be Anthony Bradbury's second RfA), but usually only if you give it a reasonable length of time between them. So, basically my advice comes down to - keep your head down, work hard for another month or so (as in, keep doing what you're doing right now, 'cause you're doing great!), and consider waiting for someone else (preferably an established user) to nominate you, because this shows as a great gesture of confidence. I'd be honoured to do so, if you wish :) (and if you consider me an established user - yikes!) So yeah, keep it up, and a second RfA in say late April/early May should go really well! Cheers, – Riana ^ऋ 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
My contributions to political and history-related articles, such as Wakeham Report,Nobility, Absolute monarchy, Undersecretary, Afghan hijackers case 2006, Human Rights Act 1998.
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?
No, no real disputes, although I've worked on resolving other users' disputes through my AMA work (see my AMA desk). I've occasionally had mild disagreements with users who seem to be promoting a POV, but I've always backed down when they've provided sources. Basically I have a clean record where disputes are concerned.
What seems to be the issue with the Music Emissions entry? [3] It seems like I've got everything that you require but you've stated that it's "nonnotable". As I stated, in December our alexa rankings were up in the to 50,000 sites. Check it out. We get over 2000 unique visitors daily with 13000 page views a day. I've been on the web quite some time and I know this it notable. Please reconsider. Or let me know what I can change on the page to meet your standards. I think it is much more suitable than that of Stylus Magazine's entry [4]
Optional question from Riana: What sysop tools would you find the most useful, and what activities would you use them for?
My primary activity as an admin would probably involve closing XfDs and clearing up the speedy deletion backlog, as I have a lot of experience with the deletion policy and process. I'd also help out from time to time at WP:AIV (as I'm an established vandal fighter) and at WP:RFCN where I have some experience. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Riana: Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
I assume that "established users" would not include obvious vandals, for whom there is a clear blocking policy. As such, I would very rarely consider blocking an established user; the only time when I might do so is if they were in very clear violation of WP:3RR as part of an edit war or disruption campaign. Of course, I would never take such a step in a dispute to which I was a party, nor in a case where I had previously acted as advocate to a user involved in the dispute. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from Riana: Under what circumstances should a page be protected? Are there other methods to avoid protection?
There are different kinds of protection: full protection and semi-protection. Temporary full protection, where only admins can edit for a defined period, should only be used in three cases according to the relevant policy: enforcing a "cool down" period on a page that has been edit-warred, making a deleted article available (but not editable) for discussions at WP:DRV, and preventing abuse of the {{unblock}} template by users on their talk page. Generally, the first of these cases is the only one in which I can imagine myself using full protection, and again, I would only do so in disputes to which I was not a party. Semi-protection should be used for pages that are frequently vandalised by various new users/anon IPs, where blocking each of these users individually would not be a practical option. I would apply semi-protection where appropriate under this policy. As to other methods to avoid protection or semi-protection, it would always be preferable to block individual vandals rather than protecting the page. Obviously, neither form of protection should be used pre-emptively or unnecessarily, and it's usually best to avoid it and use other methods to resolve the problem. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from Riana: Kate's tool shows that you've been actively contributions for about 3 months. For many people, 3 months can be the bottom floor for adminship. How will you counter such concerns in a future, hypothetical RfA?
Tough question, but I would contend that the number of edits counts more than months of activity in terms of gauging experience. Furthermore, it's also worth noting that I've been a Wikipedian for well over a year (albeit only contributing regularly since December) so I have more familiarity with policy and process than the 3-month figure might indicate.