User:Walton One/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Walton One (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

This is my sysop review - similar to an editor review, but with the specific purpose of having my actions as an administrator reviewed by the community. Please take the time to review my recent admin logs and recent contribs, and comment below on how I'm doing as an administrator. You can see my successful RfA from April here, under my old username.

You can also comment here on the articles I've written or expanded, although specific feedback on those should probably go to their talk pages.

[edit] Reviews

Please leave reviews in this section.

• You deleted a page I created for Creative 22 Records. Can you put that back up? How would you like me to "assert notability?"

• When speedying stuff, try not to leave the original content in the edit summary. Sometimes it's really bad stuff that cannot be wiped as easily as a bad revision of a page.
• Article work is good. Not concentrating on anything specific is good, just improving bits and pieces here and there. If I think of anything else later, I'll add it. Majorly (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, based on what I can see at first glance, I don't see any problems. I'll look through some of your admin actions to see though. Wizardman 17:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good, but it might be a good idea on pages that you delete as A7, to instead redirect them to a more appropriate page, such as a related topic or page that may provide more info. Occasionally this happens afterwards, but unless there is some attack page etc in history it is probably a better idea to redirect yourself. One other issue I noticed is using the move function for archiving - I remember seeing someone told off for this, so it probably isn't a good idea. Apart from that, everything looks good, and you are doing well :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• To prevent the onset of adminitis and to avoid burnout, consider spending more time in mainspace. As an admin, you should understand WP:FA, WP:GA and WP:DYK. I recommend that you run at least one article through each process yourself. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have taken one article to GA in the past (Politics) and one to DYK (Royal Navy uniform), but you're right that I have fairly limited experience of the higher end of the article spectrum, including none at all of the FA process. Walton^One 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Per things like this. I believe one of the prime traits of admins is the ability to revisit actions. Everyone makes "mistakes" or rushes comments occasionally. This is human nature and a wiki is bound by that nature. Your capacity to regularly revisit what you have done, including changing your mind, earns respect IMHO. I also note that despite having admin tools and wielding them regularly you have not lost sight of the joys of editing and creating new content; although you have asked for people to comment on your admin actions these are inherently based on the encyclopedia itself and I do believe that at least a minimal amount of encyclopedia building helps keep the aim of this work at the forefront of one's mind. Best Regards. Pedro |  Chat  11:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Mixing your status as an editor with patriotism like this is a really bad idea. Think it through, imagine an administrator who is loyal to Cuba or China or Iran or any country you don't particularly like. Do you likewise justify them putting their country's political interests before that of the encyclopedia? If so, you've just authorized an edit war on some of our most controversial articles. Heck, imagine an administrator who merely thinks it will be a catastrophe if a Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative/Labor/Tory gets elected - there are plenty of those. When you're here, you're an editor first. You can be human, you can have feelings, opinions, and so forth, but the encyclopedia needs to be most important. If it isn't, you need to return the mop. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record, I have never allowed political bias to influence either my editing of the encyclopedia or any administrative actions. The post you cited referred to a theoretical, extreme situation which would be unlikely to happen in practice, and needs to be seen in the wider context of that discussion. I understand the need for avoiding partisan political bias on Wikipedia, and I have never been accused of allowing my political stance to influence any of my actions as an editor. Walton^One 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)