Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Walton One

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

Walton One

Final: (126/36/19); ended 10:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Walton One (talk · contribs) - This is a reconfirmation RfA.

While the community has not been exactly accepting of recent re-confirmations, hopefully this one can proceed without drama.

I co-nominated Walton for adminship successfully in April of 2007. Walton faithfully and diligently served the community as an administrator for seven months, desysopping himself in November of 2007. _{(Walton One (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)}

Walton may get into the convoluted reasons of why he resigned his bit in the first place and why we are here at a re-confirmation, the reasons are detailed and many (and discussion can be found here).

The bottom line is that Walton made a promise to seek re-confirmation and not just ask a 'crat for the bit back if any editor in good standing asked him to run again, so here he is demonstrating his integrity. Walton has always been a vocal member of our community in discussing the direction of the project, and served well and uncontroversially as an administrator. I urge the community to support resysopping. This request is not just seeking a pat on the back. Keegan^talk 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Unfortunately I can't accept yet - I'm going on OTC training camp and won't be back till Monday. However, I'll accept the nomination and answer the questions then. Walton^One 10:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, with thanks to Keegan for an excellent nomination. Walton^One 10:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: When I was an admin, I worked mainly in the field of deletions, predominantly CSD and AfD; I will continue this if the community grants me the tools again. I also occasionally worked at WP:AN3 dealing with 3RR violations. You can see my admin logs for a general overview of my work as an admin.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I haven't done a lot of writing lately, having been semi-inactive, but in the past I've started a variety of articles, ranging from major topics like History of Nebraska to more obscure ones like Royal Navy uniform (which was featured in DYK on the main page). I also substantially rewrote the major articles Politics and Conservatism (both very broad topics, and therefore difficult to summarise in an encyclopedia article). A full list of my encyclopedic contributions can be found at User:Walton_One#Articles_and_awards. Outside article-writing, I'm also fairly proud of the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter which is often referenced in MfD discussions.

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 freely admit that I tend to be opinionated and controversial with regards to how Wikipedia should be run, and I've had a number of heated discussions in the past (mainly with other administrators) in which I've been somewhat less than civil. This is particularly the case at MfD, where I'm often angered at ill-judged MfD nominations which end up driving away inexperienced users. However, I tend (both on-wiki and in real life) to be more predisposed to discuss than to act; hence I've never used the admin tools in controversial ways, nor engaged in edit-warring. I would also like to point out that, as the author of the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter, I believe in being civil and helpful to new users.

4. Hello there, Walton. Could you please take some time and explain your position here – Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That particular case was actually an exception to my usual stance at MfD, and I would possibly take a different position were I to comment on it now. The basis of my opinion, at the time, was as follows. Firstly, although the essay in question made a perfectly valid point, it was essentially redundant to WP:KETTLE (a very good essay, IMO). Ordinarily that wouldn't be a reason for deletion, as userspace essays are allowed, whether necessary or not. However, the second problem was the intentional vulgarity of the title. Although Wikipedia is not censored, the rule against censorship applies principally to encyclopedic content; it's intended to ensure that we are able to write full, balanced and neutral articles, without excluding information on the grounds that it might offend someone. Userspace content, in contrast, is not part of the encyclopedia, and so can in some cases be deleted on the grounds that it offends people or creates unnecessary divisions in the community. (For instance, we have in the past deleted userboxes which promote criminal activity.) I'm certainly not contending that the use of profanity in Wikipedia essay titles is a prima facie reason for deletion - WP:DICK and WP:FUCK are perfectly legitimate essays - but the profanity must be proportionate and necessary to the point being made. At the time, I didn't think it was.

I should probably further add, however, that looking back on that particular case, I'm not sure that I took the right stance on that MfD. As I said, it was an exception to my usual position (I tend to be something of a "userspace libertarian", since I hold the view that as server size is not considered an issue on Wikipedia, editors should generally be allowed to put whatever they wish in their userspace, provided it isn't offensive, inflammatory, libellous or illegal). I would also add that I think the closing admin interpreted consensus correctly, and as there is clearly a consensus among the community that the page is not grossly offensive or divisive, I would not nominate it for deletion now.

Sorry for the lengthy answer - I concede that I have a slight tendency towards excessive verbosity. :-) However, I felt I should give a full and clear explanation, as requested in the question. Walton^One 18:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. In the past you have made extremely clear your views that consensus should trump other considerations, and your rejection of positions of formal structural power on Wikipedia. In view of the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy, how would you react to a sysop who made a decision in a prominent case that appeared to violate consensus? Would you be willing to go against consensus, as administrators are often required to do? RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from someone other than the nominee regarding the absurdity of this question — The whole point of administrators is to enforce consensus. An administrator must never violate it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus is the guiding principle of Wikipedia's internal governance. There are many controversial issues on which well-meaning, experienced editors can disagree in good faith. In such cases, where there is no inherently "right" or "wrong" answer, it should be the community, through a process of consensus, which makes the decision. This is the general rule, and in general, administrators should use their sysop tools in accordance with consensus. Some discretion is granted, by consensus, to administrators - for instance, in speedy deletions, XfD closures, and summary blocking - but these discretionary powers should always be used in accordance with policies and guidelines, which are established by community consensus and derive their authority from the will of the community.

There are a few instances where an administrator might have to make a decision which appeared to violate consensus; for example, in enforcing copyright policies or BLP, both of which have real-world legal implications. However, one should bear in mind that the "consensus" on an AfD, where there are just a few participants, cannot override the broader consensus enjoyed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which are generally accepted by the community as a whole. This is one of the reasons why XfD is not a strict majority vote; admins closing XfD nominations need to ensure that the closure is in accordance with relevant policies, and sometimes this may mean that the majority view is not followed.

To return to the question, therefore, I would not agree with the idea that administrators are "often required" to go against consensus. The role of administrators is heavily circumscribed by policies and guidelines, laid down by community consensus. While administrators need to exercise judgment and discretion, they do not have unchecked power, and should not substitute their own judgment for that of the community. So I would generally be heavily critical of a decision by an administrator which violated consensus. (However, I would not unilaterally overturn such an action; wheel warring is always a bad idea, and we have processes designed for the purpose of appealing bad administrative actions.) Walton^One 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I have used the alternate account User:Walton 77 in the past, which is tagged as a legitimate sockpuppet of mine; when I was still in secondary school I used it for editing from school computers. I haven't used it for some months, however. At Deskana's suggestion I have also created the account User:Walton_monarchist89, my former username, to prevent impersonation; however, I have never used it for editing.

7. Should you ever decide to have the sysop permissions removed from your account in the future, would you vow to only receive them again after going through another RfA – or whatever the current RfA's successor would be? WODUP 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: That would depend on the circumstances. If the sysop tools are returned to me, it is unlikely that I will request their removal again at any time; I will simply be less active during term time. (Clearly it would be pointless and time-wasting to resign every time I became inactive; I only resigned in this instance because I expected to be inactive for a long period, and because of the other reasons explained on my userpage.)

If I request the removal of the sysop tools at any time in the future due to security concerns, or for any other technical reason, then no, I will obviously not pledge to go through another RfA, as there would be no need for it. As I said, it is unlikely that I will resign formally again for any reason, but if I do so, then the individual circumstances of the case will determine whether or not I make such a pledge. (Obviously, if I ever resigned in controversial circumstances (i.e. amidst allegations of wrongdoing), I would pledge to go through another RfA, as per standard community practice.)

8. Would you care to explain (briefly) in your own words what happened in 'the Melsaran case' and your involvement in it? If the same circumstances recurred, what would you differently? --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: My understanding of what happened in the Melsaran case is that User:Melsaran, an established user with no prior record of misconduct and no blocks, was blocked by order of the Arbitration Committee. An announcement to this effect was made by Jdforrester at WP:ANI. The only information provided at this time was that he had been blocked for "abusive sockpuppetry". There ensued a lengthy discussion at WP:ANI with several users questioning the reasons for the block. As to my "involvement", I would not say I was "involved" per se in the case; however, in the discussion at ANI, I was highly critical of the Committee's actions and demanded to be given more information on what Melsaran was accused of, and on the evidence against him. As I explained below, I now regret my reaction; in the long run I was proved wrong about Melsaran, and I should have assumed good faith and given the Committee time to resolve all concerns necessitating secrecy. I have apologised to Jdforrester and some other Committee members about this. I would like to reiterate that I did not use my administrative tools in relation to the case, nor did I contact Melsaran off-wiki or take any further action on- or off-wiki; hence I was not really "involved" in the Melsaran case. My involvement was limited to the comments I made at WP:ANI, all of which can be found in that page's archives.

9. At the time of writing your RfA is at ~80%, and there is a possibility it will fail. Given the great contributions that you have made to Wikipedia with admin tools, how will you feel if it fails? Will you be concerned that you can no longer help the project to the best of your capability, as you no longer have the additional tools? To whit, would you consider the possibility that you have let the project down by going through this process? Pedro : Chat 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. I will be disappointed if it fails, but I think that this situation actually illustrates the value of reconfirmation. There are several genuine opposes, from established users in good standing, who clearly feel that I ought not to have the admin tools. While I clearly do not agree with them, and I agree with you that I would no longer be able to help the project to the best of my capability without the additional tools, this does not negate the validity of their opinion. So no, I don't think I've "let the project down" by going through this process. If the community feels that I can best serve Wikipedia as an administrator, then this RfA will pass. If the community feels that I am unfit to be an administrator, then it will fail.

10. The vast majority of the opposition is based on your conduct during the Melsaran incident, including comments that may have been unhelpful or increased the drama. Given this opposition, would you consider this very recent comment to Jdforrester to be helpful, displaying good judgement and assuming good faith? Keep in mind that Jdforrester has only made a handful of edits in the past few days. Chaz ^Beckett 14:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. You're right, and I've apologised to him [1] - I didn't notice how few edits he'd made over the last few days and jumped to the conclusion that he didn't want to respond to me. However, I don't think I was grossly uncivil to him, and I did note in my original post that he should ignore the message if he just hadn't got around to answering me yet. I honestly do try to be appropriately civil to all members of the community, and I don't ever intend to increase drama or cause problems, but I'm only human and this RfA is causing me a lot of stress. Walton^One 16:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: But I do genuinely recognise that I shouldn't be pestering Jdforrester and that he is entitled to oppose. As noted above, I've apologised, and I won't pester him any further about it. Walton^One 16:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. In my opinion, you left in a huff of drama. What assurances can you give us that you are not returning with the intention of stoking further drama to prove a point? (I'm not implying that you will, or that this is your intent). — Coren ^(talk) 16:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify myself; I'm not entirely convinced that workload was your primary reason for leaving— you would have known then that you'd get more time now, and a short period away from the 'pedia doesn't seem like a very compelling reason to ask for a desysop. To my eyes, you left primarily in protest and I want to make sure you are not returning in protest. — Coren ^(talk) 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. I can see why you would think that. In retrospect, I had no real reason to ask for a desysop; it was a combination of lack of time to edit, increasing apathy, and frustration with the project. I didn't leave as a protest against anything, nor was it intended to be a "huff of drama". But I regret resigning when I did, and I agree with you that it has created unnecessary long-term complications which haven't helped the encyclopedia. As to assurances that I don't have the intention of "stoking further drama to prove a point", I'll have to ask you to trust in my good faith. I have returned to the project with the intention of continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia, and I believe I can do so more effectively as an administrator than as a non-administrator. It is true that I intend to continue participating in policy discussions, and putting forward my point of view about controversial issues within Wikipedia (including the need for more democracy and accountability in the community). However, I don't do this out of any desire to create "drama", nor do I have any specific "point" to make. And whether or not I receive the admin tools will make no difference to my ability to participate in policy discussion. I have no intention of using the tools in a controversial manner or to push a personal agenda, and my admin logs show that I have never done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walton One (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

See Walton One's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Walton One: Walton One (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Walton One before commenting.

Discussion

After reading through the opposes, perhaps it's best that everyone has a nice cup of tea (Iced, perhaps), and just cools down. Cassie Puma (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:opposing as an act of self-gratification: Whatever happened to assuming good faith? There is no overriding reason to assume Walton is in this simply for his own feelings. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from candidate. As it's turned out to be a concern, I feel I should explain my comments during the Melsaran affair, and why I was so quick to jump to Melsaran's defence and to condemn the arbitrators. I will concede that, perhaps, my judgment at that time was not especially good, and that I could have been more civil and conciliatory about it. However, as I considered Melsaran to be a good editor and a friend, and had never seen anything resembling misconduct from him, I was shocked by his sudden and unexplained blocking. This led to a fairly emotional reaction from me. And yes, I do understand fully that ArbCom has to keep some information private; however, I felt that they should at least publicise what Melsaran was accused of (all we were told was "abusive sockpuppetry"; no one at the time said anything about stalking, and we were never told who he was a sockpuppet of). It may well have turned out that I was wrong, and Melsaran was guilty of serious misconduct. But as I said in my reply to Nishkid64 below, I think Wikipedia, like any human community, needs people who will challenge authority and the establishment. So although I may have been wrong - and it wouldn't be the first time, by any means - I make no apologies for being argumentative (although I do regret being uncivil). I would also like to reiterate that I have never used the admin tools in a controversial way or to push a personal agenda, nor do I intend to do so. I will continue arguing, questioning and challenging authority whether I get the tools back or not, so regaining adminship will not make any substantial difference. Walton^One 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. After looking again at my participation in that debate, I'd like to apologise to the community for jumping to the wrong conclusion and for being excessively combative. I think my argumentative nature can be a good thing in certain circumstances, but I acknowledge that I made a mistake in this instance, and I'll try to react in a more measured, calm way in future to similar situations. I know that there is a line between being forthright and being uncivil, and occasionally I cross it; I am genuinely sorry for that. Walton^One 19:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just another comment; even if he is having this RFA just to make himself feel better, so what? He has already been a great admin and I have complete faith in him--20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

I don't know of anything Walton One has done recently worthy of desysopping. In a reconfirmation RfA, that's enough to get my support. Oh, and I beat the nom, but that's kind of not the point. --ais523 10:59, 10 December 2007 (U T C)
Kinda a no brainer :) SQL ^{Query me!} 11:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
though he's obviously going to have to explain why he resigned in the first place and why he wants to come back now. Nick mallory (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for resigning was lack of time to edit; there were also other reasons, which are explained on my userpage (notably some dissatisfaction with the way Wikipedia is going). However, since I now have a bit more free time, I felt I could be more helpful by clearing some of the admin backlogs over the holidays, as I explained in the Neutral section below; I won't necessarily be the most active, but an experienced pair of hands ought to be useful. I have also thought long and hard about my concerns about Wikipedia and whether I still want to serve as an administrator, but thinking about it, there are so many good editors and good admins who I trust and respect (Pedro, Dorftrottel, Xoloz, LaraLove, Delldot, Riana, Moreschi, EVula, and many more) that I still feel that I have a place in this community. Walton^One 11:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nick mallory (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thank you. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to trust Walton with the mop once again, and I think this RFA is an excellent idea, if only to dispel the perennial myth that (despite evidence to the contrary) any Request for Re-Adminship will be automatically shot down by the community. >Radiant< 11:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome back. Please don't make this a termly occurrence, though! Bencherlite ^Talk 11:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I see no reason why I would resign again. Walton^One 11:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and endorse Radiant's comment. Haukur (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People who say this is wasting their time don't actually need to come here, I'm sure they know that? :) No d'uh support, great bloke who was trusted and can be trusted with the twiddly bits, reconfirmation is kinda lame but what the hell. It takes me less time to say something nice about him than it does to bitch about this process. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darkspots (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome back. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bah Humbug Nick (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Former admin in good standing... of course. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and fully support the idea of reconfirmation. Shows user is accountable to the community. Thanks. Red rocket boy 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Switch to oppose. Red rocket boy 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Dureo (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Re-Confirming - Every admin should do this to see if the community still has trust in them and I mean ALL..--Comet styles 13:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noo, not really. Otherwise the oligarchy would not be able to perpetuate itself - total democracy is the antithesis of healthy nobility. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Democracy..whats that?..I thought it died 2 years ago O_O ..--Comet styles 13:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be fair to Walton, guys. He doesn't want the attention or love from another RFA - Walton really does believe all this democratic business. Personally, I disagree with Walton on quite a lot of stuff - but he's not an abusive admin or a troll, or anything foolish - he will not do harm. Was a person we need, still is. Just now and then the joys of unrestricted oligarchy must be fettered - and for that we need Walton. A gentleman of honour, though he must not take it all entirely seriously. There is nobility in laughter too...so welcome back. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support Administrator of the highest caliber -- dispassionate, measured, and kind. Also, I second the sentiments of Radiant! and Haukur: reconfirmations are a noble idea; even if they would be difficult to implement universally for practical reasons, those honorable enough to stand deserve only respect. Xoloz (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yay Democracy. It would be simpler to just bother a 'crat about getting the tools back, and I doubt any bureaucrat would deny the request. The Candidate stated that he would request the tools through RfA, and here we are, as promised. Integrity ++. I have no concerns about the user's use or future retention of the tools - though, honestly, I'd humbly ask that he take a wikibreak when busy instead of putting us through bi-annual RfA's. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA unnecessary, but I understand why you did it. --barneca (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stands by his word support I understand that this is totally unnecessary but he stated he would when he resigned it and he is doing it. His tenure as an admin was outstanding. spryde | talk 16:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Support for being a good admin, Strong for going through this process despite people hating it. If you have a problem with it go through the policy/process route, not adding POINTy votes. Wizardman 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Walton was, in my experience, - and will be again, if promoted - a good administrator. I'm glad that he's applying again, and though I agree that it would be simpler to ask a bureaucrat for the privileges back, I respect his choice to go through a reconfirmation that the community trusts him with administrator tools. I should, fairly, note that I might have a conflict of interest here - Walton nominated me for adminship back in May (which succeeded). Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to have you back! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support no reason not to, but please don't make this a habit. Dloh cierekim 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a good candidate, even though reconfirmation RfAs are unnecessary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Walton is a near ideal administrator. Little of my time was "wasted" by this "pointless exercise." It took me all of a minute to read his answers, consider his track record, and type my response. Where is this so called bureaucratic waste of time? I see someone with deep respect for the community honoring a promise. That's a very good thing. --JayHenry (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support — iridescent 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I strongly disagree with an RFA so soon after resigning but if we were too strict in choosing admins, we would have about 20, not 1,400. This person seems to be the best choice among the many that have RFA's now. Chergles (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Of course. Joe 18:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per nom. Keegan^talk 19:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support this nomination. Walton One was always a great administrator, and will be again. With his views on Wikipedia, he is willing to stand up to them but at the same time, won't hold a grudge or think negatively against people who disagree with him. I think this new RfA is a good idea: calling it a "you're great!" session is an assumption of bad faith, and I believe I know Walton One enough by now to know that he is speaking the truth when saying that this is not a "pat on the back". Walton One made a promise and kept it: it is extremely worrying to see someone get opposed for being trustworthy. Acalamari 19:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - You definitely deserve the tools back, I consider you an excellent contributer who is friendly, helpful, and as demonstrated recently - clearly trust worthy and not the sort of person who would ever abuse the tools. I have absolutely nothing against re-conformation RFAs and I do find your views on community consensus admirable; especially in the way you handle criticism of them. Good luck and welcome back! Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an experienced admin that shows no tendency toward abusing the tools. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though this RfA seems a little silly, I know that Walton will use the tools well. That is enough for me. Captain panda 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless support Secret ^account 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Acalamari. JavaTenor (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: RFA should not be necessary in this case; but since it's here... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The fact that this RfA is not necessary is not a reason to withhold it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here, you dropped your mop. The Transhumanist 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The candidate's answer to my question is more than satisfactory, but is in fact excellent. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although an RFA may be "pointless" for this user, I appreciate the process. Jauerback (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good user and agree with Jauerback. ^Mitch32^contribs 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing done wrong before the voluntary desysopping. Should get the tools back. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 22:38, 10 December 2007 (GMT)
Support without any reservations. - Crockspot (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- if adminship is no big deal, then voluntary de-admining and subsequent RfAs should also be no big deal. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no reason why not to... --Tone 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I see nothing wrong with asking via a reconfirmation process. Antandrus (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Give him back the mop! Bearian (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - definitely. jj137 ♠ Talk 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Keepscases (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Welcome back. Malinaccier (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and phooey on the editors who suggested you go through this process again. Next time, feel free to go inactive for a while without giving up the bit. Shell ^babelfish 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good strong reasoning skills. abides by the spirit of policy rather than just the letter. can definitely be trusted with the tools. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the concerns regarding your civility raised by User:Dmcdevit appear to be valid, but ultimately you could have requested your sysop bit back, and in that light, I feel this RfA is unnecessary. Maser ^(Talk!) 03:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Dmcdevit raises some troubling concerns; however, I'm confident in this user's ability to bounce back from his mistakes. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well-why-not-I-don't-really-expect-him-to-misuse-the-tools- support. Are fucking kidding me? Yes, Walton's got an attitude, which is more than can be said about many admins. So, unless he's really a User:Matthew sockpuppet, I tentativaly endorse this candidacy. Oh wait, wrong guy. I dorftrottel I talk I 06:04, December 11, 2007
Something of a real rationale: I think I know what some opposers mean by Walton sometimes being passionate and so forth. But apart from the fact that I trust him with the tools without hesitation, I think he's never been too passionate, not to a degree that would outweigh the positive side of having him as a user (and admin, for that matter). And, although this has nothing to do with Walton as a candidate (not in my opinion), I think being passionate is being condemned to an unhealthy degree. People should better differentiate between the good kind of being passionate (aka idealism) and the not-so-good kind of being passionate (aka drama). So yes, Walton has a lot of idealism regarding Wikipedia, shame on him or what. It's a good thing, and besides all his contributions, experience, fairness and fair-play attitude, it's the main reason why I personally hold him in high regard. Would he misuse the tools? No, and no one seriously argues this. Is adminship a big deal, as in "admins exert greater influence in the project than non-admins"? According to Jimbo, if I understand him correctly, no. If adminship is, in fact, not a big deal, and admins do not exert disproportionate influence then there's no reason not to support. If however Jimbo's principle doesn't hold, then we need to start evaluating and picking people with an attitude, and with the right kind of attitude. So I'm supporting for either of those two reasons, because either is a safe bet with Walton. Also, per Neil, if Walton wanted regular hugs and love, I for one would give it to him. Insecurity (which I don't see, and it's a weird personal attack to make) btw would still be better than the utterly unjustified self-esteem of lifelong fascist functionaries. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:53, December 14, 2007
Support - Although I do agree with most of the no-need-to-desysop-if-you-don't-have-time-to-use-the-buttons comments above (and below, for that matter). --jonny-m t 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've never seen anything that I thought resembled misuse of the tools from Walton. He's given me good advice when I've gone to him for it, and has always been very reasonable and kind in every interaction I've had with him. I don't think that this RfA is a waste of the community's time - if someone doesn't want to participate, can't they just ignore it? What's wrong with a person erring on the side of openness and discussion? And I doubt that you'd do something like this if you wanted a pat on the back; if he'd seen any other RfAs from similar situations, he'd know it can be an ugly experience. Anyway, we should really focus on what the result will be of giving someone the tools, not on what their supposed motivations for going through an RfA may be. I'm quite confident that the result will be good for the project. delldot talk 09:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.. You have been a good admin, so continue. However, do not resign again when you are busy. Admins do not have to their admin noses to the grindstone all the time. A low activity gap is quite acceptable. --Bduke (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd also have welcomed a simple call-the-crats solution as some people would have preferred, but as it now turns out there are actually also some real, substantial opposes, I'll make this an explicit support. Has been a good admin, even if in the Melsaran affair his judgment may have been questionable. Good admins are those that will occasionally stand up for unpopular positions too (even at the risk of their position then getting rejected). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nobody should be expected to be perfect, and I respect that Walton has stood by his promise to undergo another RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has spoken his mind when needed, but I have always viewed his input as sensible. Walton is someone I fully trust to respect community consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll support reconfirmation, but can all ex-admins please stop wasting community time and just ask a 'crat to resysop you? I think we're all a bit wary of them. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I feel that this process is certainly more courteous than asking a 'crat all things considered. I also believe that a successful RfA in this case will be a net positive for the 'pedia. Not too thrilled about the proximity of this to the desysopping but not a deal-breaker for me cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Standing for reconfirmation should not be an automatic oppose reason. As can be seen, there are potential other concerns, that Walton wants to check he still has the trust of the community. He has mine. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Editor has given justifiable reasons for resignation, and for seeking readminship through this means. Personally, I don't think his behavior necessarily merited de-sysop'ing in the first place, but applaud him on having displayed the character to seek adminship again through this means. At the very least, discussion of this fairly non-controversial "resysop'ing" might help define what are and are not just causes for someone to have to go through the process again. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No big deal. Majoreditor (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support See no evidence Walton has abused the tools and see nothing that makes me believe he will. Davewild (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - User will not abuse tools, nor will he hurt wikipedia. Tiptoety (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitly--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. In my times around Wikipedia, I have also looked up to and respected Walton as one of the most helpful, civil, and hardworking users/admins on this site. He always has had, and always will have, my complete support. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - While accept Dmcdevit's very valid commentary below, I don't see it as a deal-breaker here, more of a momentary lapse of judgement perhaps. Your previous work as an admin stands to you and you certainly meet all my requirements. - Alison ^❤ 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Was a good admin and will be again. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never agree with with you, but your admin logs speak for themselves - There's no concern that I've ever been aware of. I would urge you however to respect other peoples opinion as I often see you coming off as argumentative when it really isn't required. good luck Walton, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't bugger things up when he had the buttons already. This definitely doesn't mean that I feel all warm and duzzy about the needless wikidrama of a reconfirmation RfA. Let's not be making a habit of this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In my opinion, your strong record as admin outweighs the intemperate comments during Melsaran affair. Cheers.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to DMCDevit, I think Walton was just running his mouth and there's no real harm done if he doesn't actually use the buttons. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no problems with the user and believe he made the right decision in keeping his promise to go through an RFA. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support a net benefit. Trustworthy. - TwoOars (Rev) 15:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as per talk page "civilness". Although I don't usually like or accept requests to change my (!)vote, I am utilising this information with the impeccable records Walton had as an admin. Good luck. — Rudget _{Contributions} 16:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per answer to my question and to the one posed by Nearly Headless Nick. We all make mistakes, it's how we respond to them that counts. I also give you credit, rather than flak for choosing this route (when you could have chosen not to) when you must have known that some of your more controversial episodes would come back to bite you. Good on you. --Dweller (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know Walton, you're either going to be an admin or you're not. I support your re-nom but I do think this is waste of electrons -JodyB_talk 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dmcdevit (yes, I think his reason for oposing is that flawed) and these three about to pass ArbComm findings, we need administrators who will vigorously review doubtful blocks. The blocking admin had explicitly refused to say who they thought Melsaran was a sock of or to provide any evidence of disruptive editing. That made it an obviously doubtful block, and one that it was appropriate to review. The community has since made it clear in other cases that it has very low tolerance for blocking and blowing smoke and obfuscation in the community's direction. We need more admins who won't put up with that sort of behavior, not admins that will support it. GRBerry 20:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Not really thrilled with the behaviour concerning the Melsaran block, but not convinced against supporting by it. Please do better at this in the future. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support John254 05:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is really quite disturbing to see someone opposed because he doesn't blindly accept what Arbcom says, even if they have some sooper sekrit evidence. As we've seen recently, even people trusted by the community can be wrong. -Amarkov moo! 05:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone actually opposing simply because Walton didn't accept what Arbcom said? It seems to me that it's the manner in which Walton conducted himself during that incident that's causing some editors to oppose. I can't speak for anyone else, but if he had been calmer and hadn't made threats to unblock, I probably would have been neutral. Chaz ^Beckett 12:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone he liked had just been blocked on evidence he wasn't allowed to see. I understand that he could have responded better, but I don't see how it reflects that badly on him. Other quite outspoken people make fine admins. -Amarkov moo! 23:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He added unnecessary drama to already heated situation, displaying poor judgement and a tendency to let his emotions get the better of him. In any case, I was responding to your comment that Walton was being opposed because he didn't accept what ArbCom said. I'm just unclear on what you were referring to as "quite disturbing" since no one seems to be opposing Walton based on his stance against ArbCom. That's not an accurate statement (IMO) as it's his behavior during that incident, not the mere fact that he didn't agree with Arbcom, that's causing some people to oppose. Chaz ^Beckett 02:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support willing to question arbcom's decision where he had reason to doubt and information wasnt able to be seen, shows a person with integrity, a better choice of words would have helped. Yet this alone isnt my reasoning for I cannot ignore that he has voluntarily entered into this RfA reconfirmation shows even further that he stands by his principals. In the end RfA is about trust theres no doubt that Walton can be trusted. Gnan garra 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Walton, when you first mentioned this on talk, I said that I'd go neutral. Well, you said that you'd run another RfA if any editor requested it, and your defence has been since then that you are a man of your word and hence this RfA. So it looks like I'm not a man of my word. However on balance I strongly believe that you regaining the tools will be a massive positive for Wikipedia (per my question above). It means that I have to look a bit stupid and indecisive, but I must go back on my word for the good of the project. (This RfA is close now, and every support counts, so I'm not blowing myself up here - honest!). I still dislike reconfirmation RfA's, but the benefit to the project of you getting the bit back is far far bigger than my personal likes or dislikes. I see no value in grinding a personal axe when that will be detrimental to the wider picture. That goes against the spirit of being a Wikipedian. As ever, Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 16:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rigadoun (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I swear I thought you already were one! the_undertow ^talk 20:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was, just a month ago. They don't call this a reconfirmation fer nuthin'. Maser ^(Talk!) 23:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the much loathed use of 'cliche support' was so appropriate! the_undertow ^talk 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; everybody deserves a second chance and I assume good faith that resysopping this candidate will do more good than harm to the project. --John (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let he who has not stood up for his friends cast the first stone. --Step hen 23:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, simply to counteract all the "this is pointless" opposes. Walton One should not be penalized simply because Wikipedia lacks a formal reconfirmation process. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support has the good track record, excellent experience and good faith toward the project. Marlith ^T/C 01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support After looking through your logs, all seems pretty good to me. RMHED (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Welcome to WP:100. RfA votes should be based on the candidate and their qualification for adminship. Can they be trusted with the tools? Not your opinion on reconfirmation RfAs. If it's such a burden to vote in reconf. RfAs, then move along. It's disruptive to the community, in my opinion, to oppose a candidate because you disagree with their chosen method to get back their tools. It's also assuming bad faith to think they're looking for some pat on the back. Walton obviously has what it takes to be an administrator. He's also a man of his word. Lara❤Love 15:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This user with mob is better for Wikipedia than this user without. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: seems more balanced than many other admins. David Lauder (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support First, I'll echo LaraLove's comments on the reconfirmation process. A willingness to lay oneself open to the often harrowing process of RFA to reconfirm a past consensus is to be admired in an admin. As for the evidence here, I see a single patently bad incident (Dmcdevit's diffs). That's certainly not enough to outweigh a long history of positive contributions. Especially considering it was all talk, and no actual harm was done. VanTucky ^talk 19:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - despite having some concerns, integrity is still valuable. EJF (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - From what I've seen of this user they do a very good job! Good luck. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Disagreements about 'the best way' to handle uncertainty about continued community support for an admin should never be reasons to oppose a candidate. Whether Wikipedia could adopt some better procedure for this is a topic for discussion on the talk page and elsewhere, not for determining whether the user should be an admin. As to the complaints about opinions Walton expressed in the Melsaran incident... get over yourselves. Walton didn't engage in personal attacks. He didn't take any improper admin actions. He expressed opinions that some people apparently don't like. If we start suppressing difference of opinion we might as well pack it in. --CBD 21:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gave up the mop voluntarily and not under the cloud controversial circumstances. Has the courage to go through the gauntlet of RFA again. This is the sort of behavior we need to see more of in admins.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 22:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support His Wikipedia:Editors matter keeps me in the right mindset (although I still slip up quite often).--12 Noon ^2¢ 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, was a good admin before. Everyking (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per all above that there is not controversial circumstances involved in the giving-up of the tools previously. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support As per track and gave up the mop voluntarily like a true democrat and come back to the electorate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support reconfirmation of mandate. Under the circumstances there was a reasonable doubt of the community's confidence; but the opposes do not persuade me. I wish some admins who have never lost the bit would stand for reconfirmation; but then again, they might find they have lost the community's trust. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above Alexfusco5 18:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for value placed on community decision-making, and for demonstrated accountability and integrity. Tim Smith (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (moved from neutral below) That answer is good enough for me regarding drama; and Walton has shown he uses the tools right in the past. — Coren ^(talk) 17:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jhfireboy Talk 18:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Walton was a good admin. I think the drama related to the reconfirmation are silly; I wish he'd just asked for the tools back, but I can at least respect the wish to keep his word (though I think it placed a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the complaint). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Net benefit. Tyrenius (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The opposing side doesn't really give a lot of punches to the argument. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not think the argument carried on below over a single specific action is appropriate, and I don;t think this relates to the general suitability, which seems clear. Considering that some of the neutrals are merely because they thing the whole reconfirmation unnecessary and the adminship can be resumed without it by the B'cats, I think the consensus here is pretty apparent. DGG (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see nothing wrong with this user. :-) A nice set of contribs. Well done. Lra drama 11:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support -- (1) Rigorously examining admins who are up for recall or otherwise voluntarily submit themselves to re-AfDing has a perverse consequence: it punishes the very admins who demonstratively exercise restraint, respect the community, and leave themselves open to honest review while the admins who are not so collegial continue to hold their adminships in the absence of any formal remedy other than the rarely-invoked ArbCom. Walton is voluntarily submitting to what is an entirely optional RfA, despite the knowledge that it will provide a forum for whatever antagonists he's acquired over the years to voice their displeasure. As far as I'm concerned, our standard now should not be "would he make a good admin" but "would he be so bad an admin that, were he not voluntarily subjecting himself to a RfA, the community would find it necessary to desysop him?" To evaluate otherwise is to punish the honestly self-critical admins while rewarding those who keep themselves beyond the community's input. (2) As for Walton's passion on specific controversies that have occurred in the past, I believe the fact that Walton clearly felt so strongly on these issues yet did not abuse the tools to advance them is merely further evidence that he is well-suited for adminship. We should ask our admins to be impossibly perfect NPOV automatons that personally hold no opinions at all; rather, we should ask that they use their tools judiciously irregardless of their personal feelings. An admin who openly acknowledges and discloses their POV and consciously avoids abusing their tools is far preferable to one who, confidently self-satisfied of their own lack of bias, fails to recognize when their biases affect their judgment. - Orphic (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Walton only voluntarily gave up the sysop flag a month ago. This is a pointless exercise in self-gratification, and a waste of everyone's time. Frankly, if an admin is so insecure he needs regular hugs and love via a pointless rubber-stamping reconfirmation every few months, I'm not sure they should get the tools back. Neıl ☎ 14:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, and Keegan explained in the nomination statement, I am only standing for this reconfirmation because a couple of users felt that, having promised that I would abide by the principles of democracy and accountability, I should go through a full RfA. (See the discussion linked above at WT:RFA for more details.) Walton^One 14:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thread you mean is this discussion, where the consensus was 20-1 in favour of asking for the tools back at the bureaucrat's noticeboard rather than a pointless re-RFA. Neıl ☎ 14:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as I explained clearly at the beginning of the thread, if anyone objected to me asking for the tools back through WP:BN, I promised to have a full RfA. I agree with you that it would have been better if I had been able to go straight to WP:BN. But I believe that abiding by my promises and keeping my word is more important than convenience. Walton^One 14:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then my oppose stands for making a silly promise in the first place. Neıl ☎ 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you're opposing because he was honest and kept his word? Acalamari 00:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." - Oscar Wilde. We need less process creep around here. The very fact that you agreed to file this RfA indicates that you do not recognize this problem. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~By opposing it through this mean it just exacerbates the problem. WP:POINT? Wizardman 16:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)~~ Nevermind[reply]
Since when is opposing RfAs with legitimate concerns disruption? Sean William @ 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted his oppose as an oppose against the process rather than against the admin. I could be wrong though. Wizardman 17:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could be, and are, wrong. I am opposing the candidate for agreeing to this process. Kindly remove your insinuation that I am "disrupting Wikipedia". --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, struck my lapse of judgment, my apologies for that. Wizardman 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, agree with Neil. RFA isn't happy smiley Hallmark card time. It's supposed to be "srs bsns," for lack of a better phrase. Going through this when it wasn't necessary...no, I'm not down with that. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with wanting to get community feedback - in fact, I encourage it, as it helps both the candidate, as he'll undoubtedly get some good feedback on what he's doing right and what he needs to work on, and it also helps the community re-evaluate whether or not we need this person clicking a few extra buttons. However, there is absolutely no reason to voluntarily desysop oneself - if one doesn't want to use the buttons, just stop clicking them (look at my own logs, for example). We've seen too much of this desysop / resysop nonsense, and I'll not support anyone who perpetuates this unnecessary drama. Apologies for the tone, but seriously mate, if you didn't want to use the buttons, you should've just not clicked on them, instead of causing all this silliness. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you may be popular, and I don't doubt you have fine intentions and I appreciate your work. However, since you have put yourself up for community reaffirmation, I absolutely think regaining adminship not a good idea. Walton One was manifestly unhelpful in his commentary throughout the banning of Melsaran, who was banned for using sockpuppets to stalk other editors, or, in Walton's words "standing up to the Wikipedia establishment." Statements like threatening to undo an ArbCom ban, unfounded claims of his innocence despite the statements from ArbCom and CheckUsers "I am argumentative in discussion, and proud of it. Are you going to block me?", and glorifying and tolerating stalker behavior (he is still today listed as "sadly departed" on your user page) are not acceptable from an administrator. Dmcdevit·t 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, Dmcdevit, and it did bother me at the time the statements were made. What I weighed in regards to offering the nomination is that Walton did not use the tools to wheel war with ArbCom and did not follow up on any of the impassioned opining with on-wiki action. He was upset. In the month since giving up the tools I believe that Walton has truly learned that adminship is no big deal, and that the buttons aid in editing and not in politics. While being opinionated, he respected the decision and his philosophy change on his userpage reflects that. I can appreciate your opinion. Keegan^talk 07:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too understand your oppose and respect it. However, I would like to point out that I had no idea that Melsaran was using sockpuppets to stalk other editors, since we were not given any information at the time on who his sockpuppets were or what they were doing. So it's misleading to suggest that I view stalking as "standing up to the Wikipedia establishment", and I find such an insinuation offensive. When I said "standing up to the Wikipedia establishment", I was referring to the behaviour I had seen from Melsaran using his main account, which was at times argumentative and controversial, but not in violation of policy. I had no idea that he was engaging in stalking. I admit that, in retrospect, my comments were ill-judged, and you're perfectly entitled to oppose for that. But please don't suggest that I was trying to glorify stalking. Walton^One 12:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This 1) is not the correct of the facts, and 2) makes no sense to me in any case. Because you were not given the names of his sockpuppets (since ArbCom deemed it to be too sensitive due to the nature of his edits, after all) then you had "no idea" that he was using them? It's this inherent mistrust of "the establishment," to the point of making very unhelpful contributions to ongoing discussions, that is a problem. When presented with a ban from ArbCom based on reasoning with which you were unfamiliar, your response was not to try to understand the situation, but to make claims like "Melsaran was not, in any conceivable way, disrupting Wikipedia". And I find it misleading of you (that or, again, you are mistrustful of others to an amazing degree and simply didn't believe what ArbCom and CheckUsers told you) to claim that you had "no idea" at the time that he was engaging in stalking. Why is it that after Melsaran's sockpuppets were revealed, after the knowledge of his stalking was made public, and in a separate thread a week after the one where you made all those comments I quoted above, you responded by referring to it as "enforcement of petty rules"? See above in that same thread for the fairly detailed explanation by myself and others which clearly indicates that the stalking was publicly known. Dmcdevit·t 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted that out of context. My full statement there was: Maybe so, but if more people paid attention to the fact that editors matter more than the enforcement of petty rules, then we'd find it much easier to retain contributors IMO. (This isn't a comment on the Melsaran case specifically, but on Wikipedia as a whole.) This was in relation to the general topic of the thread, which was that some people may be banned on one Wikimedia site but actively editing on another. It was a general comment about the culture of the English Wikipedia. At the time of all the other comments that you quoted, I genuinely had no idea that he was engaging in stalking. Walton^One 14:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to quote you out of context, but I don't see how "if more people paid attention to the fact that editors matter more than the enforcement of petty rules, then we'd find it much easier to retain contributors IMO" can be construed as a comment on the possibility of other Wikimedia sites banning someone based on his banning here. In fact, it still reads like you think he should not be banned here. I find your reinterpretation rather hard to swallow, considering the "now sadly departed" comment on your user page currently about this user. And assuming that before that comment (not that that one isn't bad enough on its own) you weren't were genuinely unaware of stalking concerns, you were aware of of an issue that ArbCom found strong enough to ban for, based on evidence that was not immediately available due to privacy concerns, and your immediate response was one of combativeness while others with the same information were urging patience, and then to say you were proud of your combativeness. I just don't think you ever did, or do, fully appreciate the issues here. Dmcdevit·t 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point. After looking again at my participation in that debate, I'd like to apologise to the community for jumping to the wrong conclusion and for being excessively combative. I think my argumentative nature can be a good thing in certain circumstances, but I acknowledge that I made a mistake in this instance, and I'll try to react in a more measured, calm way in future to similar situations. I know that there is a line between being forthright and being uncivil, and occasionally I cross it; I genuinely regret my reaction in the Melsaran case. I won't expect you to change your vote, but I would ask you to weigh up the amount of work I've put into Wikipedia over the last year, and the good I believe I can still do as an administrator, against those concerns. I would also like to reiterate that I did not use my admin tools in relation to the Melsaran affair, nor did I do anything which was regarded as improper. Walton^One 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Walton. In response to this, I shall withdraw my oppose. The events, however were fairly recent, and so whilst I cannot give my support, I wish you good luck, and hope you become an admin again. Red rocket boy 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Dmcdevit. Ral315 (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dmcdevit. An administrator should be supporting the banning of abusive sockpuppeteers, not leaving Wikipedia in a huff over it. BLACKKITE 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dmcdevit. The fact that he enjoys arguing on Wikipedia (when it's not necessary) is a bit troublesome. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree that I "enjoy arguing when it's not necessary". Wikipedia, like any large community of human beings, needs people who will challenge authority and the establishment, and ask questions. Sometimes I turn out to be very wrong about things, but I don't regret arguing and questioning. I know that this is a controversial stance and will upset some people, but I'm being honest about my opinion here. But as I explained in my answer to q3, what I don't ever do is use the admin tools to push my own agenda; as such, regaining adminship will make absolutely no difference to how argumentative I am. Walton^One 11:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above - whilst admins aren't going to be perfect, they should at least keep calm in discussions like that. As it happens, the information with Melsaran was apparently too sensitive to be out in the open. ArbCom won't go blocking willy nilly - there's probably so much stuff they do that you won't know about, so if someone is blocked per ArbCom, grit your teeth and accept it. Or at least don't go saying you'll overturn the block without all the evidence. Sorry, but I can't support this. Red rocket boy 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Stricken, see below Dmcdevit's vote, thanks, Red rocket boy 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far too confrontational and hard-headed; seems ready to blow at any moment. John Reaves 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Dmcdevit. I remember the statements that DMcdevit linked to and thinking they were unhelpful and increased the drama level. However, I didn't remember that they were made by Walton until now. I don't think Walton and the project would be best served by returning admin tools. Chaz ^Beckett 13:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - after nearly abstaining, I oppose this re-confirmation per Dmcdevit. — Rudget _speak.work 16:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to support.[reply]
Oppose per Dmcdevit as well as my own observations in the Melsarian affair and other controversies. Jonathunder (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to undo an arbcom block, and refusing to accept he was wrong till he knew what Melsaran's socks were doing, are concerning to the point that I do not think Walton should be resysopped. I appreciate that he is going through rfa again (because it allows these concerns to be aired), and disagree with Neil's oppose. Picaroon (t) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing oppose. While the comments he made still concern me, the fact that Walton has apologized, and has stated this won't happen again, are steps in the right direction. I can't support, but no longer oppose, either. Picaroon (t) 21:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dom; perhaps we need to come up with a concept of a veto for such cases? James F. (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A veto? By whom, ArbCom? I'm puzzled, James. Once again, Walton did not wheel war with ArbCom. He was not desysopped. He bitched. So what? Did he lead a mass insurrection? Did he quit? Walton explained that he was upset because he was conversant with Melsaran. If someone that you communicate with and respect is blocked and you are told that you can't be told why, it would bother anyone. The degree of maturity in the postings are questionable, but the user has realized what has happened now. Veto? Good grief. This is a communal process. Keegan^talk 05:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh. Sorry, can't support. DS (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your actual reason? Acalamari 00:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit too political recently. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dmcdevit and Neil. --Storkk (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I'd like to elaborate my opinion. Walton One asked me to reconsider, and I have done so... my reasoning is the same as before; I'll try to flesh it out: I think Neil brings up a good point. One month is far too short a time to wait, considering the reason for asking to be de-sysopped. Why ask in the first place? There's no rule that an admin cannot take a wikibreak, especially for as short a time as one month. Dmcdevit also brought up some serious issues that I don't believe were adequately addressed: yes, an apology and a promise are a very good start, but unfortunately, in my experience it doesn't work that way. An apology and a promise most often lead to a broken promise. Be that as it may, had Walton One not promised to re-RfA himself upon de-sysopping, I would have had little objection to a crat re-flagging him. As it stands now, my !vote stays "oppose". Cheers, Storkk (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC) ... PS. Were this RfA to fail, and Walton One waits another couple months, I have no doubt that I would change my opinion (subject to nothing further happening like Dmcdevit's examples, of course). --Storkk (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Neil. Jeffpw (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Neil. A Train^talk 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normally this shouldn't be a big deal, and he really should have just asked for the bit back. But he decided to go this route, and it's not a huge deal either way. But we're here now and I think we have more argumentative admins than is healthy as it is. His self admitted argumentative nature just amplifies drama and polarization...it's already gotten him into trouble. It also sets a bad example for newer editors that see being argumentative is an acceptable way to communicate. RxS (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dmcdevit. I welcome and accept Walton's apology for his conduct over the Melsaran arbcom case, but it was a very serious lapse of judgement, and I'd prefer to see more water under the bridge before re-adminning Walton. If he can keep his cool for a few months and be less argumentative and confrontational, I'd look favourably on a fresh RFA in a few months. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect your opinion, I just wish to make clear (and others) that I did not use admin tools in relation to the Melsaran case, and I was not accused of any wrongdoing whatsoever. My involvement was limited to a series of comments on WP:ANI. I agree with you that my comments represented a lapse of judgment, and I apologise if I've misinterpreted your reasons for opposing - but I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't accused of misusing admin tools, and that I resigned voluntarily for reasons listed on my userpage. Walton^One 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't suggesting that you had misused admin tools. My objection in respect of that case is based on my concern about giving admin tools to someone who has demonstrated such poor judgement in relation to the functioning of wikipedia, and in particular wrt to the protection of editors from stalking by armies of sockpuppets. I have further concerns about your wider anti-establishment approach, of which this seems to be a part. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to agree with Dmcdevit and Blnguyen - just not comfortable at this time with his being admin after all the advocacy everywhere I look. No hard feelings though - I would reconsider at a future RfA if the situation at that time is different. Orderinchaos 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Neil and Dmcdevit. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dmcdevit. And to GRBerry, several Arbitrators weighed in and said the block of Melsaran was based on confidential evidence. Walton did not independently review and investigate a potentially bad block made by another admin, he stirred the pot and acted as though he was in a better position to know whether the block of Melsaran was bad than the Arbitrators who endorsed it. Independence is good but not to the point of disruption and useless drama. Thatcher131 01:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dmcdevit, far too confrontational. An admin should do his best even when in disagreement to avoid wikidrama and advance his arguments calmly and avoid throwing gasoline on a fire.--Aldux (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the questions, answers, and comments of !voters, I feel Walton One is of a certain personality type not suited to adminship. I fear he'll make decisions based on emotion rather than reason. This is an increasing problem in the "community" here and we need to discourage it, not encourage it. Friday (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - The whole "anti-establishment" POV is bothersome. And I'm not referring to Dmcdevit's comments (an event that I only vaguely recall now that it's brought up), but rather from several discussions concerning RfA (such as this one, and somewhat here). Your stated distrust of bureaucrats, and anyone in "power" is just bothersome to me. That said, I almost was "neutral" per User:Moreschi's support comments, but this question nags at me: If you don't trust anyone in "power", why are you asking to be an admin, which, following your reasoning, could be considered such a a position? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? - jc37 21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be an admin, not for the "power", but to help Wikipedia with various administrative backlogs. Admins do have a certain amount of discretionary "power" regarding things like blocks and deletions; but I tend not to use the blocking tool very much, and most deletions are uncontroversial and don't involve the exercise of great power. I'm not requesting adminship as some sort of political office - indeed, I would never use the admin tools to promote my personal agenda about how Wikipedia should be run, and if I did then I would deserve to be desysopped. The only wiki-political "power" that interests me is the power to participate in policy discussions, and the admin tools have nothing to do with that (and I will continue to actively participate in policy debates whether or not I regain adminship). So please don't view this RfA as a referendum on my wiki-political stance - I've just requested the extra tools so that I can continue helping the encyclopedia to the best of my ability. Walton^One 09:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the trouble. In many ways I have no problem with trusting you. In my opinion you're a well-meaning Wikipedian, not out to cause harm. (Hence my comment about Moreschi's comment.) But one thing that I prefer is an admin who knows policy, or lacking that (since they could learn "on-the-job"), that they learn and follow policy. You don't wish to. As a matter of fact, there are some fundamental things about Wikipedia which you selectively don't follow, and are clear that you don't wish to. I know that some people find it funny and cute, but in the end, what sort of double message does that send when you're closing discussions? I'm a firm believer in WP:IAR, but at the same time, there's a time and place for it. When you're closing discussions (whether on a talk page somewhere, an XfD discussion, a RM discussion, doesn't matter) how can we all be certain (how can we trust) your closures, considering your personal POVs? - jc37 12:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do know policy, and I do follow policy as an admin even where I disagree with it. If you review my admin logs, you will find that I was a fairly uncontroversial admin; I only ever had one XfD close overturned at DRV, and I was never accused of making an unjustified block or unblock. I might disagree with the standing policy on particular issues, but I believe that admins should always respect community consensus, even where it doesn't accord with their personal views. In discussion, I express my opinions, sometimes forcefully; in using the admin tools, I follow established policy, guideline and consensus. Walton^One 13:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to neutral per your comments directly above. I don't oppose lively debate, indeed, when it can be a positive thing, I welcome it. My concerns were/are in how you apply your beliefs and POV to administrative actions. I'm changing my "vote" to neutral. And I hope that I never find reason to regret this choice. I wish you well : ) - jc37 15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I should mention that I don't distrust everyone in "power". I dislike the concept of bureaucratship itself (it's an unnecessary position IMO), but I trust some individual bureaucrats (WJBscribe and Cecropia, for instance), and some individual arbitrators and checkusers. I just happen to believe that those who hold power, however trustworthy they are, need to be questioned and challenged in order to ensure democracy and accountability. Walton^One 09:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you've heard this before, but WP:NOT a democracy. - jc37 12:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. That is an example of a policy which I oppose in principle. However, it doesn't affect my behaviour as an admin (I don't close XfDs as if they were votes, for example; they are not votes and the community does not treat them as such, so I abide by community consensus). Walton^One 13:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Neil. Mindraker (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — per Dmcdevit. --Agüeybaná 15:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Neil and Dom. east.718 at 00:59, December 15, 2007
Opposeper Dmcdevit. However, I have no problem with him asking for another RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not this one? the_undertow ^talk 12:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that Rlevse meant he doesn't think I'm suitable to be an admin, but that he supports my decision to go through a reconfirmation RfA, rather than just asking a bureaucrat for the tools. (Apologies if I've misinterpreted this.) Walton^One 13:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading it again, I think you are right. The wording somehow shattered whats left of my grey matter. Thanks. the_undertow ^talk 22:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, per Neil and DMC and also because ultimately Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not about struggling to overthrow a power base. It used to be said that if you don't agree with the structure of Wikipedia, you have the right to fork. I don't hear that so much anymore, but it's still valid. I can't really trust an admin who is so openly agitating towards political ends. There's no rush to regain your bit. Hiding T 17:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree regarding your statement that "if you don't agree with the structure of Wikipedia, you have the right to fork." While this is true, it's also true that Wikipedia is pre-eminent among online free resources and is used by millions of people per day. Accordingly, I care about it, and I care about how well it's run. If all internal disagreement were abandoned and all those who disagree with the existing power structure were to leave, or to set up their own competing projects, then Wikipedia's quality would decline as it lost good editors. That is why I don't want to fork or to leave the project, and I want to continue participating here; certainly I accept that I have to work within the rules, and I would never use my admin tools in a way not permitted by policy. But as an editor, I intend to continue participating in discussions and putting forward my views on how Wikipedia could be better run.

I strongly agree that Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. That has been the focus of most of my contributions here. But I don't see a dichotomy between that and wanting to change Wikipedia's power structure, as I believe that changing the power structure would lead to a better encyclopedia.

On your final point - that there's no rush to regain my admin bit - this is true, and I'm not personally that concerned about whether this RfA passes. I'm not doing this for some kind of personal status or glory. But I feel I can help Wikipedia more as an admin than as a non-admin, by helping clear backlogs etc., which is why I'm doing this now rather than in a few months time. Walton^One 17:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reasoned responses. For me the key thing is our editing policy, which asks that "it is best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles". Since you've indicated that you will continue pursuing your agenda for change, I feel this would be to the detriment of the encyclopedia, and I feel I must still oppose. Wikipedia is not a battleground nor a forum, and it doesn't matter how the encyclopedia gets written, only that it is written. I'm not that bothered about backlogs, they have a habit of sorting themselves out. As to good editors, they come, and they go. I've seen too many damn good editors go to fret any more. It may be that more leave under a different style of "management". Who can tell. I find it best to be an m:eventualist. All the best, Hiding T 15:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion on this issue, and I agree that improving articles should be the most important priority (and I've done quite a lot of it in the past). But I must disagree that "it doesn't matter how the encyclopedia gets written, only that it is written." As I tried to get across in the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter, editors are our most important resource; without good editors to maintain it, the encyclopedia would fall apart. To recruit and retain contributors, we need to build a strong community. Those members of the community holding positions of trust (administrators, bureaucrats, ArbCom, checkusers etc.) have the potential to do massive harm to that community and to drive contributors away, if they make the wrong decisions. As such, we need a democratic, accountable structure so that such people can be held to account by the community. There's also a moral dimension; the members of the community, collectively, write the encyclopedia, and we therefore IMO have a moral right to decide collectively how it's run, through a democratic process. I know this won't change your vote (and indeed, if you really believe that my agenda for change would be "to the detriment of the encyclopedia", then you're quite right to oppose me), but I just wanted to explain why I believe what I believe, and why I take the risk of reducing my own standing in the community by taking controversial stances on many issues. Walton^One 17:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We asserted our moral right to decide how the community is run. We stated it would be run through the wiki process. That's a foundation principle. All admins are supposed to agree with them. If you don't agree with that fundamental proinciple, for me, and I say this with respect, you have no reason to ask to be an admin. An admin is expected to have read m:Foundation issues and to agree with them. Your expressed views put you at odds with them to my eye. Hiding T 22:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been sitting on the fence for most of the week, but Walton's recent responses here tip me this side. Oppose per Blnguyen and Hiding. – Steel 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - unfortunately a bit too brash at times. --krimpet ✽ 00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dmcdevit, Neil, and others above. I've been sitting on the fence all week with Steel and I actually came here now after finally deciding to support but reading through the comments here and the snarky comment on James's talk page, I just can't support. It looks like you'll get through anyway, Walton, but please do keep in mind the concerns raised during this RfA. Sarah 00:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was Keegan that made the comment to James, not Walton. Thanks. Red rocket boy 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're referring to but I think you might have misunderstood me. The comment to James that I was talking about was this one, which Walton subsequently apologised for, but I don't like his tendency to make that sort of combative, accusatory comment in the first place as it really rests in an assumption of bad faith. I have noticed this tendency in Walton before, many, many times, in fact. Sarah 01:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - see James's oppose above, where Keegan responds to it. I thought you meant that - sorry! Red rocket boy 02:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, no worries. I just clarified my comment above to say that I was referring to the comment on James's talk page. Thanks, Sarah 02:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the issues and arguments raised above; I think this is too early from a sudden resignation. Jmlk 1 7 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Iconoclasm, as opposed to questioning authority when there is a specific basis for questioning, is not helpful. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Manifestly not competent to be an admin (per multiple comments above). Should not have been made one in the first place. Raul654 (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DMC-devit, as well as what's saying you're not going to just desysop yourself again in the near future? There's nothing wrong with resigning from adminship, but desysoping yourself just to go back through RfA a month later makes me question your motives. I'm not convinced, give it a few more months and I may reconsider. Mr Senseless (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral Why did you resign? What's to say you won't resign again? What changed to make you want the bit again? If you're not very active, why do you want to be an admin? AKAF (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't very active during term time because I was busy in real life (Oxford's academic schedule tends to be very intense, and I'm also in the OTC as explained above). I will be active over the Christmas holidays, however, and would like my admin tools back so that I can help clear backlogs. If the community doesn't want me as an admin again, then it doesn't bother me all that much - but I just thought that an experienced pair of hands would be useful. Walton^One 11:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for Heaven's sake, don't waste our time with another RfA. Ask a 'crat, and get the tools back. You were a good admin before, and I've got no reason to believe that you'd stop being one. Sean William @ 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Sean William said. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 12:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to urge all sysops in the strongest possible terms not to make promises to stand for reconfirmation or to do so, unless significant objections to their adminship exist. The fact is that we have never had a reconfirmation process, we have collectively made it clear on many occasions that we don't want one, and it is detrimental to the project to have these meaningless exhibitions all the time. It bothers me even that the word "reconfirmation" is used in this RfA, as if that were a concept the community recognized. If returning admins want, they can always have an informal request for opinions like the one Walton did earlier, and which should have been sufficient. Chick Bowen 17:30, 10 December 2007
Speedy close and call a crat. No need for this reconfirmation. Hús ö nd 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that mention. This process is un-needed. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Walton has clearly stated he wants to run through here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. He shouldn't have. Hús ö nd 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and resysop. You've already been shown to be a capable administrator. Why not just head to WP:BN and request a resysopping? bibliomaniac 1 5 23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Walton has clearly stated he wants to run through here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of spending time here, it would be more productive for us to be reviewing other RfAs or improving articles. Dekimasu よ! 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the concerns expressed by Dmcdevit. I would otherwise have opposed, but I think that you were a fine admin beforehand, so neutral. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Seems like a great former-admin, but dmcdevit does bring up legitimate concerns. However, this just seems like an attempt to get on WP:100. Yes, I'm aware that he said he'd run through RFA again. I guess I'm more opposed to the process than the candidate, which is why I'm neutral on this one. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning to oppose Sorry, but it's been barely a month since you resigned. I just can't believe that you will not resign again, and I neutral also because of Dmcdevit's diffs, which makes me think you have a few civility problems. I believe that all admins should help the project and be civil, but those diffs don't prove that to me. I'm truly sorry, but I just don't really think so. —Jonathan 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protest neutral against reconfirmation RfA's. Regardless, I'd probably be neutral anyways per Dmcdevit and then Walton's 18:27, 12 December 2007 response which deals with the most serious part of the concern but still leaves a little bit of a sour aftertaste which stops me from supporting. Daniel 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per concerns raised by Dmcdevit. Mr.Z-man 01:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning strongly towards support C'mon, Walton. Talk to a 'crat. This RFA, if it fails, will just show future Wikipedians what promises not to make and will deprive the tools from somebody who has used them well in the past and should continue to do so. I'm only Neutral because I believe this RFA is a waste of time and is contributing to the unneeded bureaucracy here on Wikipedia. --Shark face 217 05:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Just get a 'crat to do it. Any admin who has used their tools can come up with at least one person who doesn't want them to be given the tools back. RfA's for this purpose are really a waste of everyone's time. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - not to go all generalising here, but I think reconfirmation RfAs are, in principle, a great idea, but in practice a waste of time and create drama. So going neutral on principle as a protest comment. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - per my comments under "Oppose" above. - jc37 15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/support per Sharkface. --Kbdank71 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral since I think wiki-drama is a bad thing and that as editors have noted above, this RfA is not necessary. That said, I cannot in good conscious oppose someone who is trying to be more accountable. Epthorn (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending a response to my question above. I realize it was asked at the bottom of the ninth, but I have just now been made aware of the RfA. — Coren ^(talk) 16:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Moving to support per answer to Q11. — Coren ^(talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral You were overall a great admin, but you handle the Melsaran incident poorly in regards of the ArbCom block. Also, there is no need to go through this again, as editor review is around the corner. If you ever get dysysoped again voluntarily, ask a bereaucrat for your tools back. Due to the ups and downs, I must remain neutral. PrestonH 23:50, 16 December 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.