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

Cameron11598[edit]

Final (20/23/4); ended 03:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC) - withdrawn by candidate TonyBallioni (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Cameron11598 (talk · contribs) – It gives me great pleasure to present Cameron11598 to the community to be considered for access to administrative tools as the first RfA of 2018. Cameron first registered in 2012 2008 on his old account User:Cameron11598(alt), and has been editing consistently April 2016. I first came across Cameron when I was reviewing his Olympics GAs and was impressed by his work to improve coverage of under-represented areas on Wikipedia and his willingness to work through the minutia of sourcing on these topics. He's brought Djibouti at the Olympics to good topic status by bringing all every appearance of that country at the Olympics to GA status, and working on bringing three other countries Olympic articles to good topics.

I've since come to know him better and have become impressed with how calm he is in stressful situations, meeting my number one requirement of having a good temperament. While his CSD log is a bit shorter and bluer than I prefer, his willingness to assume good faith in situations with new users and his desire to work in AIV I think outweigh this, since his main focus will be on vandalism: knowing when to block and not block is one of the most important judgement calls for an admin, and I have no reason to think that Cameron would ever abuse that tool or be trigger happy with it. In short, I think Cameron would be an excellent addition to our admin corps and has the right combination of temperament, willingness to help, and content work to be much more than a net positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination[edit]

I'm deeply honoured to co-nominate Cameron11598 for adminship, and I would like to spend a moment of your time explaining why you should support him today.

Cameron is a well-versed Wikipedian, with countless contributions to our content under his belt - articles such as those mentioned above (and a fair few more) which he has helped bring to GA, along with those he improves ad-hoc. Along with his mainspace work, he has worked extensively in areas such as AIV and UAA, and has helped keep Wikipedia clear of those who wish to disrupt it. I believe this shows not only a commitment to "build" Wikipedia, but a "need for the tools" to compliment his work in counter-vandalism.

Cameron also works over at OTRS and ACC, assisting existing editors and helping new ones create accounts. His work in these areas has helped increase the breadth and depth of his knowledge in areas such as the username policy and those surrounding image permissions.

I wholly believe Cameron would make a great administrator - one who has ample clue to both competently act as an administrator and to know when to step back. I hope you will join me in supporting him. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words Tony & There'sNoTime. I accept. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well this doesn't appear as though it is going to be successful. I'd like to thank everyone who has participated, the opposes in particular have given me some great constructive feedback. With that I'd like to ask that someone close this as withdrawn for me. Thank you for your time. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I’ll stick mostly to the areas I’m familiar with, answering protected edit requests and AIV to start with. If I pass RFA I’ll eventually branch out into other areas as I feel more comfortable with the work. I don’t plan to jump willy nilly into things. I will definitely do my research and seek others advice before I try to branch out into an area I may be unfamiliar with. I also have experience with permissions through my work on OTRS, and hope to start getting more involved in the file name space.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I’d say my best content work would be my efforts in getting Djibouti at the Olympics up to a good topic, and the other GA’s I’ve written for smaller countries that have competed at the Olympics that are often overlooked.
However I’d say my most impactful work I do on Wikipedia would be the work I do at the Wikipedia Library (OUP & Newspapers.com). I provide editors with access to resources they may not be able to utilize on their own either due to the cost or they simply aren’t provided locally.
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: One conflict that sticks out is this. I injected myself into a situation I wasn’t involved in with the intent of offering some advice to diffuse the situation. I disengaged from the conversation two comments later. However, I probably should have just left when I realized the advice I was giving wasn’t going to be heeded.
I may have been a little bit pointy with the WP:IDHT comment, but after that I just disengaged from the conversation because I didn’t think anything I could say would be productive in the long run. In the future I’ll try to react without getting pointy, and disengage earlier. If it is something I feel needs administrator action I’d ask another administrator to look at it or I’d take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI for other administrators to handle.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Alex Shih
4. Your nominator has complimented you on your calmness in stressful situations, yet I could not really find any examples that could illustrate well that finding in the AN/I archives where your topic edits reside, as pointed out by Iridescent. Do you have any other better examples? Because frankly, I find your answer to #3 very sub-standard; your advice wasn't really that helpful, and your disengagement was nothing short of simply running off. Administrators often have to take the leading role in dispute resolution, and I would like to ask if you have these kind of experiences?
A:Hello Alex, Thanks for the question and boy is it a tough one. However I think it is a fair and to be honest good question, it provides opportunity for self reflection which can hopefully provide me with an opportunity to grow.
As to my Answer in #3, looking back on it today versus back then sure my advice doesn’t seem helpful, but my intentions were to try to deescalate the issue. Sometimes being blunt isn’t the answer as it will only inflame a situation which is what I thought would happen here. As to it being running away, I can understand that assessment however I viewed it at the time and today still view it as disengaging from a conversation where I would only end up inflaming the situation eventually leading to hard feelings all around, and perhaps an editor getting blocked.
As for “Do I have these kind of experiences?” unfortunately I do, however most are surrounding OTRS work, which can’t be discussed on wiki. This isn’t unique to just myself at OTRS but OTRS volunteers in general often deal with those who are irate or understandably peeve’d by something they have encountered on Wiki. I find that when I have patiently answered questions and explained the situation in whole with perhaps another perspective and explained the policies behind the outcome they are often amenable and understanding of why something is the way it is. Sadly most of these are situations where someone could have been more patient with a newbie than they were. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Eggishorn
5. Iridescent below mentions your activity at the Administrator's Incident board. This is obviously a part of admin-hood and a good place for non-admins to demonstrate their grasp of both the policies, guidelines, rules, etc. and (perhaps just as importantly) the unwritten rules of the project. Are their any ANI discussions where you feel particularly satisfied with your contribution? Whether you helped mediate a dispute, or reported a situation that need admin tools to resolve, or defended some-one unfairly targeted, or for any other reason? Thanking you in advance.
A:this incident while a bit older comes to mind and has really stuck with me. I tried to suggest every possible action under policy short of a block. I really think if the editor hadn’t been so insisting on being indef'd this could have had a better end result not just for them but for everyone involved. Unfortunately the end result was that we lost what could have been a constructive editor.
I’m a strong proponent of trying to resolve things without anyone getting blocked, I think we should really be talking more and blocking less on this project. I’m not saying how the issue was handled was wrong, but just that the end results were saddening. To further that thought, I think each and every constructive editor is irreplaceable, and should be valued. We should be striving to retain editors not trying to chase them away. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Usernamekiran
6. You created the article San Joaquin Valley Library System in June 2010, which you nominated for deletion in June 2016. I'm curious, what happened in these six years that you nominated an article that you had created? Your nomination states it doesn't meet GNG, then why did it take you 6 years to nominate that article? I mean, notability is permanent. If it didn't meet GNG at the time of nomination, then it certainly didn't meet GNG at the time of creation, and the for the six years that it existed. Why didn't you nominate it earlier?
A:In June 2010 I was still what I’d have considered relatively new to Wikipedia. I created the San Joaquin Valley Library System article with the hope that I’d be able to expand it with sources as time permitted. Long story short I had some real life issues pop up and I disappeared for quite a few years from Wikipedia. In June 2016 I revisited this article with the hopes I’d be able to do some research on the Library System. As I tried to research the subject I discovered sadly there were very few sources on the Library System.
Now as to what changed, with the article and available information; not much which was part of the issue. What changed with me? I had developed a better understanding of our General Notability Guidelines which is what, regretfully led me to sending the article to WP:AFD. Unfortunately try as I might, despite my desires, the Library System just didn’t have significant coverage --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support. I see nothing in this editor's history that would give me any qualms about handing him a mop. bd2412 T 18:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support I’ve interacted with Cameron on numerous occasions primarily on IRC (in my role as GC) and have always found him to be trustworthy and competent in helping other users and fair when dealing with disputes. I feel like they’d make a great addition to the admin team. --Az1568 (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support: Cameron11598 is an editor with valuable experience in many areas of the project, and communicates effectively and respectfully. They're clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and have the experience and temperament to handle the tools responsibly. Waggie (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support per nom. Jianhui67 T★C 18:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support Nice red csd log and green afd logs. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 18:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support per cabal. Good content work, but also definitely familiar with Wikipedia-space. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support - I'm sure Cameron11598 could use the tools well. My one concern is all the participation on ANI, but reviewing his contributions there shows generally sensible comments. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support as co-nominator. The opposes so far, whilst highlighting areas for improvement, don't rise to the level of suggesting Cam would not make a fine administrator. He has always shown himself willing to learn in any situation, and I wholeheartedly believe he has the project's best interests at heart -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't want to stick the knife in too much, but the conversation I quoted below in my oppose was the last I heard from Cameron - he was obviously upset and appears to have admin-shopped to somebody with lower standards. :-( Admins need to be accountable for everything (within reason) and not slink off when somebody gives them some harsh (but IMHO fair given I'm not the only opposer) advice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support - I am very familiar with Camerons work and have no concerns that he will abuse the tools. He is a WP:NETPOSITIVE for sure. -- Dane talk 20:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support - nothing in the opposes is convincing to me that the candidate will be anything other than a net positive with the tools. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support. This isn’t particularly well presented in the nomination statements because it’s a niche area, but Cameron is a great file namespace editor who contributes in the heavily backlogged permissions queue of OTRS. Admins are badly needed in that area, so there is a strong need for tools. ~ Rob13Talk 21:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Rob, I only see 64 edits in file namespace, just 0.7% of his total edits. Has he needed to ask for admin help to carry out his work here? I understand that this is a neglected namespace and a lonely place to work, I did my time there a few years ago. wbm1058 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some of the work is on Commons but represents expertise easily applied to our file namespace. Some of the work is deleted. Much of the work is on OTRS, which involves declining permissions or asking for more detail much more often than accepting permissions. And yes, he has asked me on IRC to handle several things that have required admin intervention. Keep in mind it's very hard to work in the file namespace without admin tools. Participation at FfD beyond nominating files is unnecessary, as most discussions are not based on consensus but on copyright law. Viewing deleted revisions is needed for much of OTRS work, which often leads to things being handed off to others. Substantively, I know that he knows about things like freedom of panorama, de minimis, threshold of originality, etc. because I taught him about those things. ~ Rob13Talk 23:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support. Anyone who can contribute to ANI that much and still keep level headed deserves praise, not condemnation for helping out there in the first place. CSD has a few misfires, but with ACTRIAL, CSD is not really as big of a deal as it used to be (far fewer spurious submissions now). Net positive. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support per Rob. We are in desperate need of another admin who is familiar with the file namespace. -- Tavix (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support At the very worst he's harmless. Concerns raised about ANI is that he's managed to linger around there without making any noticable effect on the discourse. That's not necessary a bad thing. At least he's not pouring petrol onto ANI fire. Some misses in the csd log, but not to an extent that it raises red flags. Worth noting some of his apparent csd log misses are misleading e.g. mistaken tag he undid himself [1], accurately deleted pages restored as redirects. [2][3] Brustopher (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support - fully qualified candidate. Yes, I came across one or two things that I guessed some of our resident voters would take issue with, but certainly do not consider them to be reasons not to support. Apart from two oppose votes (IMHO), the rest are nit-picking, and at least two are from serial RfA oppose voters. I'll just add to this that Cameron is certainly soemone whom I would trust with the tools, and that's what RfA is mainy all about.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support If I'm honest, I'm not blown away by the candidate's history. I'm probably naively optimistic and overly-committed to the once-upon-a-time WP:NOBIGDEAL ideal but I don't see anything in what others have brought up that seems truly disqualifying or indicative of a person that will go on a tools-enabled vandalism spree. They are obviously taking this process seriously and giving the most thoughtful answers they can, even if they aren't the answers everyone knows are what would be most politic to say. Give them the bit and give them some mentoring and they'll probably be an asset and that's all I ask. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support - My sole concern is with a few misplaced CSD tags, but so long as Cameron11598 errs on the side of caution from here on out, I don't think it's serious enough to preclude giving him adminship at this time. The issues with ANI participation and namespace distribution strike me as trivial and a poor gauge of an editor's value to the encyclopedia. If Cameron were fanning the flames at ANI, that would be different, but nobody has presented any evidence to suggest that this is the case. Kurtis (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support I feel fine about this. The oppose votes had me expecting a CSD log full of blue links, which is just not the case, and the candidate doesn't want to work there anyway. It's too bad we can't see the OTRS work but anyone who can participate ANI in that volume without sprouting a mushroom farm of comments unbecoming an admin (which, again, is not what the oppose votes have pointed to) has the temperament I'd like to see in an admin. And Rob and Tavix say there's a pressing need--this works for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Moral Support Unfortunately this RfA is not going to be successful. But for the record, I am not seeing anything that I think constitutes a red flag in the oppose rationals. I would gently suggest that Cameron focus a little more on content creation while giving the drama boards a rest over the next 6-12 months and then try again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Given some very weird recent calls like [4] and [5], I started to look further to see if I was missing something. I got as far as "more edits to your own userpage than to your user talk page, and more edits to ANI than to either". I've no doubt the usual suspects will turn out en masse to support this and it will pass, but absent a spectacularly good explanation that's the mark of a candidate I'm not even going to investigate further. ‑ Iridescent 18:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Iridescent:, I generally respect your judgment greatly and I'm not trying to put together an explanation on behalf of Cameron11598 (I'm confident they can do that themselves, if they so choose). That said, did you look at the history of their user page? I see that many of their edits to that page are to "Articles I'm Working On" or "Goals" sections that they appear to be using as to-do lists, which is surely not self-indulgent or self-aggrandizing or otherwise unacceptable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Eggishorn, the userpage one is an aside; the main thing I'm pointing out here the distinct lack of edits to his own user talk page (almost always a warning sign that someone is disengaged with the community), and the near-hyperactivity on ANI. (To put the numbers in some kind of perspective, at the time of writing Cameron has 458 edits to ANI in a couple of years of activity, significantly more than to any other page; as a comparator Casliber, one of Wikipedia's most active editors, admins and arbitrators, has a little over 300 edits to ANI in over a decade of activity.) As Alex Shih has pointed out above, if someone that active on ANI is actually doing something useful they should be able to point out examples where their presence has helped, something neither the candidate nor the nominators have done. I've no doubt that this RFA will pass, but from my perspective in any given RFA the onus is on the nominators and candidate to explain to me why I should support, something I'm not seeing in this case. ‑ Iridescent 18:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Iridescent:, thank you for the cogent and thorough explanation. Fair enough. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose for allowing an incorrect statement to be posted in your nomination: "Cameron first registered in 2012". Wrong. Your current main account was created on 28 June 2010 and that was preceded by an earlier account (now your alternate account) created on 1 January 2008. Trustworthiness is an important criteria for assessing admin candidates. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is obviously my fault, and not the candidates. I was basing it off of when he first began contributing with this account, which was in 2012. The older alt has a total of 57 edits and only 12 of those were before 2012. I can promise you that there was no intent to deceive the community here: his alt is declared and has virtually no edits, and his participation in Wikipedia began regularly in 2016, which was what I was trying to make clear to the community. I’ll update the statement accordingly based off of this, but I don’t think it should be taken as a sign that he is not trustworthy. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I understand, but with proper attention to detail he should have caught your mistake and asked you to fix it before accepting your nomination. Also, FWIW, I just noticed that he also controls Bot11598. wbm1058 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose A few months back, I was researching Cameron for RfA and declined, saying this : "I've had a look at your current contributions, and there is a problem. You don't seem to have done much admin work in the last 12 months - or at least not CSD and AfD, where you only have a few logged. Since the CSDs from mid-2016 and earlier had too many "misfires", I think that's going to lead to troubles at an RfA right now, and I can see people opposing because they can't see solid evidence you understand enough policies to be trusted with the delete button. I think you need _at least_ six months of very good CSD / AfD performance, then maybe you could pick up a nomination in spring 2018, but I honestly don't think you're going to be able to pass before then. Sorry." And looking at his CSD logs, I see AmeriCU Credit Union, Bank of Commerce Mississippi and Bill Baker (ice hockey, born 1882) as a recent run of declined A7s, with not much else to see otherwise. Sorry, but I can't trust you with the delete button at this time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose Kind of apprehensive in that I see this editor has only created 3 articles, one of which has been deleted. This makes me a little uncomfortable. — Maile (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose partly due to concerns regarding AN/I participation; if somebody wants to participate there on such a scale, I'd want and expect to see some pretty impactful comments (I don't; this, for example). But, since it turns out that I'm ninth on that list (!!!), I agree that they're mostly harmless there. But looking at some of the logs, I'm not sure I really see the understanding of policy that I would like. The CSD log has been cited as impressive; It's not, no offence. Only ~40 nominations over the entire last year, which is really low. And whereas an 86% accuracy-rate would normally sound good, from such a low base it should really be in the high 90s (particularly when it contains curious events such as asking for a dynamic IP's talk page to be deleted, when the obvious call would be a revdel). There's a similar pattern at AfD (only ~20 filings over the last year}, and while the candidate has not specifically stated they will work in this areas, it would have been both time better spent than that at AN/I, and would provide the kind of insight into how nuanced their judgement is that I'm not seeing. I'm open- as I was with Goldenring's (infamous?!) RfA- to being persuaded against the stats, but the candidate has not only not taken advantage of the questions to provide some really strong answers, but has provided (pace, but so far) rather weak answers, as Alex Shih notes above. This was the opportunity to show the stats are misleading. Unfortunately the opportunity has not been grasped. I do, however, wish them luck: it's notihng peronal, of course, and although "TOOSOON" would be an insult ;) perhaps re-focussing their energies into areas suggested over the next 160 hours will make for a succesful run at some point in the future...? Update: If I was prone to questioning my judgement here, then I'm afraid a total earth of AfD closures would stop me in my tracks. Suggest that's somewhere you could become involved, as it's not only fundamentally useful, but would concomitantly give you the opportuntity to demonstrate judgement with both subtlety and precision. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're not actually ninth on that list; note that it says you have 475 edits, which is the same as Cameron's, but Cameron doesn't appear on the list. Parsing the 1 million plus edits at ANI crashes XTools, so the numbers it produces have little relation to reality. (Baseball Bugs has 13,000 edits to ANI but doesn't appear in the contributor list at all, for instance). See this thread for more on this particular red herring.​ ‑ Iridescent 20:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ((Order of the brown-nose)), I know, but that's one of those red herrings that often I find has taught me more about how this place actually runs than most policy talk pages  :) (btw thanks for the info!) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...If there's a list somewhere of people who probably shouldn't oppose based on ANI participation... it's pretty much me you, EEng and like four other people. Just sayin. GMGtalk 21:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FTR most of my edits to ANI turn out to be using 1-Click to archive closed discussions. The magnificent cleverness of my jokes just makes it seem I'm always commenting. EEng 22:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You should see my pie chart. I completely skewed it by over editing in ANI... Still working on shaking my personal stigma of having too much blue in my pie chart. Blackmane (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you need more blue, try DelSort. This Rfa is troubling me more and more, and I am questioning by MO for RFAs. I have a non insignificant contriution to ANI, even after sdiscounting 1CA and copyediting, yet I am hard pressed to think of a comment that woul suitably impress the "show me" crowd. I learned a bunch of stuff, and I helped out a little, but I didn't do anything major like get a LTAer blocked or catch TOU violators. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 01:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hah, I'm like the worst blue (too much AN/I, AfD, etc.) and I still passed. It's not so much where you're editing, more how you're doing it. ansh666 03:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose I'm sorry but I do not see an active need for the tools; this is the first thing I need to check off to support a candidate. I noticed you are a positive content editor, helpful guide, and I can't find an instance where you were aggressive or rude. However, in actual admining areas, like CSD, you are less than spectacular. I respect your contributions to articles -- any good candidate needs that experience -- yet at this time I am not comfortable with trusting you with the delete button, considering partially what Ritchie has presented above.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose as per Iridescent. Eric Corbett 20:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose - unquestionable quality in editing, but I don't see the need for the mop here, and record is apparently patchy. Not sold, so I will join the opposes. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose per Iridescent and Ritchie. -- Begoon 21:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose. Q1 is too general and gives a curious vibe. It doesn't mention CSD, but there are 232 edits to the candidate's CSD log. Working OTRS is one thing, but File: is quite another. I like that Q3 provides a specific instance, but I'm not seeing the right lesson was learned. I'm hesitant about conflict skills. Iridescent's examples are troubling, and tilt me to oppose. I like to see at least 3000 manual mainspace edits to show content commitment; the candidates 2600 edits could be enough, but not after subtracting 1/2 of the 5300 automated edits. OK, there could be content drafts in user space, but there aren't a lot of edits there. I'm happy to see dozens of edits in some individual articles; that shows interest. I'm happy to see lots of AIV and UAA edits, but I'm otherwise leery of the edit distribution. A high percentage of ANI edits suggests being drawn to conflict, and Q3 is not showing strength there. I consider the tenure as 18 months. That's enough, but I need other strengths. Glrx (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose Too inexperienced. Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. (edit conflict)Oppose partly per Wbm1058, though not because of an issue of trust, but because of the importance of this step of going for RfA. The candidate must be aware of how seriously the community takes RfAs, and that we recognize it is probably the last time we will evaluate the candidate's suitability for the tools. I have long said that the RfA needs to be taken with the seriousness of a job application. When submitting a RfA, whether by self-nom or by accepting a nom, the candidate should have carefully considered every aspect of the RfA process, including whether there are any factual errors in the nominating statement or whether the nominatior is a controversial figure (not the case here), before accepting. The responses to the standard questions could be better as well, particularly Q3, which does not really address the "caused you stress" prong as far as I can tell. Just bringing up a frustrating dispute doesn't do it for me. I would want to hear about the stress it caused.
    I am also opposing because of the article creation concerns. I normally do not believe it appropriate to oppose on these grounds, but in this case I am concerned that Cameron's record is insufficient.
    I do not agree that extensive experience at ANI is a good reason to oppose, nor do I believe missteps in trying to intervene in disputes should be counted against Cameron here. I don't believe these are problems in this case. I also believe that Cameron could very likely make a successful run in six to twelve months with some moderate lifting in article work. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Mendaliv May I ask what specific worries you have about admin performance that arise from insufficient article creation? I'm just surprised to hear this mentioned when the candidate has numerous GAs--I've created quite a lot of entries myself, but if pressed I'd have to say I think GAs may be superior in the content creation realm as an indicator of admin potential, since you have navigate so much more community process (not only taking and incorporating feedback from the review of your entry, but also performing the reviews of others you're asked to do if you submit your own work). To me it says, this person understands what it means to contribute content in a serious way and they play nicely with others. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, I should have phrased that differently. You are, of course, right that Cameron has GA credits, and showing an ability to generate quality content is an important quality in an admin. That said, I do believe that actually going out and creating articles, whether it's from finding redlinks or staking out an underserved topic area and creating articles that don't get CSDed/AfDed (or that survive when they're taken there). There's a lot that being able to create says about a candidate's ability to know when it's appropriate to delete. So this, for me, shoehorns into the concern brought up by others re: CSD work.
    I should also make clear, the frustration at the lack of preparation that takes up the bulk of my oppose is my primary reason for opposing. The uncaught mistake, the weak answers to the standard questions, etc. It says one of two things about a candidate: That the candidate tends to be sloppy, unprepared, and not detail-oriented; or that the candidate doesn't understand the community's expectations. Either is fatal, in my view. RfA candidates, particularly those who go through the ORCP process as Cameron did, surely must look back at recent RfAs for what works and what doesn't. Failing to do so suggests an admin who will be prone to reinventing the wheel when confronted with a new situation; doing so and not improving the RfA candidacy package substantially suggests an admin who can't learn from others' past mistakes or can't adequately discern community standards and trends from reading discussions. And, as I've said in the past, the RfA is likely the last chance we'll have to evaluate a candidate's suitability as an admin. Moreover, it will almost certainly represent a high point in the candidate's community-facing abilities. I don't think it's unreasonable or nitpicky to be concerned about this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Per Iridescent and Ritchie but only WRT the CSD issues. The edit count issues don't bother me. He may have just spent a few hours cranking up a bunch of userpage edits trying to get it the way he wants it to look.--v/r - TP 22:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Reluctant oppose. If this was a nomination for some sort of recognition as being a good editor and a nice guy, I'd wholeheartedly support, and I expect you'll make a good admin one day. Unfortunately, I don't think you're ready at the moment. A stronger nomination statement and a clearer picture of what you want to do with the tools would have helped, but would only have been papering over the cracks. There are several fairy major disqualifying factors. The first and most obvious is the poor CSD tagging, which is both relatively recent and very obvious (I've never specialised in CSD, much less so in A7, but it took me barely an instant to see what was wrong with the tag on Bill Baker (ice hockey, born 1882)). The second is the great many edits to ANI (hint: if you're making more edits than most admins to an admins noticeboard, you're doing something wrong); I mentioned this in your ORCP last spring and to your credit you seem to be making fewer useless edits now, but the edits you are making to that board are are still of little value. ANI is literally the second-busiest page on the entire site and the signal:noise ratio is very poor, so experienced editors should be carefully considering the value of every edit or comment they make; for example, most threads don't need a purple box around them, most very brief comments contribute very little (unless you're providing links or something that the OP missed), humorous asides are always useless and sometimes borderline disruptive, and in many cases the most useful thing you can do is leave it for an admin. Third, I'm afraid I still don't see anything that shows deep policy knowledge or practical application, which are both essential for an admin. To end on a positive, your content work is solid and shows promise, and you are on the right track. Carry on with the article-writing (I still maintain that taking an article through FAC will instil you with more experience than hundreds of edits to ANI), and if adminship is the way you want to go, spend some more time making insightful comments (preferably in RfCs and AfDs etc, rather than ANI) that show a depth and breadth of policy understanding, and support that with a solid track record at AIV/RPP/CSD/etc. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose –Very unsatisfactory answer to question four. There should be evidence of your "calmness" on Wikipedia not on OTRS work, since you're not requesting for OTRS Adminship (which fortunately do exists). Dealing with OTRS correspondence with people who you cannot block nor sanction can never equate with experience of "calmness in stressful situation" which you were touted for. That experience should be with the real Wikipedia editors and on-wiki, whom the extra tools you're requesting for will have direct effect on. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose as per Ritchie - The userpage edits don't bother me because I myself have racked up 970 edits to my userpage (although in all fairness I've racked up 3,443 edits on my tp), Anyway my main concerns is the CSD'ing which IMHO at present is very poor and as such I cannot trust them with the delete button at the moment neither, In a nutshell I think the RFA might be a tad TOOSOON. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose—Due to concerns regarding lack of experience which will likely lead to mishandling of admin tools. Nikolaiho☎️📖 01:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Weak Oppose I take the road of needing to be convinced someone should be given the mop rather than being convinced they shouldn't be given the mop, so I say this as a risk of sounding like a "serial opposer". While I think the "net positive" arguments have merit, I don't see an overwhelming need for the tool. Your activity at AIV is somewhat sporadic, so given that that is the first area you would want to go into, I'm not convinced there is a current need. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though. Nihlus 01:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose Too inexperienced and too little content creation work. Try again, maybe in 9 months to a year's time. Kierzek (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose - I very much agree with Mendaliv, RfAs should be treated like a job application, it should give the community some reason to support giving such tools. This RfA has failed to that one thing. The answers to questions has failed to demonstrate the utility in giving the candidate the tools. The examples given of previous conduct is inconsequential at best. Cjhard (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose. Sorry, but I can't support at this time, primarily based off the CSD mishaps and the over-eagerness at ANI. FWIW, having only two articles created didn't influence my stance because they've got a few GAs to their name, which shows their ability to improve content. Cheers Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose. The article mentioned above, Djibouti at the Olympics has an error, there was a flagbearer and it mentions there wasn't any. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose. While some of the opposes are fairly banal, there are also some fairly substantial concerns presented. Per Ritchie (regarding CSDs), SerialNumber (regarding ANI and other general activity levels), and Glrx (regarding Q3), I don't feel that Cameron has enough experience to use the tools correctly. ansh666 03:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral (for now at least): Mostly based on L3X1's comment in discussion section, and a little based on Iridescent's observation in his oppose comment. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Update: I am okay with the edit count, and an average of 325 edits per month. I am not very active myself at ANs (ANI, AN3 or any noticeboard). But I am pretty much active in NPP/R, and WP:RM, yet I havent seen the candidate's activity there, which is also okay for me. I am on mobile right now, and I cant dig much in the contrib history; whatever i looked at till now, doesnt show anything above average (for an RfA candidate). All I see is good vandalism reverting, and good content creation. I will update my vote soon (either to support or to oppose). At this point, the only reason I am not opposing the candidate is his goodfaith assumption, his clearly visible politeness, and nomination statements by Tony, and TNT. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral Leaning support. I pretty sure I remember seeing all those djibouti articles and wondering who was making them GAs..Nothing too bad, however somewhat questionable stuff - Iridiscent pointed out some CSD calls, also apparently doesn't understand MOS that well - this diff - (unless I've misread MOS:BEGIN). Nothing too bad I see though yet. (I also have more edits to my userpage than user talk page - I do spend more time than I should faffing around on it, however I don't think its that questionable) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral Was leaning "oppose", but I'm concerned that my deep distrust of There's No Time may be affecting my judgement. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral, leaning towards support. I trust the noms and this isn't supposed to be a big deal, I want to support. However, the low edit count and AfD participation makes me have to ask if it's WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifnord (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]

The right log of candidate states he was given page mover right to help with OTRS. Till now he has moved 18 pages, few of which are round robin moves. I don't know why page mover right can be useful for OTRS activities. Can somebody kindly explain it? Also, why was he given A-PAT when he had created only two articles? Pinging Rob for that. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BU Rob13: just fixing the ping. ansh666 21:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Usernamekiran and Ansh666: For clarification, it was one of the candidate's nominators, There'sNoTime who granted the page mover right on 27 March last. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 21:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Ansh. Yes FIM, it was TNT who granted him the page mover, but it was Rob that granted him auto-patrolled flag on March 15, 2017. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I routinely grant AP to editors who have demonstrated superior knowledge of content policies to reduce the load on the new page reviewers. In this case, Cameron’s many GAs are evidence of his content creation ability. ~ Rob13Talk 22:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BU Rob13: that's a wise policy :) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also worth clarifying that he did not ask for it; I gave it to him unprompted, as is allowed for AP. ~ Rob13Talk 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category