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

NastalgicCam[edit]

Final: (0/11/0) - closed early by JamieS93 per WP:SNOW

Nomination[edit]

NastalgicCam (talk · contribs) – Productive user who is looking to indulge in Wikipedia both more frequently and more thoroughly with the use of adminship -CamT|C 06:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Self-nom

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My main focuses in Wikipedia administrative work would involve proper handling of vandalism, and resolving disputes. I'm fortunate to have enough time to scan for vandals for many hours and deal with them justly, and I make it a goal to remain a neutral voice in any group I'm active in when it comes to resolving an issue. In this case, content disputes, edit wars, and general uses among other users. I would also greatly like to help the community with various wikiprojects, particularly those involving graphics, and their need for someone with administrative tools.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Honestly, I would say that my greatest contributions to Wikipedia are my dedicated hours of vandal reverting. I find this to be THE crucial issue to Wikipedia, and any help to stopping it is great help. As well, I've become more increasingly active in the graphic department in terms of making images more usable for the project.
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 will honestly admit that, yes, I have been involved in conflicts. I wouldn't say it caused me stress as much as it caused my aggravation. The issue was over Chicago Hot Dog, and the great ketchup debate following. My deal in the conflict wasn't with the actual content, or comments for that matter, and my personal feelings towards them as much as it was about me feeling that to use the term "never", in regards to the preparation of food, is too vague. It was a really a case of consensus over-ruling neutrality which I think is an issue that anyone could have gotten caught in. It's hard to say how I will deal with these problems seeing as I haven't been involved with many, but I suppose it's situational. There's a point where letting people have their way is more beneficial, and other times where it's better to step up and take charge over a situation.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - You're on the right track, but not quite there yet. There is more to being an administrator than vandalism. Also, content resolution/disputes are solved through community consensus and discussion. Administrators are not referees or an authority. I think you should focus on broadening your horizons abit, and maybe take a stab at more prolific content creation. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The theory is that an authoritative voice carries more sway in the correct direction in said discussions. That's the theory anyway. :P -CamT|C 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I see good things from you, but take into consideration the following points, then come back after getting some experience and I will be glad to support:
    • Try to produce some quality content, perhaps some DYKs or GAs, as, after all, that's what Wikipedia is all about.
    • Get some further experience in the Wikipedia namespace.
    • Try to get some experience working with speedy deletion candidates.
    I look forward to seeing you here again soon! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Candidate has 1,036 edits and several unexplained breaks. Answer to Q3 misses the point and has a remarkably dismissive, who-gives-a-shit tone. Answer to Q1 implies a lack of need for the tools since NC admits to spending "hours" on vandal fighting, which of course is easy to do without adminship. Hurry up and close. Şłџğģő 07:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not intended, but noted. -CamT|C 07:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per WP:NOTNOW. I would like to see you familiar with the different aspects of Wikipedia an admin has to be in. Not just fighting vandalism. Join discussions at RS/N, AN/I, etc. Have more mainspace edits. 430 edits is not sufficient. Familiarize yourself with article creating. Then only come back here. BejinhanTalk 07:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sorry, but I can't see what you want admin status for. "Resolving disputes" has nothing to do with adminship, and neither does "helping with various wikiprojects, particularly those involving graphics". Your nomination statement gives no impression that you understand what a Wikipedia admin actually is; you seem to think it's some kind of "Wikipedia umpire" authority figure, which is definitely not the case. If you can convince me that you understand what a sysop does, and that there's a reason you should be one, perfectly willing to reconsider. – iridescent 09:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose You've been blocked recently, and I like to see at least 12 months clean block log at RFA. I'm also concerned at the various warnings on your talkpage and in its history. You might also consider setting your preferences to force an edit summary as you don't always use one. Happy to see you back here when your block is 12 months old. Please don't get dispirited about not succeeding on your first attempt - my first run wasn't a success either. ϢereSpielChequers 09:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose As WereSpielChequers said you were blocked recently back in February for edit warring, I can't support here with a recent block you just had. Minimac (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Sorry, but with a block that occured only a month for breaking the three-revert rule and with file source problems. I'm going to have to oppose on this one. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose because adminship is not four stripes on your sleeve; some kind of authority; it's just a few extra buttons. Combine a misunderstanding of the role with a recent block log, and I don't have much choice. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I have to reluctantly oppose, sorry, mainly because I don't see enough general experience or evidence of sufficient policy knowledge. On Q3, I would hope for some discussion of the actual Wikipedia procedures involved in handling edit disputes - and a recent block for edit warring isn't good. I'm also a little disturbed when I see repeated blanking of a user's Talk page, and various warnings when I look back at the history - I know users are allowed to blank their talk pages, but I'd hope someone wanting to be trusted with a mop would be sufficiently open to preserve their history (archive pages can be used to avoid the main Talk page getting too big). Anyway, I'm rambling - if you come back when your block is old and cold and with no further warnings, and spend some time looking at other related areas and getting to know the tools and procedures available for dealing with vandalism, edit wars, and general unpleasantness, I could see myself supporting your next nomination. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose You seem to be involved in vandal-reverting only, and have no plans to change this. An admin doesn't have much extra power in killing vandals, except the blocking power, and anyways we have AIV for that. An admin must be present in all fields, must have knowledge of our 1000+ (contradicting) policies, and must be able to solve disputes. I don't think that you really don't have much of a chance at the moment. Diversify your work on Wikipedia and you'll probably get the mop next time. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 13:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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