Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaron1

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

Camaron1

Final (47/3/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 11:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Camaron1 (talk · contribs) - It's been so long since I offered to nominate this candidate that I've totally forgotten what was so awesome about him. Nonetheless I will attempt a nomination. However, as he uses Internet Explorer, I doubt it'll be a good one :P Erm, anyways, Camaron1's major work area is on School related articles (via the WikiProject) and he does an excellent job of that. He's also quite a SimCity fan, as am I :) Camaron1 has also done a stack of Deletion sorting related work, and I'm sure he's gained an excellent understanding of AfD policy and consensus that way - I'd feel comfortable with him closing a contentious AfD. He has participated actively in naming conventions and similar policy discussions, and added bonus. You may wish to also observe his editor review, as I'm sure he's learnt a great deal and improved heaps from it. He has a nice clean signature, decent userpage, 100% edit summary usage, and will make an excellent administrator. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Co-nomination by Pedro Having offered to nominate Chris a while back I'm delighted to offer my co-nomination. An avid article writer, he also enjoys the the backroom tasks, as admins will be able to verify from his deleted contributions, and all will be able to see from his efforts at XFD. A clean talk page (and history) demonstrates his civility and solid work in core areas can be seen via the "wanabee Kate" tool. Ladies and Gents a net positive awaits us here, and I hope the community agrees that giving Camaron1 the tools can only help us all and hinder no-one. Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, thank you again Pedro and Dihydrogen Monoxide for nominating me. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking at ways I can contribute to the project in addition to what I do at the moment, and I think gaining the mop and bucket would be one of them. Since joining Wikipedia I have tried to help out in a variety of areas from deletion debates, to wikignoming, to WikiProject assessments. I have learnt a lot over-time. In August 2007 I do not feel I was ready for the tools; now as we enter a new year, with plenty of help from people like my admin coach The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), I do feel ready. If however this RFA does not succeed, I will take it as a helpful editor review to improve my contributions.

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: If I become an administrator I intend to take part in a variety of maintenance areas of Wikipedia. I intend to continue doing work in XfD by helping to close AfDs, MfDs, and expired PROD's in accordance with deletion policy. I will continue doing new page patrolling and deal with speedy deletion candidates, an area which can get frequently backlogged. I plan to help out in dealing with simple vandalism at WP:AIV, and page protection requests at WP:RFPP.

I also intend to use the tools as necessary to help support Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. There are few admins active in this project at the moment I think I could be more helpful in issues that come to attention such as edit wars and vandalism. School articles are frequently vandalised with vandalism in these articles frequently not been reverted for hours, days and even weeks. I intend to use the admin tools to help in the fight against school article vandalism further, in addition to the help I give as a non-admin.

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

A: My contributions are quite mixed and cover a variety of areas. I have for a long time done quick maintenance to articles I come across - these are mostly game and school articles. I do assessment work for Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment - ranging from quick assessments to more detailed and potentially controversial ones on important schools. I have tried to get involved in article writing; the main examples of this been SimCity 4 and Eurovision Song Contest 2008. I am one of only a few editors who continue to edit the SimCity 4 article; I have given it a big clean-up recently after a peer review, and I will continue to work on it so it will eventually gain Good Article Status, and perhaps one day Featured Article Status. The Eurovision Song Contest 2008 article is heavily edited and is about a upcoming event; I have and will continue to try and help keep the article up-to-date and in a good state in the run-up to the 2008 Eurovision Song Contest.

I have made long-term contributions to the AFD process, mostly on school articles, but on other subjects as well such as gaming and websites. I have always tried to keep my AFD comments fair, reasonable, and as detailed as necessary. I have also got involved in Wikipedia:New pages patrol; this involves tagging inappropriate articles for speedy deletion, but also tagging and doing quick maintenance to newly created articles, and even helping new users out with their first contributions. I have more recently also got involved in policy related work; including with proposals Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools), and Wikipedia:Notability (schools). I have tried to keep these proposals evolving to help build a consensus, and I will hopefully continue to do so in the future.

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 have been in a few conflicts while editing Wikipedia in the past. My first was when I was involved in a dispute with a unregistered user, who would later register as Notability Crusader (talk · contribs). (S)he made it very clear that her/his aim was to have most if not all school and district articles in the Portsmouth and Southampton area deleted [1]. Actions included mass adding of merge and notability tags to nearly all school and district articles in the area, and reverting attempts of multiple users to remove them. In one case the user even re-directed an article without discussion, and marked it as a minor edit [2]. I found the best action to take was to get wider community involvement by alerting the relevant WikiProject [3], and then kindly tell the user about it on their talk page [4]. I tried to remain calm, and explain to the user why his/her edits were causing controversy. In the end the dispute never escalated as the user stopped editing Wikipedia.

My second dispute was with 209.244.42.97 (talk · contribs) over content of Template:Sim series and SimCity Societies. This had the potential to cause stress given the users threatening comments including this edit summary [5]. I brought the issue up directly with the user on their talk page, which is a good way of resolving disputes [6]. I also brought up the issue on the other relevant talk pages (Talk:SimCity Societies, Template talk:Sim series). On the SimCity Societies talk page it became apparent that multiple users disagreed with this unregistered users desired version of the article; and after beginning to engage with an edit war with multiple users without taking part in talk page discussion, I gave a personalised WP:3RR warning [7], which was later endorsed by an administrator [8]. After this the user made no further edits to the disputed pages. What I learnt from the incident is that it is always worth bringing issues up on talk pages if they are disputed, to try and gather consensus from multiple editors in a dispute to justify your actions.

The third dispute which I got involved in was over the articles La Martiniere Lyon, La Martiniere Calcutta‎, La Martiniere College‎, and La Martiniere Lucknow‎. It involved a dispute over inclusion of a template in the articles which contained the school song of the La Martiniere colleges. The dispute started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools under [9]; it then escalated at a WP:TFD nomination for the school song template under [10]. It quickly turned into a dispute over class and importance assessments made of the involved articles, which was seen as WP:COI by some. As I had no previous involvement in editing the articles, I volunteered to give a independent re-assessment of them, which I did. This helped cool down the dispute a bit and resolved the issue of assessments given. What I learnt from the dispute is that it is helpful to request or give a third opinion in disputes.

I will likely be in further disputes in the future, and intend to continue using the same ideas I learnt from previous disputes for future ones. I think the primary things to remember are to remain calm, avoid edit warring, try and discuss the issue, and get third opinions to build a consensus and justify your actions.

Optional questions from Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)

4. What is the difference between an indefinite block and a ban?

A: A block is a technical measure which can be used by administrators to prevent damage and disruption to Wikipedia. An indefinite block is simply a block which does not have a fixed ending point, though it is not necessarily permanent. A ban is a formal removal of a persons social right to edit all or part of the English Wikipedia; which can originate from multiple sources including the community, Jimbo Wales, and the Arbitration Committee. Blocks can be given to enforce bans in certain situations. If an indefinite block is given to a user and no administrator has agreed to over-turning it after consideration from the community, a user can be considered banned.

5. What influence should an IRC discussion have on admin actions and who is responsible for these actions?

A: IRC is great for communication, but IRC is not considered part of Wikipedia, and admin actions should not be carried out purely due to IRC. If for example somebody told an admin to delete their user page on IRC, if the admin does it then it is their responsibility to justify the action, and to many saying "Somebody told me to do it on IRC" is not a justification. It would be sensible for an admin in this event to ask the requester to use on-wiki methods such as adding a speedy deletion tag. Actions requiring consensus should not be carried out purely on IRC discussion either, consensus should be made on Wikipedia. An admin blocking a user because of what they did on IRC is also not a good idea, blocks are supposed to protect Wikipedia from harm, and blocking someone as a punishment for something that happens on IRC is against the spirit of the blocking policy.

Reply by Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)

I don't agree that admins can't give asking via irc as a reason for deletion. I've had my userspace cleared out (All deleted) at least twice via irc, and that's a clear justification for G7. However, everything else sems okay.--Phoenix-wiki 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I was very clear on my opinion of that point, many (or at least a few people, I was really generalising) think admins can't give asked via IRC as a reason for deletion. My personal opinion is that it is fine for simple requests if you know who you are talking to; if there is ever an issue then you can ask the requester for a on-wiki clarification. In a nutshell: You just have to be careful. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

6. Do you intend to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall

A: Despite the large amount of criticism this category has received, yes. I want to be open to re-call, to re-enforce the idea that I am accountable for my own actions. I have for a long-time held the opinion that there is no point been an administrator if community support and consensus for you to hold the position terminates.

Additional comment: After a think about it, I have decided I am not as of yet changing my mind on adding myself to this category. Until a better system of administrator re-call is accepted by the community, I personally supported a full request for de-adminship system, I think been open to re-call is reasonable. As I see it, the category has the potential and intention to cause absolutely no drama at all, the drama comes from how people use it and react to it. I will create a personal criteria on been re-called before adding myself to the category, which will avoid many potential issues.

General comments

• See Camaron1's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Camaron1: Camaron1 (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/Camaron1 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. (Pre-transclusion) Per my nomination. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 00:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Delighted to support. I have worked with this user of late at Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools), and he is conscientious, always civil, and well-versed on Wikipedia policy. This, combined with his extensive and varied edit history and his thoughtful responses to the stock questions, makes him an excellent candidate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - looks a goodie. Liked the flexible grasp of policy evident in some school-related AfD discussions. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Support--n1yaNt 11:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Good editor. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 11:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Great contributor, I was going to pre-translude (!)vote, but decided not to. :) Good luck, Rt. 12:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Per nomination. Good luck buddy. Pedro :  Chat  13:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Looks like a goer. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Nice editing. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Great editor, will make a great admin. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - Seems to know his stuff. Soxred93 has a boring sig 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - Can find no reason in his edit history not to support their nom. -Djsasso (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Support I don't see a reason to oppose! Icestorm815 (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Of course, while sometimes we don't agree in stuff, especially with school article I found chris to be a excellent participant to wikipedia namespace Secret ^account 22:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. Worked with Chris on Eurovision Song Contest 2008, absolutely no problems. Chwech 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Answers to questions demonstrate an excellent knowledge of policy. Has some good contributions to the encyclopedia.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 22:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Good answers to questions. Good luck! Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
18. No reason not to. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Support, even though I disagree strongly with the user's views concerning WP:SCHOOLS, he has been a constructive and intelligent contributor to the discussion. Has the right temperament, in my opinion. Lankiveil (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
20. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Lookin' good. --Sharkface217 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
23. The Transhumanist 08:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. Michael (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. I was impressed by his work when I reviewed him; I'm impressed with it still. I believe he'll make a fine admin. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Support as a fine editor, and no concerns. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Support Looks good to me. Timmeh^contribs 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

27. Support Not 100% sure what's going on in the oppose section, but this editor looks fine by me. GlassCobra 01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Excellent contributions to articles! Adminship is not a big deal. Majorly (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Support seems like a good candidate. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Support John254 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. Seen him around, certainly competent. Wizardman 19:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Support As a contributor from time to time at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools I have noticed your efforts there. I think adminship would help you in that regard. As far as trusting you with the tools and with your experience on the wiki, I have no problems. Best of luck. LordHarris 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Seems to have adequate time and experience. Unless I'm missing something, no reason to oppose. Dlohcierekim 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
34. After some thought, I can support. None of the opposes are convincing. Acalamari 02:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Support I've watched and on occasion guided the candidate for a good few months now and have no doubt whatsoever in his ability to use the admin tools judiciously. As for the opposes, well adminship really isn't a big deal (for those who consider it is, please read Jimbo's own statement and being open to recall is probably the best we have until someone else comes up with something better (which has been discussed ad infinitum) so nothing substantial there. Good luck! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Though I would have prefered more overall contributions (mainspace), has relatively solid answers and significant Wikipedia pages contributions - so I do think he will handle well the tools.--JForget 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Support no concerns here. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 02:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - I'm a little shocked this editor is not already an admin. Best of luck! LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
39. Per Corvus cornix. All admins should be open for recall. Accountability is important. So is continued community trust with the tools. I dorfbaer I talk I 11:21, December 31, 2007
40. Support per bizarre opposes EJF (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Support per Dorftrottel et al. His contributions demonstrate that he is a competent editor and is ready for adminship. I wasn't going to bother supporting (as it looks like this request will pass anyway) but I felt it was necessary to cancel out some of the opposes below. With all due respect to the opposers (and I don't doubt their good faith), spelling errors are not a particularly good reason to oppose; are we to prevent all dyslexic and all non-native English-speaking editors from becoming admins? Furthermore, I admire the candidate's courage and moral fibre in stating that he will be open to recall, and maintaining this stance even though he has been opposed for it. All administrators should be accountable to the community, and the community has the right to revoke its trust in them. Walton^One 12:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Every sign of a good admin - good answers, I've seen his conflict management skills at work in WP:SCHOOLS, including a conflict I was involved in where he resolved for the other side to that which I was arguing, but in the most civil and rational manner possible and giving appropriate justification. That to me is the biggest indicator of how he'll manage situations in an admin role. He's one of their stronger assessors and uses and applies criteria effectively, which suggests an understanding of content processes, even with a lower end mainspace count. There are different types of admins - some are mainspace editors, some are process admins or vandal whackers, some are project maintainers etc and we need a mix of all types to be a successful venture. Orderinchaos 23:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Support Per answer to question 6. Juppiter (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
44. Support Per EJF. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Gone back and forth on the schools talk page a couple times. Always been polite and thoughtful.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
46. support I can not spell either. and I do not list myself as open to recall, since I think the recall system as it now is is essentially useless. I dont think any opinion on recall is a reason to oppose at this point, and I think he'd make a good admin. DGG (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Why not? To me the arguments for opposition are frivolous. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    Strong support as meeting all my standards, being active in Notability discussions (of schools), and great answers to the questions. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)<<Boldly indenting duplicate>> Dlohcierekim 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Has not made substantial contributions to mainspace. Adminship is a big deal. Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, adminship is not that big of a deal. It's not like you have the power of God in your hands. It's just a few extra tools to help advance Wikipedia. He has over 1000 mainspace edits which I believe is the lowest an admin should have and I don't think he would cause any harm. Timmeh^contribs 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for the 'actually', but I would consider the ability to block established editors as "the power of god", as you so arrogantly put it. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

   All sysop edits can easily be reverted by another admin and basically, I see nothing wrong with any of this user's edits. He's been actively editing for almost a year and I believe that's enough experience. Timmeh^contribs 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

   One more time: "Has not made substantial contributions to mainspace". Can we leave it at that. I've thought this through, Its my openion, and I'm entitled to it. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

   You yourself do not seem like a substantial content editor (I went back 1500 edits), and yet you have "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but would like to be one someday" written on your user page. Forgive me if Im a little suspicious of your view. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

   You ARE entitled to your opinion and I will just let it go. Actually, now that I think back to my previous RfA, there's not much of a difference between the number of edits of this user and mine at the time. I don't know why so many people are supporting this user when they didn't support me. Thanks, I'm changing to oppose. Timmeh^contribs 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

   Tim, moving to oppose is, well, a little bit (un-blued) pointy, IMHO. Best. Pedro :  Chat  00:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

   I've changed my mind. I didn't really review the editors contributions when I made the support vote. After thinking about it, I've decided to oppose. Timmeh^contribs 00:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

   Alright, because of all the arguments, I'm just going to stay out of this and not vote at all. Timmeh^contribs 00:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

   I didn't really review the editors contributions when I made the support vote. Now do you have an idea why I opposed an insubstantial content editor. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

   Would you be willing to share what you feel the proper threshold is? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

   You are entitled to your opinion of-coarse, but I disagree. I have spread my contributions over a large area, but I have tried to gain experiance in the mainspace too, and that is not just about making mainspace edits. My talk space edits are quite high as I like discussing things on the talk page, and also because I have been involved in WikiProject Schools article assessments. I think I have gained a lot of expirance on things like article structure and common issues from these assessments, especially when I have made potentially controversial assessments that need very detailed reasoning. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

   As a general rule of thumb one usually needs around 5,000 in order to pass, but that's not hard and fast - one who's edited less who exhibits all the qualities and abilities the community would like to see in its admins could get supported, while one with 40,000 edits who exhibits some qualities the community does *not* like to see could get opposed. Orderinchaos 23:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I know that's the rule of thumb, but Ceoil has been opposing candidates with twice that many, so I'm curious as to what his criteria are. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Those who agree to add themselves to the "admins open to recall" category are just perpetuating a system which is rife with drama and does no good for Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 20:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, the category, if it were properly enforced, would do immense good for Wikipedia, since it would allow us to remove admins who lose the confidence of the community. The drama in recent recall requests has been caused by the poor behaviour of the admins under recall, not by the system itself. Walton^One 12:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   I think the recall process is prone to drama in either direction - admins are not compelled to resign if recalled, and admins can be recalled in bad faith by an organised group. I can't think of any system by which it could be properly enforced. Anyway, this entire discussion belongs somewhere else. Orderinchaos 23:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose I cannot, in good conscience, do anything but oppose an editor who makes basic spelling errors - we are trying to create an encyclopedia after all... Whitstable (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

   His spelling errors in a reply to an oppose don't necessarily mean that he has bad errors in his mainspace edits. I haven't really looked through his edits thoroughly, but you absolutely shouldn't oppose someone being an admin who has made some small spelling mistakes in a simple reply in a discussion. Timmeh^contribs 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   This is the first time my spelling skills have been commented on. The truth of this is that my spelling is absolutely terrible and have always found it difficult, it is a consequence of having minor dyslexia. Fortunately I heavily use spell check before submitting anything on Wikipedia to make sure everything is spelt correctly; the problem is the spell check does not pick-up words which have been technically spelt correctly but used wrong, such as using coarse rather than course. I check spelling very carefully before submitting work to the mainspace, but I have never considered my spelling skills a series obstruction and people rarely have to make spelling corrections after my edits. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   With all due respect to Whitstable, bad spelling is not a good reason to oppose. We've had many good admins whose spelling and grammar were not perfect, either because they were non-native speakers of English or for other reasons (e.g. Jaranda). While good spelling is helpful in article-writing, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the performance of mechanical admin duties (provided it isn't so bad as to impede communication, which isn't the case with this candidate). Walton^One 12:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   WP:TYPO. 'nuff said. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

   Putting yourself into CAT:AOR just cause moar drama. We certainly don't need it, and I don't want an admin who has, more or less, promised that he's opened to causing a hell of a lot of pointless drama. Look what happened to User:Mercury, we don't need that kind of stuff. Maxim_(talk) 19:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   I haven't thought this one out properly. Although I don't agree with AOR, it's certainly not a reason to oppose. Really misguided thinking by me. Apologize. Maxim_(talk) 03:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

   No, we don't need that kind of admin who would add himself to AOR, then delist them as soon as people come with concerns, and who try to get the bit back through WP:BN when they notice their confirmation RfA going down. I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that any of this applies to Camaron1, and at the conclusion that AOR is a bad idea as opposed to a good idea as witnessed by the fact that the usual suspects create drama over it for obvious reasons. I dorfbaer I talk I 23:12, December 31, 2007

   I have the same *general* concern but I really think opposing candidates over it is making a point. I'd raise the issue at the talk page of the recall option. Orderinchaos 23:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.