Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camw

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

 Bureaucrat note: There is sufficient support in this RfA to merit promotion. Although there is concern in the opposition about the overuse of huggle and the lack of experience in content and consensus building, there are no examples of incivility, misunderstanding of policies, abuse of huggle, edit warring, drama, controversy; nor are there problematic answers to the RfA questions - and in the few instances of questionable actions (specifically reverting edits and dealing with anonymous editors), Camw has admitted to making mistakes and shown a willingness to learn and improve.

I have also read the many editors weighing in as neutral. Their concerns are no different really than those in opposition, but they are decidedly neutral, and not in opposition. Kingturtle (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Camw

Nomination

Final: (69/20/14); closed by Kingturtle as successful at 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Camw (talk · contribs) – Greetings. I've been a user of Wikipedia since 2005, though it is more recently that I've become involved in making a substantial contribution. I enjoy the work I do now, and I would hope to continue to participate in these non-administrator related areas if I were successful in this application, but I would also like to be able to assist in some areas of interest on the administrator side of the site. I am close to reaching 10,000 edits (9,480 at the time of this nomination), these edits have mostly been made through the use of anti-vandalism tools like Popups and later on, Huggle.

I appreciate the time that you take to look over my nomination, edit history and your judgment of suitability for the mop. I'll be sure to take on board any constructive criticism that is presented regardless of the final decision. Camw (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The main work I would involve myself in would involve vandalism intervention and to a lesser extent AfD debates, page protection and protected page edit requests. I would be willing to perform other work if assistance is required after familiarizing myself with the procedures and rules that are associated with the area in question. I have read over material on the Administrators' reading list and there are some areas that look interesting but where I know I need to improve my knowledge and experience before getting involved.

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

A: The contributions I take some pride in is the submission of 110 photos of Australian based Association football players to the Wikimedia Commons project over the past six months and including them on the player pages. This was an area where only one team had a significant number of profile photos on their pages prior to this season. I'm not a professional so the quality does vary and I'm limited to including players that come and play a match in my state, but they are a good start and something I'll continue to build on. The images can be seen here if you are interested.

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'm not the kind of person that gets stressed easily, my first job many years ago was on an IT helpdesk and so I have learned to not take abuse personally where other factors are at play, and be able to maintain a professional manner when faced with stressful and difficult situations. I've found that discussing problems on a Users or Article talk page over content inclusion/exclusion will usually lead to a mutually acceptable resolution and where it isn't possible to reach a satisfactory solution, having a third party join the discussion with a fresh viewpoint can be helpful for both sides of a discussion. There is an occasional question from a user that I have reverted as to why their change was rolled back - these questions can sometimes come across in an unfriendly manner, and in these cases I assume good faith and indicate to the user the relevant Wikipedia policy.

Optional questions from Aitias

4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. Yes, if the page contents definitely meets the criteria for speedy deletion and the reason provided in the hangon tag doesn't satisfactorily address the problem. This would have to be judged on a case by case basis, but if a page is accurately tagged with a serious issue like G10 or G12 then I would proceed to delete the page despite the tag. For pages where notability is not asserted like A7 or A9 I think a more lenient stance is justified where the hangon tag explanation gives good reason to believe that an editor needs more time to bring the article up to a suitable standard.

5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. I would expect the user to have a reasonable level of experience in fighting vandalism, no significant and recent incidents of edit warring and to have shown consistent good judgment with their vandalism related decisions (to assume good faith where appropriate, overall accuracy and the notification of users with appropriate warning templates). This isn't an area that I want to jump into straight away, but if you want a number of edits that constitute "reasonable level" then I'd be looking for around 500, unless suggested by an administrator that is more experienced that I should do otherwise. That number would vary somewhat depending on the history of the user requesting the tool. The removal of rollback privileges would have to be carefully considered, but where misuse of the ability is evident then it would be an action that may need to be taken.

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. This is a complex area. The image would have to satisfy the Non-free content criteria. One of the criteria on the page that must be satisfied is "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." - for living people the "could be created" means that the image would portray the subject in a way that was no longer possible to capture and is crucial and relevant to their notability. An example may be an actor with a specific look that they are noted for, perhaps at a younger stage of their life. The image would have to have accurate and detailed fair use tags and rationale behind it to be used and the image could only be used in articles.

7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?

A. I believe a fine line can exist between vandalism and a good faith talk page edit from a frustrated user who may not understand or know the relevant policy (an example being a user adding external links that are considered spammy). So first I would take care that I do not make a rash decision simply because it is my userpage being modified/vandalised, as I said earlier I don't take edits to "my" pages personally so I believe that I can distance myself from the location of the alleged vandalism and focus on the content of the edit instead. If I were in doubt I could take it to AIV for a second opinion, but in the majority of cases I feel like consideration of the blocking of an IP should not be a source of a conflict of interest for a responsible administrator.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. Under a very limited set of circumstances indeed. In the majority of cases (95%+) I have seen while working on anti-vandalism tasks, the edits are easy to revert and cause limited harm to the encyclopedia (aside from the time spent by people in monitoring/cleaning it up) and I'm happy to assume good faith and to go through the full set of warnings before submitting the user to be blocked. For a user to warrant such extreme action as a block without a warning the vandalism would have to be of a similar extreme nature such as blatant hate promotion, an obviously inappropriate username or other material that would seriously damage the encyclopedia (such as using a tool to seriously vandalise a large number of pages at a time). In other cases I would favor erring on the side of caution and giving the user a chance to turn into a productive contributor.

Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim

9. What policies should admins generally avoid using blocks to enforce?

A. Thanks for the interesting questions. I think this is outlined best at the Blocking Policy page. The page details a number of policies an admin should generally (or totally) avoid using to justify a block. The first, content disputes is common sense, a block should not be used on a user where you may have a conflict of interest over the content in question, this requires an administrator who can take a neutral stance to be involved. A block with the only purpose of giving a user a "time out" or cool down should be avoided as they do not solve the root cause of the problem and may make it worse. Blocking a user with the intention being to have something negative recorded against the block log of the user is not appropriate unless it meets one of the criteria listed on the page (an apology/acknowledgment of a mistake in a previous block)

10. Does WP:Consensus mean that truth on wikipedia is purely social?

A. There is a social aspect to consensus, through civil social interaction you get the most valuable discussions and can work toward mutually acceptable solutions but the basis of any consensus on truth needs to be supported by reliable sources. "The truth" in content can not be determined simply by a majority vote, the "strength and quality" of arguments must be considered as well - consensus is partially social, but built on a solid foundation of facts.

11. When should a user be disciplined for following WP:IAR?

A. Assuming the edits in question are good faith and are aimed toward improving the encyclopedia, no discipline would be appropriate - it may be that a discussion with the user over the edits could be helpful if following some rules might help with improving the contribution. Situations where a user would need to be warned over ignoring rules fall into common sense areas like multiple bad faith edits ignoring rules/policies such as WP:Vandalism, WP:Civility, WP:Copyright and others of this nature.

Optional question from Keepscases

12. Your user page has been Rickrolled numerous times. Why do you believe this is?

A:

@Keepscases: How was Camw's user page “rickrolled”? Could you please provide some diff-links for instance? Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of Keepscases, I believe he is referring to a number of vandals briefly replacing my userpage with the lyrics to Never gonna give you up - see here for an example. As to why they would want to do that, I guess they just wanted to tell me how they were feeling, they had to make me understand. Camw (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46:

13a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: I would grant the request for deletion quickly. Under the criteria for speedy deletion A3 it states that the criteria is "Any article ... consisting only of external links" and the template page says that "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content.". I would suggest to the user that they could create and use their sandbox to get the article built to a better stub or better level before publishing.

13b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?

A: The article would still fall under the A3 criteria and my answer would not be different.

13c. An editor adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and another editor removes it because of the controversial nature, the original editor re-adds it, and it is re-removed by yet a third editor. Is vandalism occuring, and if so, by whom? Is anyone being disruptive, and if so, who?

A: I don't see this situation as vandalism, although "controversial" has a wide range to it and there may be more to it depending on the wording and issue behind the material. As a first step I'd like to see the editors enter a discussion on the article talk page to expand on their reasoning behind adding/removing the content and to see if there was a way to find a mutually acceptable way of including in some form (possible modified from the original edits) or exclude the material and to reach a consensus. If that fails then there are other options available like taking the issue to a group like the Mediation Cabal. If problems begin like incivility or if it turns into an edit war then additional action may need to be taken, but the situation as it stands in the question probably happens very frequently and most of the time I would expect a civil discussion on the talk page to assist in resolution without further administrator involvement.

13d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: Not really, I think both should be attempted to be resolved around strong, reasoned discussion and reliable sources. A majority of interested people could probably impose their view more easily on an article, but that is a reason why there are various avenues (e.g third opinion, RfC) to resolve article differences if the parties involved aren't satisfied. Camw (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional Questions from NGG

14a. Okay as noted, you made over 10,000 edits over the period of three months. In that time it looks like you've done alot of anti-vandal work, what is your experience with actual article writing? N.G.G. 03:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To NGG: see this. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A: My (limited) experience with article writing has been covered in the discussion, but I know there is a lot of information to read through! I've pasted a list of articles created on the talk page (and the tool here but it can be a bit slow), but I freely admit (in the discussion as well as my initial nomination statement) that they are for the most part stub articles with most of the effort going into the information in the infobox. The photos described in the nomination as my most significant article building, but obviously it doesn't fall into the realm of article writing. I've also admitted that article writing isn't my strength - I wouldn't say I'm not interested in it, but it just isn't where I feel like I can make the best contribution. I hope this helps! Camw (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Camw: Camw (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Camw can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• If this RFA continues to go the way that it is (toward a no consensus), then it may be an idea to withdraw and return in a short time (say, a month to six weeks). I think the majority of opposition is due to a lack of demonstration as to familiarity with policies, and if in that time you were to dedicate yourself to proving your competence in areas away from automation/Huggle, I have no doubt a return RFA would pass successfully. This is, of course, only a suggestion. Esteffect (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestions, being an admin is no big deal to me, so whether I would stop doing my current work in order to pursue the broader experience required to be certain to pass a RfA would be something I would have to carefully consider (I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, just that I'm not certain at this point). The RfA is currently (just) in the grey area between 70 and 80% where someone would have to make a decision based on the content of the discussion (unless Neutral is counted as "not yes" for the decision) so I'm not sure about withdrawing either. If enough people thought it was a good idea, again I'd consider it. Camw (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  It's up to the opposition; if a few opposers want to say that the candidate is likely to pass in a month if he learns specific things, I don't think anyone would say, "No! It's not done!" But ... I haven't seen that done last year or this year, so if there's no discussion, it's a reasonable assumption that the candidate should come back in 3 months (if he wants to) if he fails. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• So there are a couple of days to go now. I'd like to thank everyone for their comments and suggestions so far. If anyone has any questions/comments that need some thought and detailed response I'd appreciate if you get them in over the next day or so, so that I have a good chance to consider and respond to you. I'm not quite sure how this is going to pan out, it is currently at 78.1% support against oppose and both sides have made good arguments. Either way, I'll be taking to heart the points made by the oppose and neutral editors and hopefully can prove to you that it was either a good idea to make me an administrator if it goes through, or that I should have your support in a future RfA if this fails. Camw (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Advice: Your answer to question 4 is not to my liking. I would not speedily delete any article with a {{hangon}} placed in apparent good faith. Such articles can go to WP:AfD. I'd make an exception for blatant WP:BLP violations or attack pages where an antagonist tried to game the system by using a hangon tag. Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  Hi, I did qualify my statement by saying it needs to be judged on a case by case basis and that I would be looking to do it for "serious" problems like G10 (attack pages) and G12 (copyright violation), whereas other cases like A7 or A9 for example it would (depending on the specific case) be possible and justified to be more lenient. To be honest it seems like we are on a similar wavelength here unless I've misunderstood? Camw (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  I have not memorized the criteria by their letters. You have violated WP:WOTTA, but I will support you nevertheless. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry about that - I should have been clearer in the first place, but thanks for your support. Camw (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I am going to have a closer look at your contributions later, but I'm very happy with what I've seen so far. I have no problem with primarily huggle-based editors becoming admins, providing that the huggle work is of a generally high standard of accuracy. In your case I haven't seen any mistakes as yet, and generally you seem to handle it very effectively - and from the number of AIV reports that ended up being submitted (and subsequently blocked, allowing you to block directly would free up a lot of time for other admins. Your contributions to AfD debates have also generally seemed intelligent, logical and in many cases add new arguments or sources to the discussion rather than just jumping on a delete bandwagon. Combine that with some very good question answers and enough content work to at least demonstrate you know this is an encyclopedia - I feel very happy to support at this time. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   After looking at more contributions I found nothing to concern me. I ran across a few AfDs that demonstrated A Nobody's concerns below about weak deletion reasons, but in none of the cases was your opinion actually incorrect, simply poorly-elaborated. As I'm sure you'll work on that in future it is not a problem to me. Additionally, I chuckled out loud when I came across the contribution history of Walker Creek (California) and your ten-minute battle with the world's most persistent vandal - is this not a great example of someone who could have used a block button right about then? :) ~ mazca ^t|c 18:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you. While I wasn't laughing at the time, in retrospect I can see the humor in the situation! I think between the vandal, Marek and myself the edit count for a pretty peaceful page over a couple of years until that point increased by about 5x. A block button would have been handy, but we got there eventually and hopefully Walker Creek can rest easy for a while! Camw (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Support Everything I've looked at so far has been good. I love the intelligent talk page correspondence, I applaud the project-focused user page, I'm glad you aren't eager to jump into deletion areas where you don't have lots of experience. I think you'd be a good administrator. Townlake (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong support. So he uses huggle, no big deal. Wizardman 16:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support (Moved from oppose.) Camw's answers both to my questions and their comments in the neutral section are impressive. They clearly indicate that the candidate has the most important thing —common sense—. Thus, I'm happy to support. — Aitias // discussion 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Per Aitias. Surely this user has clue shown by the answers. -- Mentifisto 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked, but does have a barnstar on the userpage. "Weak", however, because while we both agreed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Warriors Trial, i.e. deletion was the right call in that case, please do not use WP:JNN per User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the comment, I agree with you on WP:JNN, points like that don't usually add to the discussion and the process isn't a vote. I'll remember to more carefully consider this in my future actions in AfD processes as a user or otherwise. Camw (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   You're welcome and thank you to you for keeping an open-mind and responding to suggestions maturely! Good luck when you become an admin!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

7. Support Sure, you huggle a lot, but your messages to other users on their talk page and yours show me that you're clueful and intelligent. Such people are capable of learning administrative areas. I see no reason not to support. FlyingToaster 18:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. We need more admins, and automated edits show experience too. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. This is quite an edit rate... keep it, and you will be able to delete Jimbo, crats, sysops and all the users and start a brave new wikipedia the way we want it. Seriously, the community gains a new admin without losing an article builder. Stop that! it's silly!, but you've got my voice. NVO (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - Clueful and active. Huggle isn't a problem. — neuro^(talk) 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Look at my automated edits prior to gaining the mop, and after gaining the mop... support Hiberniantears (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support No issue not to. America69 (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support No problems.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Huggle use doesn't scare me, and he has large amounts of clue. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Weak Support -- great editor, would benefit with the tools, as long as you try to stay away from strictly using HG.--₮RUCӨ 01:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
18. No issues here. VX!^talk 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support has been around since Jan 2005 and vandal fighter and see no scope for misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support No reason not to.--Res2216firestar 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - Will type out a rationale in a bit. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

    Alright, here's my rationale: first of all, Camw does have article writing experience in the form of creating and updating sports-related BLPs. He/she may not have any FAs or GAs, but the goal of the encyclopedia isn't to do so. We're trying to build and maintain a comprehensive encyclopedia, and the creation of numerous stubs is an excellent step towards achieving this goal. With that out of the way, I checked out the rest of the candidate's contributions, and I uncovered the following: experience with CSD (admins only); participation in a community-wide discussion; plenty of work at AIV; attention to details; etc. The list goes on and on.

    That aside, it's undeniable that the majority of the candidate's contributions consist of Huggle-assisted vandalism reverts, but I don't understand how this can be seen as bad. As much as we need to write pages, we need to maintain them by removing and preventing vandalism. Think of a hedge, for example. You've planted a row of 'em, great! Now in six months, they'll be overgrown, messy, ugly, and useless. The same can be said of articles. If nobody ever wrote another article, Wikipedia would remain a comprehensive and useful resource for years to come. If not for anti-vandalism work, the website would be useless in a matter of weeks, perhaps days. I apologize if this seems a bit like rambling, but the bottom line is that cleaning up vandalism is a vital job, one that the encyclopedia would not be able to survive without.

    WP:AGF is also relevant. While the oppose section raises some valid concerns, I'm not convinced by the argument that a lack of work in certain areas such as AfD correlates to a lack of policy knowledge. We don't know if Camw knows the difference between a block and a ban. We don't know if Camw could tell you how long to block a user who violates 3RR. We don't know if Camw knows what a username violation is. Then again, we don't know for certain if any admins know such facts. So, until one of the devs implement a mind-reading device, I'm going to AGF and assume that the candidate has memorized every policy on the English Wikipedia, as there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

    In short, there is nothing to suggest that Camw would abuse the tools. He/she isn't a perfect editor—if there is such a thing—but I have no doubt in my mind that granting them adminship will be beneficial to the project. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 07:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

    Actually I suppose that the diff you provided shows that Camw might know the difference. -- Mentifisto 00:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

    Ah, quite true. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

22. Strong Support. You've been here since 2005 and are near the 10000th edit milestone. Certainly you'll do well with the tools. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Support per Juliancolton's last paragraph. LittleMountain5 ^review! 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. Julian makes a convincing argument, and I loved the candidate's answers and replies. I often oppose when someone hasn't had broad enough experience, but when the reason is that they were too busy improving the encyclopedia, that works for me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - I'm impressed with Camw's answers and I see nothing to cause me to believe that the editor would disrupt the viscous flow of continuity of The Wiki. Though I myself have no authority to give advice for up-and-coming admins, I would suggest perhaps a bit more participation in other areas of Wikipedia—if for no other reason than to acknowledge the existence of the inner cogs, wheels, and gremlins that make the system work. Good luck! —Archon Magnus^{(Talk | Home)} 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support - From my experience, Camw does an excellent job with anti-vandal work, and s/he has said that vandal-patrol would be the focus of his/her admin work. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Support, is clearly a user who does a good job in vandal fighting, and any user who does that and is sufficiently experienced is, for me, a very good candidate for adminship. Refer to the "Discussion" section for a further point regarding the direction this RFA is taking. Esteffect (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Fast and accurate vandal fighter. Surely this counts as positive experience. Marek.69 ^talk 06:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Support I think admins with a limited focus are fine, and you've certainly put in good work. Ray (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Support TBDevilRays2009 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
31. Support, An editor who is intelligent, supports the goals of the encyclopedia, and is good with tools. Give them a few more. --StaniStani  20:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
32. If an user is an excellent patroller (even thought he hasn't got many experience), I think he may be a good admin --Mojska (m) 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Per above α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Great work so far. -download | sign! 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Erik9 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Keep up the good work! Shawnpoo (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support The questions above seem to indicate a user with solid policy knowledge and an appropriate temperament, which are the primary things I'm looking for. Edit counts don't concern me necessarily, though the small number of talk edits (the user talk edits are probably almost all warnings) is slightly troubling. No other red flags though, so I support. Oren0 (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Although most of your created articles have just one sentence (your longest written "stub" is Campbell Mattinson), your "good sports images" are quite impressive enough for me to consider you as a content builder. You are determined to help people from good faith, and seems to understand image policies. So the low edit count does not worry me much.--Caspian blue 02:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Support reasonably competent in the areas he wants to work. About content building, I agree with Caspian blue. Icewedge (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Support, vandalism fighting is solid, image contributions are good, and no reason to believe user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC).
41. Support - net positive. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Strong support Huggle work is extremely good. Fahadsadah (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - Huggle contributions are good, it shows they're willing to help out on vandalism patrol. Xclamation point 15:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support 10,000 edits with an aid is really like 5,000 edits manually, but that's still ok. Don't see any problems otherwise. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - This was another difficult one, but after reviewing User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria, I have decided to support. You clearly love Huggle, I have nothing against that, and have made many many good edits with it. You have shown yourself to have the right attitude in disputes (key criteria 7), and seem to me to have sufficient knowledge of policy (key criteria 8/9), with a good record overall (key criteria 1-4). The only concern I had was your communication concerns (key criteria 5) as brought up by Coppertwig (talk · contribs), and I also noticed in your user talk archives. However, your response to these concerns demonstrates important skills of an administrator, and of which not having is a common reason for people loosing the tools, these are: 1) Being willing to admit you are wrong, and 2) Learning from mistakes (key criteria 6). So overall, I think you have plenty of need for the tools and should benefit the project as an admin. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks, I don't know that I love Huggle, but my girlfriend would probably be jealous if she found out how much time I spent with it ;) Camw (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

46. Support Opposes are imposing too high a standard. I see no problems with handing Camw the mop. Cleanup in aisle 4, excuse me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. With that many edits, he probably isn't here to delete the main page. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. On balance, what very little risk is involved here (and I think it's quite low, after - among other things - reading the candidate's reasoned responses) is more than offset by the value of having him as an admin now. I understand why some editors are opposing; while they also are not expecting perfection in a candidate, they're looking for something closer to that than I am. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
49. I looked at a reply Camw made regarding one of his edits (here), and was impressed by his demeanor. In another edit, (here) I found that he also does not have a problem with admitting he is wrong or with trying to fix his mistakes. From what I can see, Camw has a decent head on his shoulders, and despite his heavy huggle use he should do well as an administrator. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    The candidate seems to be very calm and civil. However, based on the diff you provided, I'm switching from Neutral back to Weak Oppose. The candidate seems to be under the impression that reverting without comment and warning with a uw-huggle1 template is not treating an edit as vandalism. I don't even see anything wrong with the edit, (though there may well be problems with it apparent on closer examination), let alone a reason to revert it without any comment and warn the editor. [1] [2] This looks like a BITE violation to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    What I meant to the user is that the first warning assumes good faith and talks about constructive contributions. I admitted to the user that I probably shouldn't have reverted the edit, but my trigger finger was probably a bit quick because the article had been undergoing very heavy constant vandalism. The user came back to my talk page to thank me for the response and say their issue was resolved based on my response, so I hope they didn't feel bitten. Camw (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    Do you ever knowingly revert without comment and warn with uw-huggle1 when it's an edit you consider unconstructive but which isn't vandalism? I'm happy to hear that the issue was resolved satisfactorily with that user. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    Only by mistake rather than intent (and I think these are the very small majority where I have made an error). If you care to pick your way through my edit history (I don't mind going and finding some diffs if it would help), you'll find I still drop out of Huggle and use the Undo function with an appropriate edit summary a decent amount when I know rollback isn't appropriate Camw (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, I may have misunderstood what you had said about not having treated the edit as vandalism: just the kind of thing I tend to say and am misunderstood about! I'm switching back to Neutral. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

50. Support. This candidate is reasonable and conscientious, provided excellent answers to the questions, and is ready for the tools. — Athaenara ✉ 01:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. You know what you're doing. By the way, good answers. Caden S (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Whole Hearted Support I see an admin's eye already, great contributions, excellent vandal fighting, basically everything that's already been said! :) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Good contributions, excellent answers to questions and good vandal fighting (yes I'm counting photos as contributions) WereSpielChequers 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Great answers, good contributions, hope this puts you over the top. Valley2city^‽ 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - iMatthew // talk // 19:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support good answers to the questions has swayed me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support I'm very impressed with the user's answers and level of maturity and respect in this RfA. Arguments above seem to outweigh those below, so I can't oppose. Good luck with the tools if this pulls through! ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Camw will be okay: just take it slow, and don't hesitate to ask more experienced users for help. Acalamari 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you, that is indeed my plan if this goes through. Camw (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    That is a good attitude to take. Acalamari 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

59. Support has sufficient experience and tact. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Support am persuaded that candidate will not misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Good contributions and looks like he/she can be trusted with admin tools. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Sufficiently qualified. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Support - no reason to believe that this soccer fan cannot be trusted. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Broader experience would be a plus. But seems to have enough of a clue. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
65. Support. Looks good to me. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. Leave out the automated edits and you still have a good contributor. rspεεr (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
67. Support I see nothing lacking with his experience. He uses Huggle. So what? Antivenin 07:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Experienced, Good contributions and vandalism reverts. --Nvineeth (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Thoughtful and serious..I think will do well...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose 7500 out of 9000 of your edits are Huggle-based[3] and they all are from the last two months, 1600 of them in the last three days. While Huggle users are needed to maintain the encyclopedia, they do not indicate any knowledge of administrative duties. Your contributions to Talk: and Wikipedia: namespaces are virtually nil. I suggest you work on Wikipedia actively for another 3-4 months, not only with Huggle or such, and then retry RFA (if this fails). Your current contributions just don't allow me to trust you with the tools. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Understood, and thanks for the feedback. My main area of interest does lie in vandalism fighting and I guess "cleanup" oriented tasks, so that is where my edits have been rather than in the content space where I'm not as strong. I'll look into some other areas that I could contribute to in order to gain your trust (and others with a similar line of thought) if this request fails. Camw (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   SoWhy, linking to NOTNOW was probably not necessary, as that page is designed for the people with, oh say, 500 edits, whose RfA has virtually no chances of passing. Camw doesn't look like he's fitting that description. For what it's worth, there's discussion on the talk page about it (link) currently happening. Xclamation point 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

   I agree. Perhaps SoWhy would consider removing that link as it does not seem relevant to this candidate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks, I knew what he meant and no offense was taken. If he wants to remove the link after looking through the talk page discussion then that's fine, but if not then no harm done! Camw (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

   I never thought NOTNOW is only for candidates that have no chances of passing but for all candidacies where one might think, the candidate is running too soon. But I understand the criticism of this usage and although Camw seems to have understood my meaning, others seem to be confused by it and so I have removed it. Regards SoWhy 15:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose. Pretty much the same thing I said at Mikaey's concurrent RFA, you're on your way, but I need to see more than Huggling. Adminship requires knowledge of policy, civility, clue, and so forth, and you may have tons of each, but it is difficult to tell with your contributions as they currently stand. For example, you say in Q1 you want to work on RFPP, but you have only four edits there. Get some more experience in the project space and I look forward to supporting in the future. Useight (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for the feedback, I don't necessarily think that my focus would shift in a large way to other areas of the project should this fail, but I'll endeavor to broaden my horizons. Camw (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose per the points mentioned both by SoWhy and Useight above and by Pedro in the neutral section. Also, per the answer to Q2. Sorry. — Aitias // discussion 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   No need to be sorry. Can I ask you to expand on the problem with my answer to Q2 please? Camw (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Well, it shows a complete lack of article building. — Aitias // discussion 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   I acknowledge that article building is not my strength so I try to focus on and contribute in other ways, but I understand your concerns. Camw (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Actually, both your answers to my questions and your comments here (and in the neutral section) are that impressive that I can no longer oppose. Moving to support. — Aitias // discussion 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose per SoWhy. JPG-GR (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Somewhat oppose I would give you merit for your edits, but your edits in Huggle are a tad much. Ginbot86 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Automaticity makes it nearly impossible for me to gauge your knowledge of policy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Too dependent on automated tools. There is no way to fully acknowledge that the candidate has a grasped our policies. DiverseMentality 23:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose. You have virtually no experience in writing articles [4], and you were hardly involved in any article talk page discussions. I cannot trust you to make decision regarding deletion or establishing consensus. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

   That is a great website that i did not know, thanks for linking to it but there is nothing there that shows stats about articles written. 137.154.73.31 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

   It is sufficient in my mind; the same information is (now) available on this RfA's talk page:

   • 51 - Sydney_FC
   • 17 - Walker_Creek_(California)
   • 11 - Erica_Enders
   • 11 - Frankenstein
   • 9 - Plastic
   • 9 - Authority
   • 8 - Hush_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)
   • 8 - Queensland_Roar_FC
   • 8 - Gloucester_Cathedral
   • 8 - Nantes

   Xasodfuih (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   May I remind the audience that the most edited pages do not equate to articles written. Sometimes it's most watched, most vandalised, most reverted. Many edits remain invisible to the bot. It's not a reliable indicator. NVO (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   Let's cut to the chase here: can you name an article that the applicant has written a substantial portion thereof? Xasodfuih (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

   Xasodfuih, from my reading NVO is making a similar point to you so I'm not sure who this is aimed at. If it's at me then I'm afraid I cannot name an article, but I have never claimed article building experience past stub creation and image contribution. I understand that doesn't meet your criteria (and that of others). Camw (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Per SoWhy, Useight, and Xasodfuih. Try to get some more experience in those areas noted above first. Sorry. - Fastily (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Per Xasodfuih. I like to see admins with some experience in content and consensus building. Dean B (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Regretful Oppose. Good answers, a level-headed and friendly editor. But, as others have said before me, you need more experience in other areas first. yandman 08:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose as we need real people who have a good understanding of the rules and not some "Huggle bots". 1600 non-Huggle edits are simply not enough for me to come to the understanding that you know your way around the 'pedia. Tavix (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    Happy to accept your note on understanding the rules, but I'm not really comfortable with being called a huggle bot. Every one of the huggle edits I've made required a decision and action from me - Huggle is doing the work of loading the page and showing the diffs but it still needs an operator to take responsibility for the action. Vandalism isn't always clear cut and if I've made 8000 odd Huggle edits, then I've probably reviewed 10 times as many edits and let them pass. This process gives me an understanding of a specific set of rules, but I obviously concede that it isn't over a wide range of areas as some would like to see. I feel like my answers to the policy based questions above have been alright for the most part, but putting them into consistent practice may be more difficult. Thanks for the feedback anyway. Camw (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    Your still using an automatic tool to load the edits for you, it doesn't matter who presses the button. My statement was largely WP:NOTNOW. Tavix (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    I think that it does matter who presses the button or else everyone would have rollback access, but I accept that you take a different view. Camw (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose. Limited experience (few edits before January) and little or no article building experience. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, Camw has created well over a dozen articles. Sorry if you already knew this. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks, it's hard to see anything about his/her non-automated edits for the flood of automated ones. I have amended my comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    I would appreciate it if someone would provide a list of the articles created or substantially expanded by the candidate. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Hi Coppertwig (and others). There is a tool here that lists pages created (but not substantially expanded). The tool lists 52 pages and 3 redirects created. Most of them are stubs with an accurate infobox and a reference as I think I mentioned elsewhere, but it was still work that needed doing. I'll post the list generated to the talk page as the tool is a little slow. Camw (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    What I see there are articles like Campbell Mattinson: no references, (Rachel Cooper: one-sentence article, also no references, Nikola Dieter ibid. Stopped looking. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose. Camw has done some good work in a short time. Keep up the good work, round out experience (substantive article edits / WP projects other than WP:AIV) and come back in a few months and I will support. Sunray (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Little activity until very recently. Given that the vast majority of edits have been made with automated tools, more time is needed to assess this candidate's suitability for adminship. A potentially a good future candidate. Singopo (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose Like most every opposer here, I feel you are too reliant on automated tools for me to feel comfortable with you as an admin. Come back when you have more manual edits, and more mainspace contributions. ArcAngel (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose Sorry mate but you need some time to develop and edit Wikipedia so that you get a sense of the overall experience. As demonstrated here, if you had more experience in developing articles you'd likely be more mindful of contributions made by others. I think with some time and more experience I'd support you. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    I've explained that edit elsewhere in this discussion and it was a mistake that was cleared up to the satisfaction of the parties involved. I admit that I made a mistake but understand you aren't comfortable with my experience in areas you are looking for. Camw (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

17. Sorry I'm one of those editors who thinks some article work should be required for adminship unless there are special exceptions, and I don't see one here. And note creating articles such as Grace Gill-McGrath doesn't count as writing experience for me Secret ^account 13:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    No need to be sorry. I'm sorry that article writing isn't really my area of strength, so I don't expect to be able to be able to meet your criteria for supporting my application. Camw (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

18. Oppose. While I don't oppose based on edit counts, you had less than 1000 edits until two months ago. Involvement over time is one of the ways to earn the trust of the community, and I don't believe there is enough evidence to evaluate your request or adequately determine how you would react in a variety of situations. As a side note, I hope you are remembering to eat and sleep. Is a rate of editing like the 2000 edits in the five days leading up to this RfA a sustainable rate for you? Are you going to hit the wall? Dekimasuよ! 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    No, my free time does vary depending on various other things going on so I don't expect to continue at quite the same as the current rate. Thanks for the concern though! Camw (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

19. Oppose Article editing experience isn't a huge deal for me given your other good qualities. But you lack any Wikipedia: namespace edits beyond AIV and AfD, which makes it hard to judge your ability to think about and solve issues, know policy, or be sufficiently careful. What tipped it for me was reading all of your AfD !!votes. Nearly all of them are "per nom" or "not notable" or similar. There is rarely extra reasoning, sources, or evidence. While this may be a function of choosing uncontroversial AfDs, it also doesn't give any basis to judge your ability to make difficult decisions. I'm reluctantly opposing so I'd like to ask an informal question to judge your reasoning if I may (you are under zero obligation to respond since it's time consuming). How would ou close this AfD for this article as an admin, and why? Phil153 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    Hi Phil, understood and I agree here and in another comment somewhere above that per nom/not notable isn't a good enough contribution. I've been trying to improve my responses to AfD debates and I think the last couple have been better, but almost all my time lately has been spent in this RfA! ;) I'll have a look over the linked AfD and try to get back to you in shortly with an answer. Camw (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    You weren't wrong about it being time consuming! In addition to the AfD debate I've gotten sidetracked reading all kinds of somewhat interesting arbitration cases about fringe/pseudoscience. I think the argument has to come back to reliable sources and notability regardless of the acceptance (or not) of the scientific community about the theories put forward by an individual. I have to spend more time looking over the linked articles, but at first glance some of the ones I've looked at are not as independent or reliable as some participants in the debate are asserting. I'll keep looking at it and going through the debate and sources. Camw (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    I think I'm going to run out of time before this RfA closes and some of the references aren't loading for me in the AfD, but I'm still leaning toward closing it as a delete because the sources provided, while they are numerous, struggle to convince me that they constitute "significant coverage", and that they are reliable - there are a lot of claims made by the sources, but little evidence of fact checking or healthy skepticism on their part. The award from the citiy looks to be genuine, but I don't think it is enough to stake a claim for notability. If I don't manage to get back to this in more detail and the RfA is closed (either succeding or failing), I'd still like to hear your opinion on the AfD and what you would do(on my talk page if you have time and this is closed?). Camw (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    I wanted to see if you could efficiently pull the trigger on a complex issue, since nearly all your previous AfD votes have been straightforward pile-ons in very uncontroversial AfDs that didn't require more than a "per nom". As for this AfD, by the discussion there delete was fine; by a more careful consideration of the previous RfA, looking at the sources/spirit of the notability guidlines, consideration of systemic bias, and the harm of deletion, "no consensus" would have been justified too. Either would have been a good answer. I'll probably move to netural before this closes because you're such a good candidate in terms of temperament and clue. :) Phil153 (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks Phil153, it was a good, challenging question. Camw (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose. I like your attitude but would need to see more of it in 'action' over a wider area and over a more sustained period than a quarter of a year.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I just don't feel that three months using Huggle or AWB cuts it for me. Of your last 1,000 contributions only one was manual that I could see. Okay, you've made some improvements to Sydney FC but I don't see much article writing. Very little talk page interaction makes me wonder as well (eg. interacting with editors to gain consensus). Having said that you seem very accurate with the automated tools, and you are clearly here for the right reasons. Reasonable level of AFD work which is where you want to focus. Photography work is always appreciated but I don't see how it links to +sysop. I can't oppose an honest dedicated Wikipedian (particularly one I granted rollback too :)), but I'm not sure I can support. Do you perhaps have any contributions showing decisions based on consensus? I couldn't really see any - and AFD is the last place for unilateral action of course. Pedro :  Chat  14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Pedro, thanks for the balanced response. I agree that the photography work isn't relevant, and perhaps I should have chosen a different tack but that was the contribution where I feel like I've been able to move the encyclopedia forward rather than "not backwards" as the efforts of vandalism fighting can sometimes feel like. Article writing isn't an area where I feel I have much strength, so the photography is my (small) contribution to article building. I have created a number (50 maybe) of articles for W-League players where notable, but to be honest they have been mostly stubs with basic information and an accurate infobox. I'll have a think about the consensus based decisions and come back to you, I know there are some situations where I have reached agreements with users on content, there is one on my talk page now - but I will want to find evidence of more complex interactions and I'll need some time please. Camw (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   I do think photography is very important for Wikipedia and you have a right to be proud of your contributions. I would also note I was impressed by the first two answers to the optional questions. Pedro :  Chat  16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   On the subject of consensus based decisions, one I recalled/found was an instance where an IP was placing notices on a page indicating that it would be deleted, I good faith warned the user and they responded on my talk page (see the first section here. I responded and indicated that they should take their concerns to an AfD discussion if they were committed to following the correct process, the user did so (AfD, a consensus was reached and as far as I have seen the user accepted the decision and has not made any more disruptive edits to the page. I'll look for more (better?) examples, but it's not easy to sort through all the vandalism edits looking for them! Camw (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral here too. Like Pedro and SoWhy I am unable to discern how you will choose to use the tools. I am not so troubled by the automated edits, rather, it's the lack of edits showing who how you would use the tools at your discretion, or apply policy. Your AfD work is a bit light for me to determine the depth of your policy knowledge, and if you had any RFPP work I missed it in my review. If you intend to work at AfD, I'd like to see you weigh in on cases that can go either way, in which your position might be challenged. Most of those I saw were straight deletes with no voices in dissent. You are accurate in your CSD tagging and vandalism reverting, which tends to help my comfort level, and I would expect to support if the other issues could be addressed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks Xymmax. WP:AIV is where I want to concentrate on at first, but I also understand that the privileges granted are "all or nothing" and you need to be sure that I'm not going to create havoc (and hinder rather than help the existing administrators) in areas that I have little to no experience. Camw (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Generally good contributions. However Camw should work on more content creation and demonstrate good interactions with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
4. I have no problem with Huggle-only administrators. However, I would ask for at least an attempt into looking at other parts of the encyclopedia, preferably in a GA attempt or a DYK if primarily anti-vandal based. Also, a few months just really doesn't cut it; I would like to see a bit more than that. Cam, you are a generally solid user though, from what I can tell. Please do keep up the good work; just consider branching out a bit. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral for now. I'd oppose based on experience, but I like his answers and it seems like he has a good temperament. Go get some more experience where you can demonstrate judgement -- either deletion discussions or working on controversial articles. I think you'll do well at these tasks and a second RfA (if needed) will pass handily. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral for now. Similar feeling here. Seems like a fine candidate for admin, but it would be nice to see a bit more history and more participation in AfD's, RfC's, etc. I'll be happy to support another RfA in a few months time. LK (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral Gah, I'm flitting between Neutral and Support, but in the end that indecision itself is swaying me to neutral, and I've certainly no reason to oppose. Just yesterday Camw and I were (independently) chasing vandals around football related pages, and I actually thought he already had the mop until I saw him requesting blocks at WP:AIV. Whilst a big chunk of his edits have been in 2009, I know I've seen him around way before that and never had any problem with him that I remember. The lack of contributions at places like XfD and WP:ANI and the surprisingly low number at AIV are making me hesitate. I would just like to see a bit more evidence of knowledge of stuff beyond vandalism fighting. I've no problem with Huggling, nor Twinkling for that matter, and there's enough article work there for me. For me, spend some time at AfD because I think that's a great place to really get familiar with a whole range of policies and how they practically interact with articles. --GedUK  13:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral I was originally going to oppose. Then I realized that I couldn't come up with a good enough excuse that wouldn't have lots of people badgering. I'm sure people have put forth other things. I don't really see the need for every vandal fighter to be an admin, by the way. What was the old expression? "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians"? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

   Nicely put, on all points, if you understand "badgering" the same way I do (although I'm personally in the support column). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

   Wouldn't this be more akin to giving a brave a horse and a rifle? ;-) --StaniStani  20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

9. Neutral per Pedro and Ottava Rima. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral Seems like a good candidate, but there aren't enough non-hg edits to judge how they would use the tools. For the candidate, this is easy to fix! I agree with several other editors here that if you spend some time on noticeboards (especially the underserved ones, not AN & AN/I), policy talk pages and article work (specifically, pick something and see if you can bring it to GA or FA), you will do well. This may seem like checking boxes or "leveling up", but it isn't. If you are genuinely interested in learning how this place works and judging how consensus, dispute resolution and content improvement are helped or hindered by the tools, those are all valuable processes to undergo. Even if the process itself doesn't enlighten you, you will meet new people and discover new corners of the wiki (Wikipedia:Database reports is a good place to work, or Wikipedia:Articles for creation, or any of the peer review systems). You will run into conflicts, resolve them, help users, shepherd newbies, and by the time you are done, people will wonder why you aren't an admin. So please, if this RfA doesn't succeed, take it as some constructive feedback from a community that wants and needs your help across all of the encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Other suggestions: Wikipedia:Peer review, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Editor review, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and Wikipedia:Third opinion, all of which often have backlogs. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose Weak oppose Neutral Weak oppose Neutral, with regret because when I came to this RfA because of the uncertain percentages, I hoped I would be able to support. I appreciate the valuable contributions the candidate makes to the project, for example in the form of reversion of vandalism, and I appreciate the quick response to my request for a list of articles created. The candidate seems to be a productive editor and I would like to encourage him/her to continue contributing. I examined the situations surrounding three messages which the candidate deleted from his/her talk page. All three were complaints from editors whose edits had been reverted as vandalism by the candidate. Administrators, even more than ordinary editors, need to be open to discussing complaints about their actions. In one case, 1A, the candidate provided 1B a helpful and communicative reply to the user, so that's fine, although I would prefer to see consistent archiving of talk page messages, and although immediate deletion of messages may also impede further communication with the user. In another case 2A, I'm concerned that communication with the user seems to have been cut off 1B by calling the posting of a talk page edit "vandalism". Although the user's initial edits seem to be clear vandalism, I disagree that the posting of the talk page comment was vandalism. In a third case, 3A, after deleting the user talk page comment, as far as I found the candidate didn't reply with any talk page comment but carried on a discussion via edit summary only while repeatedly reverting: not the best practice. (A revert: [5]; page history showing total of 3 reverts by Camw: 1C) In the candidate's favour, the candidate did say something in an edit summary about using a talk page, and remained civil while the other user was not. The original edit in this case does not seem to me to have been vandalism. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    I should have handled the last two situations better I agree. Sorry to have fallen short in these cases. Camw (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    I'm switching to "weak oppose". Thank you for your response. After it, I looked through your talk page history for other situations where you had reverted edits to your talk page. What I found in general was situations where it seemed quite reasonable for you to simply revert: i.e., your talk page was being vandalised. I think that after doing a lot of reversion of vandalism, it can take effort to remember to treat angry good-faith editors with AGF. In other words, it's not surprising that you treated those situations in the way you did; however, RC patrollers do need to make the effort to AGF in each new situation, and either the same people should not do both a lot of vandalism reversion and blocking of editors, or else they need to be good at being able to AGF as necessary regardless of how much vandalism they've encountered recently. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    On second thought, switching to "neutral" because admins are allowed to make some mistakes. I encourage the candidate to be careful with the admin tools if the RfA succeeds. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks, if I succeed I will certainly be careful with the tools. I like to assume that I assume good faith almost always, but your comments are something to reflect on further. Camw (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for considering my comments. Unfortunately I'm switching back to "weak oppose"; see my reply to Malinaccier in the support section. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    No problem, I've responded there. Should I add .5 or .7 to the tally for a weak oppose? ;) Camw (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    LOL! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    Switching back to Neutral based on Camw's reply in the Support section. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

12. Neutral -- Great editor who would use the tools well, however, lack of manual editing puzzles me and how well this user would serve as an admin, since all edits are mainly made with scripts.--₮RUCӨ 01:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Neutral Leaning to Oppose. After seeing you're count, I'm very.....confused I guess you could say. You have been here for four years...but you had done nothing over a quater of the time. You had a couple edits here and there and then all of a sudden you started reverting vandalism. Also, you have done over 10,000 edits in just 3 months, but the number means nothing, it's about the experience, and right now you're just the same as a person who has been here for 3 moths posting an RFA. But at the same time, you didn't have dumb answers. It looked and sounded like you actually knew what you were talking about. But 3 months of editing just isn't right to me. N.G.G. 02:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry for any confusion caused! I read a lot, more than I have contributed in the past I suppose. So I guess that is the experience where my answers come from rather than editing. Obviously it is impossible to quantify reading as it isn't counted anywhere but I hope the answers to the questions posted so far might sway your opinion, since as you say numbers mean nothing. If I don't get through on this RfA then I hope I can contribute in different ways over the coming months to lean you toward (and I hope into) support next time around. Camw (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    Lol it's cool. I like you're attitude man. I really want to support you but I'm just on the fence and to the fence has caught onto my pants so I can't REALY lean either way. N.G.G. 03:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

14. I'd love to see more content contribution from you, be it a GA/DYK/FA. I believe it will greatly benefit you in having a well-rounded perspective when you receive the mop. Looking forward to supporting in future, - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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.