Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaeron


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

Camaeron
(2/12/0); Ended 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC) - closed early in accordance with WP:SNOW. Acalamari 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I use wikipedia on a daily basis and am also a regular user of the German wikipedia web site. I would like to thank all admins in advance for considering my adminship and taking the time to comment. I hope you can see past my relatively small number of edits and instead concentrate on the quality of my edits. I look forward to your answers!

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: Reverting vandalism speedily. Blocking and unblocking users. Protecting pages and taking time to listen to non admins.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to wikipedia are: Royalty and Nobility related topics because I am a keen royal-watcher and have various noble relatives ; English and German language topics (I speak both fluently) and Biology, Politics and History subjects as these are but a few of my main interests.
 * 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: As you all no doubt have checked, I havent as yet never been in a real "conflict" though I have had various differences of opinions with other wiki-users. One of my better qualities is patience so I do hope I will in future be able to prevent any conflicts and will be to deal with offenders appropriately.

General comments

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


 * Links for Camaeron:

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

Discussion

 * Hi there Camaeron. Could you tell me what you user-name is on de-wiki, as I would be interested in reviewing your contributions there before making a decision? Thanks, EJF (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good evening! My user-name is exactly the same. Very imaginative eh? --Camaeron (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * EH? Could you provide link to your German user page? I could not find a user with the name "Camaeron" on the German Wikipedia. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Maybe not as many contributions as I would like, but I cannot oppose a good-faith editor. EJF (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Your edit count and contribution time is too low. I cannot in good conscience support you in becoming an administrator. --Ozgod (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - You have very low experience on Wikipedia, and I would suggest you withdraw this. Rudget | talk 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Far too little experience. You'll want to chalk up about 2000 edits before you have a chance at passing RFA. Please use edit summaries more. See this page for an idea of what it might take to pass an RFA. Useight (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per very low edit count and no edit summary usage as well as answers to the questions. I would suggest the same as Rudget. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - very low edit count and answers to questions are too succinct, IMO. For exmample, Q1 is a fairly "generic" answer and doesn't show much evidence of serious thought as to how the tools will be used.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Sorry, just not enough experience yet. Maybe later. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - Far to little experience, suggest that you participate in areas that are more aimed towards admin functions, such as WP:ANI WP:AFD WP:TFD ect.... Tiptoety  talk 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Oppose Per above comments, not enough edits and not enough edit summary usage. ArcAngel (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - not nearly enough experience, I'm afraid.   jj137   (talk)  20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - Not nearly enough experience. But I applaud your desire to help the community! I suggest withdrawing this nom per WP:SNOW. Come back in 6 months time and let's have a little look at your progress. Cheers.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Low edit summary usage (46% = Major, and 0% for minor). Also, usually to become an admin you should have at least 2000+ edits (usually). It seems that you have under 500. Experience is the problem here. Sorry :( -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with < 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Nominees with < 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful.
 * Please read WP:Admin
 * Please read the admin reading list.
 * Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect  and unprotect  pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * My suggestion to any nominees with < 1000 edits would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Good luck and happy editing.  Dloh  cierekim  21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking on talk page-- Even though it is not against policy to blank one's talk page, I believe that an admin/candidate should not do so. Communication and transparency are important.  Dloh  cierekim  21:36, 26 February 2008 (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.
 * 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.