Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cameron Nedland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Cameron Nedland

(FINAL 1/6/2) Ended 04:40, 2006-08-03 (UTC)

cameron Nedland (talk · contribs) – I really think that Cameron Nedland has helped make constructive edits to Wikipedia. He takes it really seriously and has never made any vandalistic edits. The greatest man in the universe 00:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: My big interests are languages and spelling reform, so anything related to that I would be interested and willing to help. Any other subjects that might need my assistance I will also help with, but I am less knowledgeable so may be of limited service.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Mostly additions to pages pertaining to spelling reform, as few people have even heard of the idea, let alone accept it as a legitimate movement.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Mostly in the articles related to the Spanish language, there seems to be a strong European bias. Mostly I try to show that both major varieties exist and try not to make one dialect seem "correct". I'll probably make similar edits in the future.
Comments
Username cameron Nedland
Total edits 841
Distinct pages edited 392
Average edits/page 2.145
First edit 03:08, December 8, 2005
 
(main) 274
Talk 327
User 112
User talk 111
Wikipedia 5
Wikipedia talk 12
Added at 16:36 on August 2 2006 by  (aeropagitica)  (talk) 
Support
  1. Moral Support Your willingness and desire to take on an added role in this project speaks to your character. You seem to be very well-meaning and per a brief overview of your edits, you seem to be a great person to have volunteering to write the 'pedia. Your choice to spend your valuable time helping out is quite commendable. Having said that, administrator candidates are often a bit more experienced. I'd be happy to help you become more involved in Wikipedia, or if you want a more experienced user to help, there is something called admin coaching that pairs future administrator candidates with current administrators. This would help you get some experience with some of the more technical aspects of Wikipedia. Good luck! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose See "recently created admins" for what qualifications are generally needed. Best wishes, and try back in a few months-- AdamBiswanger1 16:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Please check Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards for the minimum standards some people set for voting in an RFA. Can a bureaucrat please check the nominator's userpage? This may indeed be a bad faith nom as per aeropagitica's comment. Themindset 16:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Fails most of my standards. Not too active in Wikipedia. Been here since December 2005 and only 274 mainspace edits. Weak answers to RFA questions and answer to Q1 show they have no use for admin tools. --Tuspm (C | @) 23:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose and recommend withdrawal, insufficient experience (manifested in the form of an edit count). Answer to question 1 does not appear to need admin tools. Stifle (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Stifle. Not ready perUser:Dlohcierekim#Standards. Saw no AfD or RCPatrol edits in last 500. :) Dlohcierekim 23:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Answers are very weak and show lack of experience, incredibly low edit count to even be considered for adminship. Wait a great while longer and re-submit when you have much more experience. Michael 23:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral Not enough experience at the moment, I suspect a bad-faith nomination. Try again in a few months when more experience has been gained.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, you are right, nom is a confirmed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet according to their talk page. This RfA should not have been listed here until a confirmed candidate, and should be withdrawn. I would be happy to WP:AGF with this RfA if it is listed properly, and I would consider supporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seivad (talk • contribs)
  2. Neutral No need to pile on. Please, please close this RfA per WP:SNOW. Ifnord 01:42, 3 August 2006 (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.