Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nathannoblet 2

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] Nathann

Final (2/14/3) Ended 08:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nathannoblet (talk · contribs) – Wikipedian wanting adminiship to help out with AfD ect. Nathannoblet 23:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accpept my nominated

I am withdrawing due to repeditve suggestions Nathannoblet 08:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Look,I am new but I can do a lot. Please support me and give me a chance. I will REALLY help WP though this. I have been studinging up on AfD just for this,so please,support me!

UPDATE : I have joined in about 5 MfD and 1 AfD Discussion. I plan to join in more.Nathannoblet 08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

2 Applyed for Admin Coaching and a Editor Review. Nathannoblet 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: See statment above {AfD,MfD}
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are particularly pleased with, and why?
A: I am very happy with Miami,Queensland and my work in WP:AUS
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: No,i have never had one of these.
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • May I suggest you withdraw, or at the very least give more complete answers to the questions? As is, you'll end up slaughtered because you have far too low an edit count for most users, (170) and are rather new. Not to mention that those aren't really answers. --tjstrf 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Does this user have E-Mail enabled? -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 01:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks like you are doing a great job, keep up the good work. Just need to get more experience, that’s all. From what I have seen in random checking, you are dedicated as it looks like you are editing as we speak, so you will definitely be a great asset to this project. Thanks for all your hard work. JungleCat talk/contrib 02:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Moral Support Please continue contributing to Wikipedia.Canadian-Bacon t c e 00:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - This RfA will likely fail so I so ne reason to dent your morale, I suggest withdrawal until you believe you are ready (2000 edits, 4 months.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose misplaced RfA, very weak answers to questions, failed to disclose previous RfA which was just over a month ago. Fewer than 250 edits is too few for me to support you, I'd advise you need at least 2500 and several more months of experience. Sorry, Gwernol 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I suggest self-withdrawal. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and try again once you've gained (much) more experience.--Húsönd 00:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, not enough experience, try again later. --Terence Ong (T | C) 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, you need a lot more experience, I know you tried RFA last month (while having only 20 edits under your belt), but the issue is not with time It's more with activity, I reckon 2000 edits which have plunged you into numerous corners of Wikipedia (RFAs, disputes, AFDs etc) would be necessary. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per all above. Never thought I'd say for "yearning for adminship," but it's been way to soon edit-wise since last time. When you have a few thousand more edits, have taken part in many, many XfD discussions and reviewed many more new pages, and if you still think adminship is something you want-- try again.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Nathannoblet, your enthusiastic demeanor and willingness to help are strong points in your favor but I agree with most people here that you need more experience to be able to tackle the job; only time (and a LOT of work as a non-admin) will tell whether you have what it needs to be an admin. As I said enthusiasm and a helping attitude are great first steps but you also need patience, discussion skills and a strong sense of diplomacy and I feel your response to the questions left people wondering about these skills. Whatever the outcome of this RfA, your qualities are be a great asset to Wikipedia so please keep contributing. Roadmr 00:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, needs more experience. Michael 01:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose -- needs more experience. - Longhair\talk 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose more experience, plus needs more answers for the questions above. Hello32020 01:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Oppose, Nathannoblet only scores 4 at the most 5 on my Admin Assessment scale. You need at least 20 points to pass, come back in 6 months. -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose and suggest withdrawal. It's way too early to even consider giving admin tools to this user. Metamagician3000 02:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You have currently made less than 200 edits, whereas successful admin candidates usually have at least 2,000 edits. You've also only been around since the end of June, and have only been contributing consistently since late-August. Considerably more edits and a longer track record as a consistent contributor are needed before adminship can be seriously considered. Good luck if you apply again in the future. Zaxem 04:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, Needs more edits and experiences. Daniel5127 (Talk) 04:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Inexperience. Come back six months later with continued participation, and I'll reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 07:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Yes, please withdraw. Need more experience. Thanks - JungleCat talk/contrib 23:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral No sense piling on. Keep on editing. Irongargoyle 02:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Before I could support you, I would have to see where your strengths as an admin lay. Why not withdraw, get an Wikipedia:editor review and/or enter in to the admin coaching programme and work towards admin status before reapplying in ~3000 edits' time? (aeropagitica) 04:44, 28 September 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.