Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nathannoblet 4

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] Nathannoblet

Final (1/11/3) Ended 14:01, 04 November 2006 (UTC)

Nathannoblet (talk · contribs) – Wants to be a admin to really help out in XfD Nathannoblet 06:05, 4 November 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 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: I really want to help out in XfD , I am busting to. I will make it a condition of my adminaship that I will close 20 AfD's a month or I must withdraw. If I fail to do so, I may be taken to Ara Com.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with Miami,Queensland and my work in WP:AUS and Wikipedia:Wikiproject Gold Coast
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: I had a conflict with Longhair and Scott Davis. I dealt by placing medatation and ara com but withdrew both. Ended up speaking to the users and I resolved the matter. I will talk to the users in future.
General comments

Nathannoblet's editcount summary stats as of 07:44, November 4th 2006, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 08:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
second RfA attempt (2,14,3)
first RfA attempt (0,9,3)

Support

  1. Moral support - First of all, I suggest this is withdrawn before it becomes too much of a joke. I don't want to pile on here. You need to address the concerns raised below and in your previous RFAs. If you're dying to help out on XfD, you may !vote speedy delete if appropriate, close the discussions where speedy keep is applicable and close deletion debates that finished with the speedy deletion of the article (and the deleting admin forgot to close). I suggest you take on some form of admin coaching and come back when your coach thinks you're ready. MER-C 10:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Just by scratching the surface, you have less than 2000 edits typically required (at the very least) for adminship and fourth third RfA in two months. Your answers to the questions are simply too weak for me to take comfort in the fact that you will use your tools wisely. While I appreciate your eagerness, you are simply not prepared for admin status. Continue your editing, and come back when you have more than 2000 edits. --210physicq (c) 06:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. And again, no. You're far too eager to be an admin. But you're not admin quality. You took two editors - including an admin - to ArbCom over minor incidents. You claim Miami, Queensland is one of your best works, yet nominated it for WP:GA when it was incomplete and full of trivia. This is an encyclopedia, the ultimate goal is not to become an admin. The answer to question 1 is almost laughable. This is your THIRD FOURTH RFA this year, and you don't even remember, creating this as a 4th RFA? (2, 1). – Chacor 06:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    The third RfA was deleted on September 27, 2006 as an incomplete, malformed request. -- Longhair\talk 07:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    AFAIK It still means this should be at /3 not /4. – Chacor 08:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    I agree. I'm only stating the facts of where the third attempt went. -- Longhair\talk 08:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose per Chacor. I strongly recommend withdrawal, given your past RfAs and your history. Feel free to try again in a few months if you can get more experience. --Coredesat 06:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose per Chacor and Physicq. Please withdraw this nomination and try again when you have at least 2,000 edits – not before. KrakatoaKatie 07:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose. Clearly does not understand Wikipedia policy, as can be seen by users own talk page, as of 2 days ago which was blanked 3 hours ago [1]. Numerous incidents of seriously misunderstanding policy and process. Plus, less than 500 total edits. -- AuburnPilottalk 07:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose Nathan has shown immaturity and very poor judgement in filing unwarranted arbitration and mediation cases against people who didn't even know he considered they were in a dispute. His arbitration statement in its entirety was: "I am not too happy with Longhair." As self-appointed mediator, he advised other editors seeking mediation to instead skip the dispute resolution procedures and escalate straight to arbitration. He has shown little interest or ability in editing the encyclopedia and appears to view Wiki as a game. I strongly advise this candidate to withdraw his request and reapply when he has developed and demonstrated maturity and an understanding of dispute resolution and Wikipedia policies and goals. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Did you even read my comments on your first and second RfA attempts or your editor review? You don't have enough experience as your repeated attempts at RfA demonstrate. You also fail to understand Wikipedia policies and protocols, either in the formation of articles or interacting with editors. I don't need to drive all of the nails home, please read the advice at the pages linked to tell you what to do and how to improve. A bureaucrat should withdraw this RfA soon as it will not achieve consensus and all positive advice has already been given for the moment. (aeropagitica) 09:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strongly Oppose anyone who has three RfA's in three months is just stupid, especially whenyou have 500 edits and take somebody to the ArbCom over nothing whatsoever. Please, for the love of God (and I say that as an atheist) withdraw.  Jorcogα  10:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Someone who says we can take them to ArbCom because they don't close so many deletion discussions a month is clearly not ready to be an admin yet. --Lord Deskana (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose for obvious reasons, lack of statement ST47Talk 12:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. This is my first oppose vote in an RfA I think. Your enthusiasm is noted, and it is very appreciated, but I find your lack of knowledge over the dispute resolution process significantly disturbing. You consider the ArbCom as a casual way to solve a problem, instead of realizing that it is the last resort, and NOT something you should just casually play with. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 13:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Suggest withdrawal -- Samir धर्म 06:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Please withdraw. Your previous history shows that you don't understand how to interact within the community, which is a must for an administrator. If I were you, I would not reapply for at least another 6 months, during which you should demonstrate good behaviour and proper respect for WP procedures and protocols. All the best. riana_dzasta 09:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral to avoid the obvious pile on. First of all, I wish to state that I admire your attitude of not giving up hope on being an admin. However, allow me to suggest your withdrawal from this RfA soon and reapply again after six to nine months. In the meantime, read up on the successful nominations as well as the unsuccessful ones on how to become an admin. In this way, the quality of your edits would improve and you would avoid further disappointments on any future RfA nominations. In the meantime do not give up hope and continue to contribute in a substantial manner to this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:45, 4 November 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.