Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Memmke

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

[edit] Memmke

Final (0/11/3) Ended 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Memmke (talk • contribs) – I could use the abilities! (I could always be stripped of them if I were to abuse them, right?) Memmke 09:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am going to be bold and end this RfA now, as so many oppose votes in so short a time, together with such a low edit count in the stats on the Talk page means that this will not turn around any time soon. There's no point in dragging out the inevitable outcome and Memmke now has enough information to improve their editing skills on Wikipedia over the next few months in order to try again in the New Year. This isn't so much WP:SNOW as a hailstorm. (aeropagitica) 15:56, 1 December 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: Vandalism, sock puppetry, * for deletion, helping resolve conflicts.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Can't say I'm a "direct" contributor, I prefer dealing with things in the "background". Maybe how the discussions around the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate turned out and what they resulted in (major improvements of an article I thought had no future!.) :-)

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, not really.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose I was going to give Memmke the first !vote as moral support, because it's usually a mauling when a candidate has less than 250 edits at RfA. But given what Memmke has been up to at Tanenbaum-Torvalds_debate, I can't support. Memmke took the same article to AfD three times and to DRV once in just over a week.--Kchase T 10:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, that was a tad abusive (I did look for guidelines on how soon I could nominate it again!), but in the end, it helped the article/cause, and I learned a lot from it. (In other words, I would not do anything like that again.) Memmke 10:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

   That was two weeks ago - not a lot of time to demonstrate that you have indeed learned a lot from it. John Broughton | Talk 15:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Kchas. Please get a lot more experience and come back, 2000 edits are usually required. Right now, I suggest withdrawal. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

   I have some months of lurking too. Memmke 10:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

   "Lurking" does not make you experienced, I'm sorry. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Normally, I like to emphasise "quality over quantity" and point out that a high edit count is not a good indicator of a potential good admin. However, you really need a lot more experience than you have. Try again in a few months once you've got your head around the policies and the way things are run here. Lankiveil 11:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
4. Oppose. "quality over quantity", but I fear you have neither. A few more months of good edits, and hopefully we'll be able to pile on the "supports" instead... yandman 11:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose. Not nearly experienced enough. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Oppose, not enough experiance and very weak answers to the questions...You can fight vandalism without the tools.__Seadog ^♪ 13:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose User needs much more experience. Withdraw this RfA. ← ANAS ^Talk? 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, lacks of experience, and needs more edits and time here. Wait for another six months or so before coming up for RFA again. Nomination does not explain why you want the tools, so not now. Suggest withdrawal. Terence Ong 14:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Not nearly enough experience, you need to make more edits. I consider tagging me as a sock puppet a personal attack, and looking at your other actions it seems I am not the only one. You need to be much more considerate if you want to be given power, and since you seem to like nominating huge amounts of articles for deletion I don't think it's a good idea to give you the power to delete them. Your replies to the questions speak for themselves, too. Pelzi 15:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per inexperience. You've been here for a little more than two weeks. I suggest you try again after getting 3,000+ edits and/or staying with the project for more than 5 months. Nishkid64 15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Too hasty, no real need for tools, fear of abuse. – Chacor 15:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I just hate to see RFA's like this, were you know that the user is porbably going to withdraw due to every vote being oppose. My first RFA was just like this. Just get around 1,000+ more edits, and try again.--Ac1983fan 12:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Avoiding pile-on. Actually, I am reluctant to support anyone with less than 3,000 edits unless they exhibit stirling qualities. You need more experience editing. There are plenty of articles at Wikipedia:cleanup that need work. Gain greater familiarity with policies and procedures. Then consider coming back to *fD and RCPatrol. Once you have the hang of things, seek an editor review and heed the advice gained there. After that consider another RfA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
3. I can't bring myself to give a moral support to someone with only 243 edits, and 47 mainspace contributions, so it'll have to be a moral neutral. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:14, 1 December 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.