Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Remember

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

[edit] Remember

Final (0/3/1) Ended 15:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember (talk · contribs) – This user has maintained excellence in writing the North Carolina Tar Heels article. I just thought he might be interested as a little reward for all his hard work. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I withdraw. I have set up a page for myself under the Wikipedia:Editor review if you are interested in giving me further constructive criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs)

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 would probably focus my attention on trying to combat vandalism and getting more involved in dispute resolution proceedings.

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

A: I am proud of setting up the Carolina-Duke rivalry webpage, creating the template for Template:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, uploading various photos from the public domain, and helping get the Dean Smith article closer to good article status.

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: The only stressful conflicts I have had so far is various conflicts with User:Duke53 over the Dean Smith and Roy Williams (coach) articles. I feel I dealt with this situation well. I have found that if you assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks that goes a long way in helping to resolve disputes. I would continue to use this approach in dealing with future conflicts.

General comments

• See Remember's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Remember's editcount summary stats as of 15:52, November 1st 2006, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. You are a good editor, but you need more experience than that to become an administrator. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 14:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Sorry, I am going to have to agree with Sir Nicholas. Just enjoy editing for a while and you'll gain more experience. —MJCdetroit 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose - you already seem to know why, so I won't bother you with that. You're a good editor, though, and you've made many valuable contributions. You may wish to set up an editor review if you want a more thorough exploration of your work?

Also, to the nominator, if he is watching this: adminship isn't an award, really. If Remember has been doing hard work and you want to acknowledge that, give him a barnstar or two. Adminship is a big load of extra duties, and unless the user shows particular inclination towards admin-like tasks (vandal-fighting, participating in policy discussions, showing interest in copyright issues, etc), the community is unlikely to be willing to grant him sysop rights. It's wonderful that you wish to praise his contributions - an RfA probably isn't the right way to go about it, that's all I'm saying. riana_dzasta 15:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Cant see a need and this worries me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   I've fixed that edit to the tally - clearly just a case of mis-understanding, with the date placed there. Martinp23 14:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Whoops. Thanks for changing that back. I thought that this was suppose to reflect the current date and not the vote tally. Remember 14:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   I think that shows you need a bit more experiance.. come back in a few months . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   That looks like he misunderstood that it was a tally and thought that he should put today's date in it. I would WP:AGF; however, not knowing it is a tally could be demonstrative of a lack of the experience necessary to be an admin. --Trödel 15:13, 1 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.