Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amlnet49
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Nomination
[edit](0/5/0); Scheduled to end 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Closed early per WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amlnet49 (talk · contribs) – I believe that I am qualified to be an admin. I have patrolled new pages. I have reverted incorrect edits. I believe that my contributions could grow with adminship. To User:Pedro - I didn't mean that I would block users for an incorrect edits. I meant that if there is an incorrect edit problem I would protect the page. As I state in Q4, I would never block a user for one incorrect edit. Amlnet49 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
[edit]Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: As I have said, new article patrol (deletion if article is qualified), incorrect edits on road articles, making Wikipedia a reliable place for info.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Articles about roads. I've liked them since I was 2 and most of my edits have been to articles about roads.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: No. The closest thing to a stressful situation was with User:Polaron over some New York and Conn. exit lists but its okay now.
- 4. Will you respect administrative tools?
- A: Certainly. I take on the job with respect and self-imposed limits. I will only use authority when necessary.
General comments
[edit]- Links for Amlnet49: Amlnet49 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Amlnet49 can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Amlnet49 before commenting.
Discussion
[edit]AML says: "No need to get stressed. To anyone who cites Pedro - I changed my candidacy notice. I guess there was misunderstanding with my comment!"
Support
[edit]- Support I believe, despite your edit count that you will excel at admin duties. Nickandpete (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be an SPA... iMatthew // talk // 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitly. Also claims to be a joint account and should be blocked.--Pattont/c 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had an old account with Pete but he created his own account and after we deleted our original account I created this one under the same name today.
- Definitly. Also claims to be a joint account and should be blocked.--Pattont/c 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be an SPA... iMatthew // talk // 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]- WP:NOTNOW - Sorry, 1) < 500 edits, 2) your response to Q1 "incorrect edits on road articles (blocks)" is exceptionally alarming (you intend to block editors for "incorrect edits"?!). Sorry. Pedro : Chat 22:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per above LetsdrinkTea 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per Pedro - try again perhaps in several months with more experience. - Fastily (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose WP:NOTNOW perfectly applies here. Try working in the WP-namespace - experience and expertise is contagious. flaminglawyer 22:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, you are not qualified enough. -download | sign! 23:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]- 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.