Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Electricbassguy


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

Electricbassguy
Final (0/2/1) Ended 19:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a self-nomination. :-) Electricbassguy 19:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept this nomination

I feel I would be a useful addition to the administration team as I have fought vandalism on many pages.

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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 will work on reverting vandalism and also on finding categories for new articles and will try my best to clean up poorly written articles. I will try to be more active than I have been so far as well. I will try to quickly delete vanity articles and unimportant pages but will be fair if there is a page that is simply lacking research that is actually of use to the community.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I think my best contributions have been to the AMC Theaters article of the details of its MovieWatcher program, and my Poetry.com article.


 * 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 have not been involved in any serious conflicts with other members, though I have been a little frustrated when people revert my edits without giving a proper explanation as to why they had done so.


 * General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Sorry for wasting your time, everyone. I didn't know of editor review. I will probably re-submit this some time in a year when I am more prepared



Support

Oppose
 * 1) Strong Oppose - I've looked over your contribs, and see that there's been a near-complete lack of civility with your edit summaries. Some of them are outright abusive. Pursey 20:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose no need for tools, and very low edit count. --Alex (Talk) 20:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose sorry, but fewer than 350 edits mean there isn't enough long-term evidence to judge you on. Also you almost never use edit summaries and when you do they can be problematic as above;. You have recently been warned for vandalism. I suggest you withdraw this RfA and seek an editor review instead. Gwernol 20:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Ok. What is an editor review?) Electricbassguy 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Click the link I provided above and it will tell you all about it. Gwernol 20:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral — Answers do not suggest a need for tools. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:11, 15 October 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.