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

Final (1/6/0); Ended 20:35, July 26 2007 (UTC); closed early as per WP:SNOW. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpecialAgentUncleTito (talk · contribs) - I am very smart, I have an extremely long fuse, I am experienced with wikipedia, I know its rules, and I have been editting since May 2007, among other things.....But I will be honest with, I am like that, I have made mistakes, we all do, but over all, I love this website and its community. I will strive for a better wikipedia for everyone. Questions are welcome, Thank you. SpecialAgentUncleTito 15:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this nomination.:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to do my best, and to help others. I intend to help make this Wikitopia better for all. I am strongly opposed to disruption of any kind. I will NOT fight or argue against vandals; I will get them to stop, and contribute in a good maner, then if they do not comply I will temporarily block them, followed by an indefinate block on the account.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: All of them. I look at my edits as equally important. Fixing one sentence is just as good as staring an article. The ones that would probably attract people the most are the AfD because they either need to be thrown out, or cleaned up to improve wikipedia, but I enjoy edit period.

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, not really. When I have edit wars I side with the other person, so both of our contribs are in....Unless they are downright vandalising at which point I correct all of their edits and politely tell them to stop. In the future, I will have sit downs with the people I am in conflicts with. If they get out of hand I will talk to other administrators about them. I will not personally do anything since I think that it is abuse of power. I would ask one of you guys to punish them.

Remember every contribution is important, and every article has room for improvement... SpecialAgentUncleTito 15:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Links for SpecialAgentUncleTito: SpecialAgentUncleTito (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SpecialAgentUncleTito before commenting.

• Note. The user has now been advised to withdraw per WP:SNOW. Pedro |  Chat  19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Moral support. Everything relevant has been said in the opposes below, no need to pile on. —AldeBaer 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While your work here is appreciated, you are not quite experienced enough. 100 total edits is generally well below the desired threshold. I reccomend finding somebody to adopt you and get a little more experience under your belt and try again. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   • Also, any recent vandalistic edits like this show you are clearly not ready for the tools. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Per Chris above. Also, requesting a page move at WP:AN/I here shows a lack of knowledge about Wikipedia's procedures. ~ Wikihermit 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per above. Also, take a look at successful RFAs for an idea of what is generally considered admin-worthy. You need a lot more time and experience but your enthusiasm is a great first step! —Wknight94 (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Your answers to the questions above were vague and gave little sense of why you want to be an administrator or what you would do after you became one. Your edit history is short and shows no evidence of administrative functions which are generally considered to be a precursor for being considered for adminship. Plus, your very recent past history of vandalism is hard to overlook. Trusilver 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per Chris, Wikihermit, and an absurdly low edit count - I try to avoid editcountitis, but 96 total edits is unreasonable. Please, feel free to come back when you are more experienced and familiar with Wikipedia. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose It's waaaay to soon, mate. If you do want to contribute & eventually become an admin, then heed some common advice. 1) Withdraw this self-nomination, as it's unlikely you'll get more than a few moral support votes. 2) Find yourself a niche for editing. This can be vandal fighting, as part of a wikiproject or building up a few of your favorite articles to good article or featured article status. 3) Continue to participate in admin-related tasks, like participating at WP:AFD (this is one of the quickest ways to familiarize yourself with the policies regarding content). 4) In a few months, request an editor review and/or admin coaching. This will be a good way to gauge your progress. And as Wknight94 said, read through other RfA discussions to see what the criteria are. Caknuck 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.