Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SOPHIAN


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

USERNAME
Final tally: (0/2/0) ; closed per WP:SNOW by Juliancolton at 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER SOPHIAN (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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: Helping to make wikipedia a non-Biased site


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Helping to make wikipedia a non-Biased site.


 * 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: I have, I follow the rules and I will follow the rules.

General comments

 * Links for USERNAME:
 * Edit summary usage for USERNAME can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/USERNAME before commenting.''

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, with only 37 edits, the candidate isn't ready for adminship yet due to lack of experience on wikipedia. Wizardman  23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
 * Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing.  -  down  load  ׀  sign!  23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy oppose Somewhat nonsensical request for adminship, even going as far as soliciting other users for help, not to mention edit warring and potential violations of the WP:3RR, and possible sockpuppetry, ,  Wapondaponda (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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.