814:
In addition to the reasons noted by others above, the fact is that if you had investigated the administrator nomination process at all, you would have known you could not possibly succeed and were wholly unqualified. You thus nominated yourself either without performing the most basic due diligence,
792:
As well as not being ready, the unwillingness to listen to advices by multiple very experienced admins (like
Juliancolton) and a crat (Dweller) suggests a kind of stubbornness that I would not want in any admin, not even if the candidate were ready. I am afraid any future RFA will be judged by this
444:
I hate to do this, but I've changed my vote from a moral support to a strong oppose - this user wishes to drag this out despite the fact that it has less than 10%, and there is absolutely no way in hell it will pass. This is unacceptable behaviour for a potential candidate for getting the bit.
718:
and an editor still insists, that begins to reflect negatively on the candidate. Even so, we could chalk it up to optimism and enthusiasm, which are generally to be encouraged, even if they are not sufficient to warrant granting adminship. On the other hand, lack of policy knowledge is most
845:
Insistence on keeping this open bodes ill for success in this collaborative project where you have to work with others, take their advice, etc. Think well of what you're doing, Syjytg. Incidently, I hear the stimulus package includes an emergency shipment of vowels, any interest in
832:
Your obstinacy in continuing to keep this open against strong advice is in itself a strong negative and will likely prejudice your chances for success in a future RfA. You have already been strongly advised by many to withdraw - you should heed that advice.
466:- As much as I would love to see you get promoted one day, today is not that day. You just don't have enough experience around the Knowledge (XXG): namespace, such as with AfDs or even WikiProject discussions. Good luck for the future though. –
775:
I'm sorry, but you're not ready yet. RFA candidates need to have at least 6-12 months of editing experience. Also, the fact that you insist this RFA be allowed to run for the full time period does not reflect well.
149:
I have edited mainly articles on soccer, especially the FA Cup and the
English Premier League and I constantly try to improve articles by writing new information or improve information which has generally been
270:
I'm sure you're a well-meaning editor for WP but you need to have some experience with administrative tasks (like in the
Knowledge (XXG): namespace) to begin with, and you need to spend far more time here. --
397:
This RfA will not pass but any editor may overrule NOTNOW. Therefore this RfA should be allowed to run its course if the user so wishes. This may be considered a sort of moral support.
120:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge (XXG) as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
920:
to avoid pile on. Not enough experience. Continual instistence that this RFA remain open is not a good sign; plus we'll now have to wait for a bureaucrat to close this.
160:
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?
944:
240:
962:
734:
on steroids. I continue to recommend withdrawal. Your enthusiasm is welcome; please make more contributions over time and come back here at a later date.
210:
880:
166:
Yes, there are minor conflicts and I try to resolve it in the talkpage and it has been successful. I will use this method in the future as well.
197:
30:
17:
234:
696:
after the initial mal-formed RfA was reverted. This isn't personal, though; editors are free to request adminship. However, when
567:
was not going to pile on but user has demostrated that he won't take our opinions to heart by retranscluding this nomination.--
554:
348:
204:
673:
I'm sorry to also say, but Syjytg has not been here a month, and that is not enough to know
Knowledge (XXG) policy. Sorry.
257:
190:
79:
815:
or did so in the face of such knowledge. Either possibility makes me question your fitness for administrative duties.--
875:
730:
or willfully ignoring - neither of which is on my list of things to look for in an admin candidate. It's basically a
820:
659:
Sorry, but 210 edits is not enough to be an admin. Keep working on building edits, and experience on the wiki!
870:
943:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
793:
behavior... Please consider withdrawing soon because nothing good will come from continued discussion.
253:
816:
763:
277:
720:
428:- Sorry, 210 edits is not enough to demonstrate to me that you would make a suitable administrator.
678:
664:
611:
586:
470:
310:
929:
905:
887:
864:
855:
837:
824:
806:
784:
767:
750:
731:
682:
668:
651:
626:
615:
601:
590:
573:
559:
535:
518:
503:
498:
479:
473:
456:
439:
408:
392:
369:
353:
331:
314:
302:
297:
282:
109:
91:
59:
647:
549:
404:
388:
343:
925:
851:
531:
327:
184:
105:
87:
73:
800:
777:
759:
743:
491:
449:
432:
362:
272:
719:
definitely not to be encouraged in an admin candidate. It is also considered bad form to
692:
for lack of policy and process knowledge. I, too, was not going to pile on, and in fact
606:
Yeah, I thought that is what you meant, but just wanted to check and make sure. Thanks.
896:
834:
674:
660:
621:
607:
596:
582:
568:
467:
306:
292:
956:
643:
544:
506:
case I'm afraid. Keep going so we can fully judge your potential to be a good sysop.
399:
384:
338:
921:
847:
527:
509:
323:
180:
101:
83:
69:
358:
Agreed. Why do you wish for this to be drawn out when it will so clearly fail?
795:
737:
485:
63:
937:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
291:
Agreed.You can contribute a lot without being an admin. Suggest withdrawal.--
579:
543:
Not to pile on but 210 edits is not enough for you to be an admin. Sorry.--
895:, would've supported, but after looking at his conduct I now have doubts.
947:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
256:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
322:
I wish for the application to run full term. Please do not close.
305:. I suggest that as it appears that is going to be the consensus.
133:
I intend to do my best and all I can in as many areas as possible.
723:
at RfA, which is sort of a basic policy the candidate is either
143:
What are your best contributions to
Knowledge (XXG), and why?
758:
Continued insistence on running this RfA does not bode well.
98:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
127:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
727:
724:
715:
712:
709:
706:
703:
700:
697:
693:
228:
222:
216:
482:and the suggestions and links from that page.
578:Patton123, is this what you are referring to
8:
252:Please keep discussion constructive and
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
7:
963:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
337:If you don't mind my asking, why?--
24:
82:) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER
1:
930:16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
906:17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
888:17:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
856:17:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
838:17:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
825:17:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
807:17:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
785:16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
768:16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
751:16:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
683:15:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
669:15:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
652:15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
627:16:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
616:16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
602:16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
591:16:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
574:15:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
560:15:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
536:15:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
519:14:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
499:14:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
474:14:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
457:17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
440:14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
409:17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
393:14:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
370:17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
354:17:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
332:16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
315:15:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
298:14:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
283:14:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
110:13:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
92:12:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
258:Special:Contributions/Syjytg
694:I suggested reconsideration
116:Questions for the candidate
58:FINAL (2/18/1); closed per
979:
657:Oppose with Moral Support
642:per lack of experience.
940:Please do not modify it.
39:Please do not modify it.
478:I'd suggest looking at
863:per all the above and
31:request for adminship
260:before commenting.
178:Links for Syjytg:
40:
749:
517:
497:
424:
383:Moral support. --
38:
970:
942:
903:
883:
878:
873:
803:
798:
782:
748:
746:
740:
735:
624:
599:
571:
557:
552:
547:
516:
514:
507:
496:
494:
483:
455:
452:
438:
435:
420:
368:
365:
351:
346:
341:
295:
280:
275:
244:
203:
173:General comments
978:
977:
973:
972:
971:
969:
968:
967:
953:
952:
951:
945:this nomination
938:
914:
897:
881:
876:
871:
817:Fuhghettaboutit
801:
796:
778:
744:
738:
736:
622:
597:
569:
555:
550:
545:
510:
508:
492:
484:
450:
446:
433:
429:
417:
380:
363:
359:
349:
344:
339:
293:
278:
273:
267:
196:
179:
175:
118:
55:
50:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
976:
974:
966:
965:
955:
954:
950:
949:
933:
932:
913:
910:
909:
908:
890:
885:
858:
840:
827:
809:
787:
770:
753:
710:in polite ways
687:
686:
685:
654:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
562:
538:
526:Agreed. - Dan
521:
501:
476:
461:
460:
459:
416:
413:
412:
411:
395:
379:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
320:
319:
318:
317:
300:
286:
285:
266:
263:
249:
248:
247:
245:
174:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
154:
153:
152:
151:
137:
136:
135:
134:
117:
114:
113:
112:
54:
51:
49:
44:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
975:
964:
961:
960:
958:
948:
946:
941:
935:
934:
931:
927:
923:
919:
916:
915:
911:
907:
904:
902:
901:
894:
891:
889:
886:
884:
879:
874:
869:
866:
862:
859:
857:
853:
849:
844:
841:
839:
836:
831:
828:
826:
822:
818:
813:
810:
808:
805:
804:
799:
791:
788:
786:
783:
781:
774:
771:
769:
765:
761:
757:
754:
752:
747:
741:
733:
729:
726:
722:
717:
716:won't succeed
714:
711:
708:
705:
702:
699:
695:
691:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
671:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
653:
649:
645:
641:
638:
628:
625:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
605:
604:
603:
600:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
576:
575:
572:
566:
565:Strong oppose
563:
561:
558:
553:
548:
542:
539:
537:
533:
529:
525:
522:
520:
515:
513:
505:
502:
500:
495:
489:
488:
481:
477:
475:
472:
469:
465:
462:
458:
454:
453:
443:
442:
441:
437:
436:
427:
426:Strong oppose
423:
422:Moral support
419:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
401:
396:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
377:
371:
367:
366:
357:
356:
355:
352:
347:
342:
336:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:
299:
296:
290:
289:
288:
287:
284:
281:
276:
269:
268:
264:
262:
261:
259:
255:
246:
242:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
202:
199:
195:
192:
189:
186:
182:
177:
176:
172:
165:
162:
161:
159:
156:
155:
148:
145:
144:
142:
139:
138:
132:
129:
128:
126:
123:
122:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
96:
95:
94:
93:
89:
85:
81:
78:
75:
71:
67:
66:
65:
61:
52:
48:
45:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
939:
936:
917:
899:
898:
892:
868:
860:
842:
829:
811:
794:
789:
779:
772:
755:
689:
656:
639:
564:
540:
532:push to talk
523:
511:
486:
463:
447:
430:
425:
421:
398:
360:
321:
251:
250:
237:
231:
225:
219:
213:
207:
200:
193:
187:
163:
157:
146:
140:
130:
124:
119:
97:
76:
68:
57:
56:
46:
34:
28:
760:Agathoclea
728:unaware of
725:apparently
265:Discussion
150:receptive.
100:I accept.
53:Nomination
900:Wizardman
865:WP:NOTNOW
732:WP:NOTNOW
675:America69
661:America69
608:America69
583:America69
480:WP:NOTNOW
307:America69
303:WP:Notnow
223:block log
60:WP:NOTNOW
957:Category
877:Mountain
644:ArcAngel
620:NP :-)--
546:Giants27
385:Tikiwont
340:Giants27
191:contribs
80:contribs
922:Useight
918:Neutral
912:Neutral
848:Wehwalt
846:that?--
721:canvass
713:that it
704:make it
701:editors
698:several
504:Not now
378:Support
198:deleted
893:Oppose
872:Little
861:Oppose
843:Oppose
830:Oppose
812:Oppose
790:Oppose
773:Oppose
756:Oppose
739:Frank
690:Oppose
640:Oppose
623:Patton
598:Patton
595:Yes.--
570:Patton
541:Oppose
528:Dank55
524:Oppose
512:GARDEN
464:Oppose
415:Oppose
324:Syjytg
294:Patton
181:Syjytg
102:Syjytg
84:Syjytg
70:Syjytg
47:Syjytg
745:talk
707:clear
493:Chat
487:Pedro
451:neuro
434:neuro
400:Andre
364:neuro
279:fisto
274:Menti
254:civil
205:count
64:EVula
33:that
16:<
926:talk
852:talk
835:NrDg
821:talk
764:talk
679:talk
665:talk
648:talk
612:talk
587:talk
405:talk
389:talk
328:talk
311:talk
235:rfar
217:logs
185:talk
106:talk
88:talk
74:talk
802:Why
780:Sam
471:Jay
468:Pee
241:spi
211:AfD
62:by
959::
928:)
867:.
854:)
833:--
823:)
797:So
766:)
742:|
681:)
667:)
650:)
614:)
589:)
581:.
534:)
490::
448:—
431:—
407:)
391:)
361:—
330:)
313:)
229:lu
164:A:
158:3.
147:A:
141:2.
131:A:
125:1.
108:)
90:)
37:.
924:(
882:5
850:(
819:(
762:(
677:(
663:(
646:(
610:(
585:(
556:C
551:T
530:(
403:(
387:(
350:C
345:T
326:(
309:(
243:)
238:·
232:·
226:·
220:·
214:·
208:·
201:·
194:·
188:·
183:(
104:(
86:(
77:·
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.