Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Syjytg


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

Nomination
FINAL (2/18/1); closed per WP:NOTNOW by EVula

– YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Syjytg (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Syjytg (talk) 13:00, 16 February 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: I intend to do my best and all I can in as many areas as possible.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: 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 receptive.


 * 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: 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.

General comments

 * Links for Syjytg:

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

Discussion

 * I'm sure you're a well-meaning editor for WP but you need to have some experience with administrative tasks (like in the Wikipedia: namespace) to begin with, and you need to spend far more time here. -- Menti  fisto  14:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.You can contribute a lot without being an admin. Suggest withdrawal.-- Patton t / c 14:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Notnow. I suggest that as it appears that is going to be the consensus. America69 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish for the application to run full term. Please do not close. Syjytg (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind my asking, why?-- Giants27  T  C  17:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Why do you wish for this to be drawn out when it will so clearly fail? &mdash; neuro  (talk)  17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral support. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) 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. Andre (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Moral support  Strong oppose - Sorry, 210 edits is not enough to demonstrate to me that you would make a suitable administrator. &mdash;  neuro  (talk)  14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - 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 Wikipedia: namespace, such as with AfDs or even WikiProject discussions. Good luck for the future though. – PeeJay 14:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd suggest looking at WP:NOTNOW and the suggestions and links from that page. Pedro : Chat  14:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Not now case I'm afraid. Keep going so we can fully judge your potential to be a good sysop. GARDEN  14:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Agreed. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Not to pile on but 210 edits is not enough for you to be an admin. Sorry.-- Giants27  T  C  15:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong oppose was not going to pile on but user has demostrated that he won't take our opinions to heart by retranscluding this nomination.-- Patton t / c 15:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Patton123, is this what you are referring to . America69 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes.-- Patton t / c 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought that is what you meant, but just wanted to check and make sure. Thanks. America69 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NP :-)-- Patton t / c 16:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per lack of experience. ArcAngel (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose with Moral Support Sorry, but 210 edits is not enough to be an admin. Keep working on building edits, and experience on the wiki! America69 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to also say, but Syjytg has not been here a month, and that is not enough to know Wikipedia policy. Sorry. America69 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for lack of policy and process knowledge. I, too, was not going to pile on, and in fact I suggested reconsideration after the initial mal-formed RfA was reverted. This isn't personal, though; editors are free to request adminship. However, when several editors make it clear in polite ways that it won't succeed 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 definitely not to be encouraged in an admin candidate. It is also considered bad form to canvass at RfA, which is sort of a basic policy the candidate is either apparently unaware of or willfully ignoring - neither of which is on my list of things to look for in an admin candidate. It's basically a WP:NOTNOW 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. Frank  |  talk  16:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Continued insistence on running this RfA does not bode well. Agathoclea (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose 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.  Sam  Blab 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose 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 behavior... Please consider withdrawing soon because nothing good will come from continued discussion.  So Why  17:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose 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, or did so in the face of such knowledge. Either possibility makes me question your fitness for administrative duties.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose 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. --NrDg 17:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose 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 that?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per all the above and WP:NOTNOW.  Little Mountain  5   17:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, would've supported, but after looking at his conduct I now have doubts. Wizardman  17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral 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. Useight (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2009 (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.