Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 13

EvergreenFir: October 20, 2019
encouraged me to do this again, not that it has been over 2.5 years since the last time. After some thought, I thought I'd try it. I'm curious what people think. Last time there were some stated concerns about history and lack of content creation. I've worked some on the latter (though it's not my forte to be honest). I am hoping my overall lack of drama and troll starvation will assuage those concerned about history or my frequent contributions on socio-political pages.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 8/10 - 4 years is generally enough for problems in the past to be discounted by the vast majority, so long as nothing of a similar bent appears. UAA and counter-vandalism work looks really good. I've gone for 8 because I there will be a few who want more content, but generally I think you'll be okay. I would suggest specifically covering the Eric issue just below your acceptance of a nomination - owning problems saves problems (at least in my view). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have a trusted admin telling you that you're probably ready, you're probably ready. --Izno (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to say something and decided not to but since Izno has - my firm belief is that if you have multiple respected sysops telling you that you're ready (and especially if they do so unsolicited) then you're ready. I can't find the conversation wither Vanamonde directed you here but I think those sysop endorsements are the single best indicator of whether you would pass (or not) a first time RfA in the current climate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 9/10 - I have always found you to be a voice of reason, and someone who is knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and practices. Being upfront about and past drama would be advisable. I don't think average users would penalize you for relative minor skirmishes from years ago. I think you have a good Wiki-reputation.- MrX 🖋 18:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * High opinion of the prospective candidate. El_C 18:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was invited by Vanamonde to think about a co-nomination a few months back. I was a little concerned about a few things; not that I don’t think you could do a good job as an admin but rather that somebody could throw in a difficult cross-examination that might make an RfA unpleasant. However if multiple respected editors are saying you should go for it, you should probably go for it. As somebody who appears to have a reputation for being “chums” with Eric, a nomination from me might carry significant enough weight to knock those concerns on the head, for what it’s worth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (and, because you mention me above); the reason I asked EvergreenFir to come here is that while I think she'd make a fine admin, I am less familiar than some of you with respect to old conflicts surrounding the GGTF (with which EF was only peripherally involved, to be sure). Also, I have my own opinions about those conflicts, which aren't shared by everyone. I'm not sure I have a good feel for how much opposition EF can expect based on old conflicts; so while I appreciate the confidence expressed in my judgement, what I was hoping for was some independent assessment of older interpersonal interactions before I ask EF to endure seven days of hell an RFA. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's possible that could garner some opposes. However, my thinking, at this point in time, is that someone needs to be reasonably motivated to oppose a candidate. Good noms mean will decrease that motivation for some editors who might otherwise recall somethingg like GGTF. So I stand by my original assessment of "If you have multiple respected sysops telling you that you're ready (and especially if they do so unsolicited) then you're ready" but having this extra context was definitely helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm honest, what comes to mind is this RfA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And in retrospect, our concerns were for naught. Good choice as food for thought, . Just look at the wonderful admin he turned out to be. Atsme Talk 📧 20:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 9/10 - I feel you'd pass RfA. I wasn't concerned about past conduct at the last ORCP and I remain not concerned, especially with the time that has past I think the community (overall) will let it go. I gave a 9 because you will still have some hard detractors no matter how long has past, but I think you would pass an RfA. --  Dane  talk  20:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes/10 per my previous encouragement to run. I'd be happy to nom/co-nom. Sam Walton (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 5/10 - ok, I’ll play the role of Christmas Grinch. Your success will weigh heavily on your demeanor, your reasons for wanting the mop, and whether or not you can overcome your past behavior toward editors whose views you opposed in the socio-political arena. The latter may be a difficult obstacle for you to overcome because of what some may perceive as aggressive tendencies and an unyielding POV. Neutrality is the temperament of choice in an admin candidate as is level-headedness, kindness toward other editors, understanding, and trustworthiness.  Right or wrong,  this is the kind of response that raises a red flag and makes others think that if you’re like that without the tools, what will you be like with them?  You have excellent support from trusted admins but it doesn’t hurt to be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best. I wish you luck. We need more admins. Atsme  Talk 📧 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Replies and comments - Thank you all for the input and comments. I do appreciate the feedback, especially given the GGTF history and that there will likely be some folks who are wary., I greatly appreciate the comment and would gladly accept a nom/co-nom from you if you are willing.
 * I appreciate the "grinch" visiting; I need to hear that sort of thing if I want to be prepared for this process. FWIW, I'll give a short reply to the points you raised. As for that edit, I agree I was not exactly kind or gentle with that user. But I don't think I crossed any red lines as I kept my language PG(13?) and stuck to citing policy when confronting an editor running an ad hoc SPI. I am not immune to emotional responses, though I do my best to laugh at those who try to provoke. I've learned to not take Wikipedia's drama too seriously and to view this as a hobby/volunteer effort and not something terribly personal.
 * That said, I can understand how someone would see that and wonder what I would do if I had the admin toolkit. I know that I would do, the same thing did and take them to ANI. For cases that are remotely personal to any admin, the input of other admins should be solicited for multiple opinions and to counter balance any emotional response. I know, though, that I cannot convince others of my own mindset other than through my action. As such, my message to skeptics and grinches would be if you're worries I would misuse the tools, watch me and report me if you think I am. I would expect that for any admin and I would do the same for others.
 * I acknowledge my POV and I know not everyone shares it. But, just as admins who disagree with me, it would be unacceptable for an admin to use their tools or status specifically to bully or push a POV. Like I said above, I've seen good admins who can manage their POV while soliciting outside admins' opinions to check themselves.
 * To all folks, again, thank you for your input.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Caker18: November 10, 2019
I am interested in seeing how I might do in a range of two years - I know this recommends near future but I am just testing the waters here.


 * 0/10 Per no AfD ever matching consensus, Articles for deletion/Suleymanovo, not knowing what CSD A7 means, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Girth Summit, evidence of hat collecting and not reading instructions here properly. This poll is for people who want to run for RfA soon and are double-checking their suitability. Also see WP:OWB point 22 : "People who announce early in their Wiki careers that they want to be admins, probably shouldn't be". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey - thanks for your feedback. I did explicitly say I was testing the waters, however, and many of those AfDs were from awhile ago and I believe it is not suitable to bring those up at best. Also, define early in their careers. In terms of everything else, I agree, but in terms of tenure I must raise an objection. Thanks! I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  20:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would note that the AfDs have all been within 20 days of today (the 10th of November 2019) and their second AfD was only closed SNOW keep 3 days ago (Articles for deletion/Suleymanovo). Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Two years is a rather pointless timescale to be trying to determine if you're on the right path. You can create an account and become an admin within that timescale working from scratch. When this far, don't try to be pointed in a direction - just find out what you find interesting, learn about it and do that - trust me, you get better long term results Nosebagbear (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 0/10 also. I concur with Nosebagbear and Ritchie. There's no way to predict where you will be in two years. This is far, far too soon. With less than a thousand edits, there's almost no track record for us to go on. What little there is shows inexperience example (see MOS:SECTIONCAPS). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolute zero if nothing else, your signature is declaratory. ——  SN  54129  21:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 0/10. We're not near April Fools Day yet. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 0/10. As other editors have said, predicting what you will be like in 2 years is impossible. This poll is for those who want to double check how suitable they are before running for an RfA almost immediately after the poll closes. My zero rating comes from you saying that your first AfD shouldn't have been brought up, which was closed as snow keep less than 20 days ago with your AfD nomination being pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT and for which you failed to do a WP:BEFORE. Although technically the only requirement for an RfA is having an account, editors need to see experience and also trust you as these tools are powerful. Furthermore, being an administrator requires good knowledge of Wikipedia and it's intricacies, so that the administrator can act in the right way the first time. Thus I rate your chances of passing as zero, due to your lack of understanding of the polices and guidelines of Wikipedia (as evidenced in your recent AfDs). You need to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Melroross: November 13, 2019
I’ve been editing Wikipedia articles/built pages for several years and feel I have the interest, maturity and common-sense it takes to go for the next level of responsibility and decision-making profile. Thank you for your comments Melroross (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 1/10: I'm not seeing that you have any experience outside article space - we expect admins to have participated in the encyclopedia maintenance processes that they would be active in. If you're interested in adminship, head over to AIV, AFD, RFPP or one of the other places where your tools would be put to use. Until you have some experience there I can't see any hope of you passing an RfA. Sam Walton (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 0/10: I concur with Sam Walton. You have no experience working in areas where admins work. I don't see at this point what you would want the tools for. To date, you've had exactly 6 edits to Wikipedia space (and Wikipedia talk). In addition to Sam's advice, I'd recommend trying your hand at creating some new articles, and diversifying your experience base in what you do write about. Your activity level is also fairly low as well, and some at RFA will stand against you for that reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1/10: At the moment you don't meet my criteria for RfA candidates. As an experienced editor who has been around my guess is that an RfA at this point would be SNOW closed per WP:NOTNOW. Your desire to help the community is appreciated but realistically you aren't ready to ask for the mop. Read the various guidelines for RfA and spend the next year or two working in areas where you think you might contribute as an admin, and then come back if your still interested. Thanks for your interest and best of luck in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes: November 13, 2019
Most of my work is with redirects, templates, page moves, and linguistics articles. I can already do a lot of work with the tools available to me, but I've found more situations where admin tools would be useful both for my work and for helping fulfill more requests. The ones that come to mind immediately are moving over history, geonotices for edit-a-thons, and full protected edit/move requests. Two people I respect have nudged me to consider an RfA in the near future. I thought getting wider input would be useful before I invest more time into the idea. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You may remember my email about this, but FWIW I think your record is solid. At the moment your activity levels have been high only for a few months; a few more, and passing shouldn't be in any doubt. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3/10, but not much to do. I'm with Vanamonde, I suspect your tenure length might get disputed - about 2/3 of your edits are in the last 6 months. A few more months, even 3, would help both with that and get you another 1 or 2 thousand edits. You're an active template editor, so a lower edit count is fine - particularly given the sheer breadth of areas you've demonstrate heavy competence in. It's certainly possible you could run now, but I just think that a bit of time will let you have a much smoother ride. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4/10 I have not done a forensic examination of your editing record but what I have looked at suggests you have a reasonable chance of passing an RfA if you wait another 12 months or so and maintain your current level of editing. As noted above your lack of heavy editing until recently would IMO make an RfA in the near future problematic. But assuming there aren't any skeletons buried in your history, I think in a year or so you might have a good shot. You may wish to peruse my criteria for RfA. Thanks for your interest and good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: November 13, 2019
I am considering undertaking another RfA. Having the mop would be useful to me at DYK, where there is intermittently a lack of admins to move prep sets into the queue or to provide necessary administrator attention at short notice. The mop would also be useful to enable me to see deleted articles when new page patrolling, and to do rev-dels after removing copyvios. I undertook a poll here twenty months ago and there were concerns about my deletion nominations; I have tried to act on these, and I think I now have a better understanding of deletion policy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Both your RfA and your last ORCP involved major concerns with your ARBCOM involvement and Fram. In normal circumstances, addressing these head-on would generally be sufficient - 21 months is more than enough time. Your RfA, however, is going to be jarring. I'd advise finding a good nom to discuss that specific issue with (perhaps best not to have it out here, and then again at RfA). I'll give a review on the usual areas later today, but an initial insight looks positive. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's leave aside my past history and not ask commentators for any estimate on my chances of success at an RfA. I would be grateful for feedback on my weaknesses and any particular things I should be working to improve. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Your AfD stats are acceptable, though I'm confused as to what the problem was with Articles for deletion/Research in Nursing & Health and why you felt AfD was necessary because you couldn't move to draft. I can't see any problem with speedies. Unfortunately, the thing you need to be "working to improve" (at least to pass RfA) is your relationship with Fram and The Rambling Man. If that sounds unfair, it's probably because it is. Sorry. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was largely influenced by reading the creator's talk page; they appeared to be a CoI editor pushing nursing magazines. With regard to your second point, I currently have no relationship with either of these people, I just don't come across them, and the last time I interacted with TRM was perfectly amicable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case I suggest finding some friendly, experienced editors to provide feedback (as discussed in the poll instructions). I'm sure any interested editors reading this would be happy to contact you on your talk page, which should provide more focused, direct interaction of the type I believe you are seeking. isaacl (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, there is probably going to be a lot of unfair speculation about your role in WP:FRAMBAN to a point I imagine some folks might even go full-on conspiracy theorists. Having someone who opposed last time nominate you this time would certainly help at least mitigate that. It also stands to reason that there will probably be a sufficient counter-balance of voices ready to be vigilant about that kind of stuff. You have a reasonable shot from my perspective. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you have an obvious need for the tools and stellar content contributions. Honestly, you probably are the best editor you could possibly be for a potential run. From what I can tell, this was your last substantial heated contribution to arbitration proceedings (everything else was run of the mill stuff if you ask me), and that that was almost a year ago now.

James-the-Charizard: November 26, 2019
I have been on Wikipedia for considerable time (although registered in October 2016, I have been mainly active since about March 2019), and am very active in reverting vandalism, also becoming more active in the areas of AfD and RfD. I would use the administrative tools to continue and expand my anti-vandalism work (by blocking users and deleting seriously problematic revisions, as well as protecting pages), and expand the work I do with regards to pages, by deleting pages (either from being listed at AfD or tagged for speedy deletion) and/or redirects (when listed at RfD). James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 03:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's next to impossible to pass RfA with less than 10,000 edits. Not saying that to tell you to get a bunch of useless edits to up your count, just letting you know what the established minimum standard has been for a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see... Thankfully I wouldn't pull a stunt like making random edits to inflate my edit count. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 03:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 0/10 Here are some of the opposes that'll come your way based on my experiences at recent RfAs:
 * 45 AfDs is probably enough for AfC reviewer right but is not nearly so for RfA where the candidate has specifically stated they want to work in that area. I checked about 10 randomly selected AfD contributions from the candidate and most of them were pile-on !votes, none of them had the candidate steering the discussion.
 * Not enough content contribution. I like to see admins who have started a few pages and taken a few more to GA status at least, so they actually understand what editors actually doing the building of encyclopedia have to deal with. Doesn't meet my criteria.
 * Per userpage declaration -- But my biggest goal is that I hope someday, I can have the ability to handle the mop on here. (AKA: Become an administrator.) People who announce early in their career that they want to be admins are unlikely to be elected as one, as perhaps they shouldn't be. At the very least, it shows immaturity and/or poor judgement, either of which is a dealbreaker for me.
 * 3K edits is far too few even for those of us who aren't suffering from editcountitis, and most of those seem to be reverting vandalism. The candidate should continue their good work in that area and I will be happy to support them when they try again in a year's time or two, when they have more experience with content editing and our policies.
 * Per this diff and their subscription to admin newsletter. Too eager. This poll and this RfA nom itself show not much has changed. (Same oppose as #3, citing different evidence)
 * There may be more, but people won't go digging for them when they've already got enough, so I'll stop. I apologise if some of it is too harsh. But you will be subject to much worse in any RfA in the near future, with the nom most likely snow closed within hours. I suggest you forget about trying to become an admin for the next two years at least. Probably try and write a GA or two, with what little free time you might be able to squeeze out of your anti-vandalism work, and AfC and new page reviewing. Regards!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 04:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight, and with regards to oppose #3, that was content I forgot to remove a while ago (just removed it as I have grown more mature than that). As for oppose #5, I subbed to that newsletter to know what has (or will be) happening in the higher areas. In any case could an admin close this early? WP:SNOW since the opposes will stack fast. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 04:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you can close it yourself as withdrawn; anyone who might have further advice will find your talk page.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 05:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Iazyges: November 29, 2019
Hello, I'm Iazyges. I mostly edit articles on Roman Emperors nowadays. My core area of admin-related work is patrolling the new users, and reporting/CSD tagging any username or user page policy violations. Almost all of my reports result in block/deletion, so I would like to be able to shorten the process by actually doing it myself. However, I understand that it is far from a critical field. I asked for a poll in July, which was mostly positive, with most suggesting that more time actively editing would improve my chances. Wanted to see if my current chances have improved. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . 3/10 right now. If you filed an RfA at this time, I would expect that many editors would zero in on this comment you made on your own talk page less than two weeks ago: "I would be happy to take you on, but I would warn you, I have been far less active as of late, so I might not always be available for quick help." In my view, that comment does not indicate the level of commitment to the project expected of candidates for administratorship. You are entirely free, of course, to devote as much or as little time to this volunteer project as you wish. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  09:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant that more for that specific time period; in my experience adopted users generally ask questions for the first week or so and then only come to you with big issues/questions; at that time I was unavailable to respond within a timely manner (within the day), but now am free, hence my recent rise in activity. I can definitely see your interpretation, however. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  09:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 4/10. Right kind of candidate, wrong kind of editing track record. Voters look for consistent commitment to Wikipedia. The past 12 months do not demonstrate this. An edit count to cover these issues would need some work over the next twelve months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 3/10 - Agree with Kudpung and Cullen - I don't think you'd be likely to succeed at this point due to activity levels. --  Dane <b style="color: #00AC1D;">talk </b> 04:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 4/10 - Friendly interactions at talk page & otherwise from what I can see. AfD: stats are okay but stuff like this might invite scrutiny. Activity, as mentioned by everyone above me, is the big issue here. Enterprisey (talk!) 10:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Jarmusic2: December 12, 2019

 * ...I rate myself an 8 out of 10...


 * 0/10 Your talk page is full of warnings about disruptive editing, with no barnstars or other complimentary discussions to counteract that. That's an immediate "no". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

SouthernKangaroo: December 16, 2019
I'm just curious to see how I'd do in an RfA. I haven't been thinking about adminship otherwise. ☶☲Senny☶☲  (☎)  19:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 0/10 - while you are reaching the stage where you might do more backstage work that interests you, you are far from the edit level that admin candidates usually have. More concerning, just in the last month content was supressed off your talk page for you outing other editors. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I could be a little more active in editing. And I also realized I messed up bad with the whole outing thing. That's the one time I've gotten really opinionated on WP as well. ☶☲Senny☶☲   (☎)  20:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No rating, but a similarly round figure to Nosebagbear I'm afraid. Obviously the suppression would be an instant no-no, but, more broadly, in terms of apparent "need for the tools"—well, there isn't one. While haunting the drama boards is frowned upon (and you don't, so that's a plus!), a degree of participation in admin-areas is expected, whether at the various deletion discussions, policy pages or other backroom operations. At the moment, your most-edited project page is Editor assistance/Requests.You might also garner some opposition arguing that you've only really been editing solidly for a few months, although tenure is the easiest thing to resolve. ——  SN  54129  20:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I figure I should be more active in deletion discussions - I've been considering it a lot. I also have a gap in my contribs from late May to late Aug./early Sept. because of summer break and no way to log in to WP to have steady contributions. ☶☲Senny☶☲   (☎)  20:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above comments, but will also add that editors may oppose due to only having only created two articles (one now deleted) in mainspace. Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's great that you're interested in the idea of taking on the responsibilities of adminship, but you would definitely need to gain a lot more experience first. At an RfA, everyone expects strong evidence of content creation. One or two GAs and a fair number of lower quality articles would serve to demonstrate that you know how to put well-sourced and well-written articles together. You might then look to pass on some of that experience you've gained in content creation by helping at Peer Review. Or you might find yourself lurking at the Teahouse or Helpdesk, perhaps chipping in when you can assist others with something you know about, and learning from others when you can't. Watching and then participating at AFD is valuable experience, especially if you can present sound arguments, based on our policies, as to why an article should remain or be deleted. (But don't rush to show how clever you are by nominating lots of articles - try defending them against deletion is a good starting point.) You first AFD contribution here was not quite what I had in mind! Start using Twinkle, and it's not a bad idea to enable a personal CSD and PROD log from within its settings to keep a public record of any future nominations. Becoming an admin is not something you pick up and quickly put on - like a coat - it's a long, slow evolutionary process of learning and understanding. A good potential admin will probably know when they're ready to stand, as they'll find they now get as much satisfaction in helping others and protecting this amazing encyclopaedia as they do from adding content (and they'll see that most of their actions are going with the consensus, not against it). A good potential admin will be an editor who can do both, and who never - or at least very rarely - looses their cool. (BTW: others have mentioned it, but your signature is terribly pale and almost unreadable to me, and your display name serves to confuse, as its not your username. I personally find both rather annoying whenever I encounter it.) Best wishes for your future editing, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1/10 Hi . Please read my criteria for RfA candidates. I don't think there is much there that most experienced editors would consider to be outside of the mainstream line of thinking within the community. I am sorry that at the moment you don't meet most of those criteria. However one day you might. Maybe in a couple of years you can come back if you are still interested. Mistakes made as a new editor are often excused after a couple of years of solid contributions. We were all new once. Anyways, thanks for your interest and your various contributions to the encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji: December 28, 2019
Often at WP:CCI, I find myself getting stuck at some deleted content that I need to view but can't, so I often post to AN for help. After once again coming across a bunch of deleted templates/revisions that I needed to access at Contributor copyright investigations/Pohick2, I started thinking, "Hmm, you know, adminship isn't such a big deal, and I'm a decent editor (I think) so why don't I apply?" But I know it's too early for that (I'll probably apply at 15000-20000 edits), so I thought that I would try the optional poll out. I have an extremely good reason for wanting the tools, as I specalize in copyright areas, which desperately needs editors and especially admins (Wikipedia would straight up die in a month if stopped editing). I have some experience in content creation (some song articles, more to come), and I have a dencent tenure (Created this account in 2018, but edited inconsistently from an ip from early 2015 to 2017). I'm happy to hear about ways I can better myself, and am looking forward to responses- and as always, help out at CCI! 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 03:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you had respected sysops approach you saying you should consider RFA? If so, per my criteria you're ready. If not I think this exercise can be worse than discretely approaching some sysops you trust for feedback because it centralizes concerns. Such as, when you first started at CCI - believe you'd been doing it for less than a month - there was an ANI thread where I was surprised to the degree you asserted yourself as an expert. That said I've seen the value you've provided at CCI and you strike me as level headed when I see you around project space. But, to reference another essay of mine, I've concerns about what the mushroom effect might be here. But all that matters naught if there are respected sysops saying you're ready. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - I'll provide feedback shortly, unless you wish otherwise, but to comment on Barkeep's comment above, I'd say the poll has pros and cons over querying a couple of admins. I find you can get a broader set of both pros and cons here, but Admin discussions can be held in private, which for those who might be a 6-8/10 can be a plus (above and beyond any natural desire for privacy you have). I'll post here, probably tomorrow, with my advice (or earlier if you say so!). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm away on vacation, but I saw this while doing something else, and wanted to comment: I almost suggested you go for RfA about a year ago. The only reason I didn't was that you didn't have email enabled at the time, and I refuse to have these conversations in public. I disagree very strongly with that this page provides useful advice: the advice provided by this page is overwhelmingly bad and you'd be better off withdrawing this, finding a nom or two, and going for RfA in the next week or two. I'm sure there will be things you can improve on, etc. but you'd easily pass and keeping this open will only allow people to highlight negative things about you that would never be picked up in an RfA except for the fact that you posted at ORCP. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

CreatingCat: January 16, 2020
I have been attempting to get further up the Wikipedia ranks, as I believe that this is an important project, and if this project were to die, it would have immeasurable consequences on the internet as a whole.


 * 0/10 - I'm very glad you like it here, and thank you for your contributions. However, you have less than 1000 edits, no participation that I can tell in deletion discussions, and no articles created.  This isn't a judgement of your participation here, but you currently have no chance of gaining adminship at RfA.  My recommendation:  Continue to participate constructively, doing what interests you.  Then you'll have a clear idea how you can help in an administrative capacity, and why the community would benefit.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

1989: January 18, 2020
Hello. I was wondering what chances I would get if I attempt to become more active in the next months. Previously I received not so good feedback due to my very poor activity in 2018, and no AfD participation. While I managed to get a few votes on there to demonstrate my knowledge of policy and guidelines, I haven’t really been at AfD a lot as that’s not my interest. As of activity, I feel it was an improvement, but in regards to being very active here, I’m not sure I'd be able to provide more time than I previously had. As for the low mainspace percentage, as stated previously, I’ve help contribute to having two articles becoming FA, and have around 5? GAs (see now deleted statistics to confirm), with my important one being Steven Universe, as I’ve helped significantly to expand the article to where it is now, so I feel in some way the low percentage shouldn’t matter. If it does for some reason matter despite my contributions, please state why. Thanks. 1989 (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You were still mostly inactive through the year of 2019. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1/10 - Too little recent activity; it's best to contribute more [added with reply] to the encyclopedia rather than posting requests here IMO.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  22:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m confused by this comment, you make it as seem I don’t, in which is false. 1989 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally requests here help no one and you would be better off reading through fairly recent RfAs that failed and getting an idea of the likelihood that you will pass. Also, some people take ORCP requests as a bad thing when they are evaluating a candidate's chances at an RfA. After the previous ORCP you should have had a good idea over your likelihood to pass already; I believe that these requests aren't really what you should be focusing on right now.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  07:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 0/10 right now. Sorry,, but thank you for considering adminship and for asking for some feedback here. It takes courage to do that. I feel you've might rather have misjudged the timing of your question, and maybe also by what you've said here about future activity levels. I think, had you spent the next 6-12 months showing a regular return to editing and some serious admin-like activity, and perhaps then asked your question, you might have got a different answer from me. I took a quick look at your contributions and, to be honest, there hasn't been that much continued activity since mid-2017, except for the odd month here and there. Whilst I'm not an admin, I feel your recent contribution history over the last couple of years, plus your statement that you don't think you're likely to become much more active than you currently are would undoubtedly sink any RfA right now and probably for the next 12 months or more. You've clearly got a lot of edits under your belt (37k+) and have made some good contributions and some good CSD nominations, but I'm sure an RfA within the next year would gather a lot of oppose on the grounds that you haven't demonstrated any need for the admin tools, nor that you would be active enough to merit having access to them. That might be a painful experience for a keen and willing editor to hear, but I think that would be the likely outcome. So, even though I think your chances in the next few months would be very low indeed, that shouldn't stop you thinking about it in the longer term. But adminship is not just a badge to collect - there are plenty of brilliant non-admins who contribute greatly to this project, as you have done. If you really want to help out 'behind the scenes', focus on some backroom areas that do interest you and stick at them- though I would suggest that contributing at AFD is an exceedingly good way to show your understanding of policy through reasoned argument, especially if those arguments help sway others who might have voted differently. I don't know whether having a user-deleted and salted user page would be held against you, but it might raise a few questions. That could be something you might want to consider sorting out. Many thanks again for your interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, appreciate it. I’m well aware that adminship is not a badge nor should it ever be, as I’m one on another project, and I actually use the toolset. As for my user page being deleted and salted, it was done per my request, so I’m confused how it’d be held against me. 1989 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps I meant to say that you might be asked why you chose to do that. I suspect it's quite unusual for an admin, though someone is bound to put me right. You wouldn't believe what people are suspicious of at RFA, or on what dubious grounds they'll settle upon to make an oppose !vote. Just a question: would you be happy for your question here to be closed now, or would you prefer it to remain open for further feedback? (I'm not sure it's actually your choice, but I see no reason why you shouldn't have a say in the matter. Just let us know.) Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I had a global user page, I’d prefer that showing instead and not having someone recreate the local one by accident. Given what I have already disclosed to ArbCom in regards to myself, there’s nothing to be suspicious of, and I’m sure conspiracy votes are given no weight if a bureaucrat chat is opened. As for if I want this to remain open, I’d be happy to hear what I need to improve before considering, so far it’s my activity. 1989 (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of "not piling on", I am not going to assign a number. But I agree with others that there is very little chance that you would be approved as an administrator at this time. The most obvious problem is your extremely sporadic pattern of editing. You edited lightly for years, very heavily for about six months in 2017, and there have only been a couple months of active editing since. Yes, you had major contributions to one FA and some contributions to some other articles. But your content contributions are quite low overall. So, I recommend that you start editing consistently and regularly, with an emphasis on solid mainspace content contributions. Your other edits should be largely at quasi-administrative areas where you can show your knowledge of policies and guidelines. AfD is the classic example, but participating at venues like the Help Desk and the Teahouse will also allow you to demonstrate your deep knowledge of policies and guidelines, and your capability to be helpful to other editors. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  01:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your editing history is indeed extremely sporadic and voters might be inclined to assume that there is little overall interest in being a regular part of the editing community. There is also the fact that reading instructions and guidelines is quintessential to adminship. Based on empirical knowledge, I would say you would need to edit regularly and significatly every month for at least the next 12 months - sort of like starting over - and with a heavy focus on content building. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah: February 16, 2020
I was asked about running for admin by an existing admin. I would be using tools for articles mainly in the realm of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. I would use them for protecting pages, blocking vandals given they have proper warning, moving drafts to the main space (over redirects), and similar functions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ...who is the "existing admin"? (Glad to hear it's not a non-existent one!) ——  SN  54129  08:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hurricanehink <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a rating, but a general tip; saying you only want the tools to use them in your area of interest is a guaranteed way to tank an RFA since it shows you don't understand the day-one-basic principle of Wikipedia, that you don't use advanced permissions on topics in which you have a personal investment. &#8209; Iridescent 08:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm quite certain that only applies to articles about yourself, anyone related to you, and similar aspects. Just because a topic interests you doesn't qualify it as a personal investment. I wouldn't use the tools on anything I have significantly contributed to, but I don't see the issue with other related articles. I have seen plenty of admins using tools in areas where they have an interest. Although you are right that I should diversify a bit more. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will offer for your consideration my you my own general tip. You came here for feedback. A sysop gave you some. Now even if you don't know who Iridescent is (one answer: the only person who might arguably have a more influential user talk than Jimbo) it would still be wise to appreciate the feedback even if you're sure it's wrong (which in this case I don't think it is). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah, WP:FOUNDER 2.0 :)   ——  SN  54129  15:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I just wanted a further explanation on that :) <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what further explanation you're looking for here. I'm always happy to put my hands up and admit it if someone points out that I've made a mistake, but on this occasion I'm confident that I'm right and you're wrong. While Wikipedia generally takes a fairly lax "well, as long as it hasn't done any obvious damage" approach to policy, WP:INVOLVED is both one that tends to be enforced rigidly, and one where the community has always traditionally taken an uncharitable interpretation of "broadly construed". As a rough rule of thumb, if an admin finds a page interesting, then it's inappropriate for that admin to be using their tools in relation to that page except for the most uncontroversial of actions; it's virtually impossible for anyone to accurately judge their own biases in relation to a topic in which they're interested. &#8209; Iridescent 22:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks... With all that has been said, I think this can be closed. I will take all the advice given and try to make myself a more rounded editor. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 3/10 I echo Iridescent's concerns. I find your work in storms to be quite laudable. I do think you need to diversify not just a bit more. I took a quick look through your last six months of contribs in the Wikipedia space, and it's concentrated quite heavily on storms. Absolutely nothing wrong with that as an editor. As an admin, people are going to expect to see a much broader base of experience. You have almost no experience at WP:AFD, and quite limited experience at WP:AIV. Your lack of using edit summaries is, at times, confusing. For example, when looking for possible diversification I saw this edit and thought it might be on a subject not storm related, but found of course that it was storm related. Your overall edit summary usage is ~30%. There's a setting in your preferences under the editor tab that sets it to prompt you if you're leaving a blank edit summary. I would encourage you to set that, then think about edit summaries to help clarify what the edit is doing. Overall I think you're doing a fantastic job. It's just that at RfA, they're going to want to see a broader base. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I kind of figured it would turn out this way, but I appreciate the helpful comments so I can improve. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For some reason when I saw this request (and Iridescent's response) I thought of Requests for adminship/Cyclonebiskit 2. Granted without in-depth analysis I wouldn't categorically say that Requests for adminship/Hurricane Noah will end in the same way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd second the admin-field areas being worth looking into, as you've got a good track record at RFPP, but not at AIV, and as you gave them right at the start, that's probably worth evening up. I don't think your content work needs to be from a broader field fundamentally, but if are limiting your prospective admin work to that topic, there might be a query on how much of the topic is both in need of an admin at times and you wouldn't count as involved. (If you've got an activity that's not mentioned please let me know, so I can amend this.) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA: February 13, 2020
I'm not thinking of running an RfA. All criticism is welcomed. CAPTAIN MEDUSA  talk  04:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * As you're not thinking of running for an RfA at this time, I won't offer a x/10 score, but it can be worth asking about now if you think you might interested in standing in the future. It gives you time to work on any issues that might be identified (I waited two years before going for the full RfA after coming here). You've been active since January 2019 - which is not a huge amount of time - and have now racked up around 27,000 edits, of which 10,500 are in mainspace. You've clearly been very active in antivandalism, with over 400 edits to WP:AIV and 300 to WP:UAA, which is briliiant. You have successfully balanced that contribution with quite a lot of content creation, and have five GAs to your name which you clearly contributed to throughout their lives, from creation through to GA nomination. So you will keep many people happy at your abilities to write good content. (As a total aside: did you know you used the same word ("group") eleven times in the single paragraph in one of your more recent creations - North West Hebephile Hunters? - so maybe that could be worked on a bit to make it less clunky to read). You have very good AFD stats, and a quick check shows me that you do give valid reasons and dig around for evidence to support your views. (Beware of being too good - or somebody is bound to not bother checking, and simply accuse you of fiddling the system!) I did spot that you'd made a WP:NAC as a 'speedy delete' which surprised me, especially as you were also the nominator (see Articles for deletion/BiKi RoasTer. I think that contravened WP:DPR, so you might be asked about that, as you might also about a reverted BLPPROD on Joanna Foster which did contain a citation. Maybe that still cries out for an AFD! Enrico Cruciani Alibrandi might also be raised as a PRODBLP templating error. A very quick glance through your CSD log doesn't look bad at all - no obvious A7 errors, except a tiny handful right at the very start). The one thing I did notice was that in November you signed up as a host at the Teahouse though as yet you've hardly contributed there. Maybe you have been doing the sensible thing and have been lurking and learning, but I would encourage you to build up that evidence of an ability to help and interact sensitively to other editors, as it is a great 'tick' in my book at RfA. All in all I think you have the makings of a very good adminstrator, so maybe you might like to keep that target in mind over the next year or two ahead. That would allow you to focus on ensuring you get fully to grips with the various deletion processes and procedures and to build up good evidence that would move the more erroneous recent ones into the far distance. There's little point me saying you're not quite ready right now for adminship, as you've clearly have the self-awareness to realise that, and simply want some pointers to consider and to work on for the future. That to me is the sign of a mature and steady approach. I hope I've given you some, and I certainly would want to encourage you to stand in a year or so's time. You might then want to think about lurking at WP:ANI to get a sense of how the consensus of editors and sysops comes together to implement administrative decisions, and contribute when you feel you have constructive ideas to offer. I wish you all the very best, and thank you for seeking some critical feedback. I sincerely hope to see you around as an admin at some point in the not too distant future. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nick has pretty much said everything I want to. I disagree that lurking around ANI is a good idea, unless you are very careful. You could try and break up a conduct dispute and calm people down, and that will stand very much in your favour at RfA, but a lot of disputes there are best left to highly experienced admins with a track record of diplomacy and dispute resolution. Nevertheless, improving your communication skills is always a good idea, and writing articles and putting them through GA / DYK is one of the easiest ways to do this. One small point I want to make (and I apologise if it sounds like nitpicking) is at User talk:CAPTAIN MEDUSA/Archive 6 you said "Site ranking don't matter in Wikipedia." - this should read "Site ranking doesn't matter" unless you are deliberately trying to sound like Rodney Trotter or Vicky Pollard. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nick has done an excellent coverage of all the main facets - indeed, you'd meet the vast majority of non-tenure aspects in most people's criteria lists. - out of interest, how have you been doing in ACC? I know it's one of the more backlogged areas, and is a great area to see. Looking through your talk archives, I had been a bit concerned by one page that seemed primarily full of individuals requesting your overturn various actions, with you concurring and doing so (though that avoids one common concern about never admitting mistakes), but the rest seem a more normal mix. I know one reason I struggle to do much at Teahouse is that there just aren't that many unanswered questions when I look - if that's factoring in, perhaps take a look at some of the other help pages? Some controlled lurking is beneficial in my view - absolutely bad interjection can cause problems (it did in a single case for me), but reasonable control can minimise those issues, and that doesn't seem an issue I can spot with you. tl;dr (not that wikipedians really suffer from that) - I agree with Nick, you look like you're on the path to be a good candidate. Feel free to drop me any questions you might have in the future. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Before I start, I want you to run. However, I can imagine at least one person complaining your username is in all capital letters. If that happens, you should just ignore that concern outright. Everyone above already gave you the legitimate reasons someone would oppose your candidacy, so I figured I would offer some insight on some of the more petty reasons they could. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...rating and optional brief comment...

Chicdat: April 8, 2020
Hi, I'm Chicdat, and I personally believe I am ready for adminship; do you?

OK. I'm not ready, I admit it. 🐔Chicdat Chicken Database 16:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No,, I'm afraid not. One month's tenure is insufficient to pass RfA, although admittedly the community has never codified the minium. Still, thanks for your interest; keep quietly editing away and maybe find back in a couple of years. The links at the top of the page will help you. All the best. ——  SN  54129  11:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Chicdat. It is very rare for candidates to pass RFA less than 12 months after they start editing. Or with fewer than 3,500 edits. There have been exceptions to both of those rules, but not by large margins and not both at the same time. There are several things that people look for in RFA candidates, including: good communication skills - I suggest you go to preference and opt in to "prompt me when i leave a blank edit summary" as currently your edit summaries are often blank. Reliably sourced content contributions. A GA would be more than sufficient (I and others have scraped through with rather less than that) but I suggest you list on your userpage some articles that you have improved by adding reliably sourced material - or even just sourcing unsourced material that is already there. Another de facto criteria is "need for the tools" usually people demonstrate that by accurate reports of vandals at WP:AIV or accurate deletion tagging (aside from making it clear that you need the tools, this is a way of keeping the deletion button out of the hands of those who would delete more than policy permits.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, right now you would have no chance to pass. Start by enabling edit summary warnings and signing your messages (you forgot to sign this). If you'd like to see how hard people go on about tenure or edit counts at RfA, have a look at my first attempt, or the hihgly controversial GoldenRing RfA. You're new here, so welcome to Wikipedia. Get your hands dirty and figure out where you want to work, and once you do that, you'll familiarise yourself with various policies you might not know exist yet. Remember, though, that adminship is not a trophy. It's great to be eager, but don't go into editing expecting to guarantee yourself the admin role one day. Becoming an admin is no easy task and RfA can be incredibly stress-inducing. Go and have some fun . <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work ) </b> 12:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (0/10) - I'm very sorry to be blunt, and I certainly don't mean any disrespect in saying the following; This edit shows a lack of understanding of what being an administrator means (though obviously that is an ability administrators have). It's not about having the ability to edit a protected page. You also indicated that you had looked at admin guidelines many times. Yet, failed to read the instructions on how to properly begin an RfA. Also, at this point you've not made any contributions to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:AN/I, and many other common areas where admins work. At this point, you have no basis of experience on which to judge your ability to be an administrator. I applaud your enthusiasm. Please gain considerably more experience, and then revisit the idea of being an administrator later. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

NASCARfan0548: April 27, 2020

 * 6/10 - I kind of feel like I should become an admin on Wikipedia: I have been participating in XFD discussions and I have not been blocked, as evidenced on my block log, but I needed a lot of help on editing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NASCARfan0548 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have the edit count and the tenure that people now expect, though not by huge margins. Your edit summary usage is not great, admins are expected to communicate well so I would suggest going to preferences and opting in to "prompt me if i leave a blank edit summary". I have just made your account autopatrolled. I haven't looked at your XFd discussions but if they are accurate you should probably pass RFA.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  17:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you! I hope I become an admin, but I think the chances are low. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 17:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No rating, but I'm afraid it's pretty unlikely at this juncture. You don't state precisely what admin areas you would intend to work in, but since you mention XfDs it's fair to take that as a point of reference. Your CSD log has only one entry, and that is a rather bizarre G7 for your own user page, while your AfD log shows only ~20 discussions participated in, and that with a success rate of 55%. Mind you, the XFD tool is down for me atm, so perhaps that brings better news. But I'm afraid, just on the AFD/CSD stats, an RfA would have little chance of passing. On the other hand, your article creation is pretty good, particularly as they're BLPs; although it's ashame that there are so many stubs. Try and get something GA, and do some solid work in those other areas.  ——  SN  54129  17:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 3/10. I don't think you have the experience necessary. Participating in XfD discussions is a great standard, but there is a lot more that you need to pass an RfA. If you can't write articles, you'll really struggle convincing people that you are here to work on an encyclopedia. I'd work on getting a few GAs under your belt and you'd be better off. (If you want any help, drop me a message). Increase your edit summary usage, and keep activity levels the same for another 6 months and you'd be much closer. As above, I'd decide on what areas you'd like to work on and get some non-admin experience in those areas. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, NASCARfan0548! What is it you want admin tools for? Generally, if you don't have some actual task you want to do that requires the tools, you won't get much support, and people want to see that you're doing work that you could probably do better if you had the tools. —valereee (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to block vandals and trolls from editing Wikipedia and have the option to delete in XFD discussions. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest doing some non-admin closures. According to your AfD voting record, you've done around 20 votes, but I'd want to see a lot more for someone interested in closing such things. If you are interested in working on RVV I'd suggest reporting vandals that you see. When the time comes for an RfA, the community wants to see that you know what to do, and have experience working with the fields. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 3/10. Unlikely to pass. While there are no formal minima, voters will claim too little experience, and a tenure too short, Although they won't  mention it, some will possibly perceive a slight lack of maturity (demonstrated perhaps through excessive enthusiasm for wanting to be an admin) and they'll use another reason to oppose. It doesn't sound as if you have read all the advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . If you want some more experience, I recommend getting the PCR permission. It's the easiest to get and it shows people that you are able to distinguish between good and bad edits. If you want it, just reply here or leave a message on my talk page or at WP:PERM/PCR. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte </b> ( talk &#8226;  work ) 08:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Could I please have the right now? <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius: April 28, 2020
In my last poll 3 years ago, maturity issues were pointed out as a potential impediment to any future nomination. My strengths probably are my content creation (with over 100 good articles and 5 featured articles) and anti-vandal work, and should I ever be nominated, the latter would be my focus. My weaknesses are probably my past block log and appearance on drama boards (pre-2015), as well as my paltry deletion logs. Prior to 2015 my edits weren't that high-quality in my view, but I think a lot of these issues have been resolved since then. I'd appreciate honest feedback on any weaknesses and strengths that RFA !voters will point out. epicgenius (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that I've spoken to you in the past about this, but you already know what things may be brought up. My question would be, if given the tools after an RfA, where would you like to use them? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , if given the tools, I think I'd use them at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. epicgenius (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your contributions to Wikipedia have been outstanding. I have come across you in the WikiCup through examining GARs in which you have been involved, as nominator or reviewer, and you have impressed as someone who is knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies, level-headed and reasonable. These are the sort of qualities we need in administrators and, unless you have any skeletons in the closet that I know nothing about, I would expect you to succeed at RfA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While Cwmhiraeth's endorsement is extremely positive, playing devil's avocado for a moment: if your stated reason for needing the tools is for patrolling AIV and RFPP, then I'm afraid it won't be long before someone points out that you haven't reported to the former in over 15 months and only five times since 2016, and similarly at RFPP, where you have filed less than 10 times in two years. This suggests either a need for the tools in other areas, as yet unmentioned, or that there is a perceived need for the tools without an actual need. Food for thought perhaps.   ——  SN  54129  09:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say go for it. You have been very active at DYK. We would appreciate your work at Template:Did you know/Queue, the area is mostly backlogged.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  11:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Has epicgenius filled preps? Without significant demonstrated commitment to filling preps, in my experience running on 'helping at DYK' seldom results in an admin who actually ends up helping at DYK. :( —valereee (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a rating, but I'm curious why you want to work in counter-vandalism instead of at DYK. You have lots of experience at DYK and they always need admins. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Quality content creation, edit count, tenure, DYK participation - all of these are huge ticks. SN is correct though - your stated reason for wanting the tools doesn't stack up well with your recent activity. If you got back reporting vandals/requesting PP for a bit that rationale would make more sense, but it also occurs to me that this and this passed fairly uncontroversially, based largely on a desire to use the tools to work on DYK. Perhaps that might be something to consider? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is a very good point. Iff I had the tools, I would probably most likely use them at DYK. Counter-vandalism was just the first thing that came to my mind, since that was what I did when I first started editing WP. epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , have you filled preps? —valereee (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, I don't think so. But I will try to gain some experience doing so. epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd like to see you fill one every ten days or so for at minimum a few months. If you don't, you won't have done it enough to get good at it and figure out whether it's something you'd actually like to do. It's practically the exact same toolset as adminning at DYK, with the added challenge of putting together the puzzle of a balanced prep. If you don't like filling preps, you're never going to like moving preps to queues (because it's the same as prep-filling only without the fun of solving the puzzle), and that's where DYK really needs admin help. —valereee (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks, that makes sense. I will try to do it at least once a week for the next few months, just to get the hang of it. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen you around, and your content creation is excellent. I think the ongoing discussion at VPP makes it clear that to any reasonable !voter, promoting main page content is a sufficient need for the tools. If DYK is the place where you'd like to use your tools, though, I'd suggest getting a little more experience building preps before you run; it doesn't take much work to get familiar with the process, you could be quite comfortable with it in a few weeks. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * +1. We've seen multiple RfAs recently from people who haven't built preps, and those new admins haven't ended up doing many moves to queues. —valereee (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891: May 15, 2020
I was approached by Dweller on my talk about running. An in-depth explanation of what I view as my past mistakes is visible there for anyone who's interested. They recommended I file a poll here, so I am. I'll reiterate part of what I said on my talk here: Although I'm primarily involved in content creation, I could see myself of use as an admin at NPP and AfD, perhaps other places across the wiki; I would consider myself a general net positive. I've progressed a lot since joining in 2016, but of course, there are things I can improve upon.


 * I don't really believe we should have the ratings but here's my thoughts. You have content work, which is great - what you need now is experience in things that would require the tools. So, do some more AfD non-admin closures (and participate as well). Dweller's ccomments are pretty spot on. Being honest about issues is the first step towards explaining them in my eyes. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally if you're interested in working AfD as a sysop don't do non-admin closures - there are few articles that can be closed by a non-admin and even relists present issues. Participate instead. And I don't think you have enough of a track record at NPP to use that as a basis for the tools. Finally I'll conclude with my general advice that the best sign that you're ready for RfA is when respected editors, especially respected sysops (and especially respected sysops with a track record of nominating people) tell you that you should do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit summary usage is good. I looked at all AFDs in the past year, which look fine; especially noms accompany well-thought-out rationales. A couple of iffy ones from 2017-18 (I only looked at the ones where results didn't match), which are generally considered too old to be relevant, but 11 in the past 12 months don't really give much to evaluate without going back to them. I would recommend three more months of rejuvenated participation at AFD before you run, 40-50 that give an indication of your original analysis should suffice, i.e. not counting the "per nom"s and "as above"s. Do note though that I am speaking from much less experience than others. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have my finger on the pulse the way I used to (I was away for nearly a year and I try to keep out of project space as much as possible these days), but I was planning to ask if you were interested in running after we got Fabian Ware his star. I've seen you around doing gnomey things in various places, but the cordial collaboration we've had going on at Talk:Fabian Ware, to me, is exactly what Wikipedia is about and demonstrates all the qualities I look for in an admin: patience, playing nicely with others, listening to feedback, understanding and implementing core policies, etc. It couldn't hurt to gain more experience in adminny areas. Voters like to see a strong record of CSD nominations from editors who want to work in that area, and only a handful of sloppy tags can sink an RfA. Userspace CSD logs were fashionable a while ago; I don't know if they still are. And I agree that participation at AfD is better (for the project, as well as for your chances at RfA) than non-admin closes and relisting. A few more edits at AIV/UAA/RfPP certainly wouldn't do any harm. But you've got the proven track record in mainspace; an FA on an important subject like Ware would stand you in even greater stead. Successfully navigating FAC with an article on an influential figure like that takes many of the same skills we need in admins. If you get Ware through FAC, I'd be more than happy to nominate you (or co-nom with Dweller; if you'll have me of course!). <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Iazyges: May 15, 2020
Hello all, I'm Iazyges. I edit mostly around the topic of Roman and Byzantine emperors but dabble in a lot through GAN. Most of my admin-related work is in patrolling the names and user pages of new users, and ARV and CSD reporting as necessary. I would like to be an admin to cut out the middle man, however, I recognize that this field is far less urgent than most other admin tasks. It seems like RFA has been unusually active this last bit, so I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to put my name forward. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  20:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you'll receive an enthusiastic reception based on your content contributions. You should receive a fair few CSD-related questions since you have showed an interest in that area while your track-record only reflects userspace and mainly G11s and U5s. The likelihood of success might very well depend on how well you answer them. Increasing your participation at AFD wouldn't hurt, same with the use of edit summaries (you can set your preferences to remind you to add one, when you try to publish without). Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * <Small>You might want to do some content creation. Only 209 GAs, Eh? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The 209 number is actually for Good article reviews I've done, I only have 59 GAs as of now. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh... In that case, butter pump up those numbers! Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5/10 5/10 - Your CSD log looks fine however your XFD participation is on the very low side and your PROD log is full of blue links akthough those were in 2018, There hasn't been much AIV/UFAA work either, On the edit count side > 9,018 (30.1%) for mainspace and 8,174 (27.2%) for userpages (although I would assume this is due to the userpage-CSD-tagging and not your todo list?) which to me isn't ideal - I personally would like to see a lot more mainspace or Wikipedia space edits,
 * Overall personally I don't think you'd pass given the things I've noted above and I think many would be questioning as to why you'd need the bit just for userpage-CSDing, Ofcourse this is just my opinion and others may disagree and or will have their own preferences, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This sounds like you're suggesting that someone with 59 GAs and 209 GA Reviews is not focused enough on content to pass GA because their mainspace percentage is at 30%. I don't think that's true. No comment on the other stuff which I haven't checked as I simply now this editor through their GA work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I did unfortunately miss that, But for someone who does this sort of work I would still expect the percentage to be a lot more although that being said editcounts aren't the be all and end all here, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons for user page edits being so high is my todolist, which counts 3400 some edits last I checked. I also usually re-write articles in my userspace, before bringing a finished article in to replace the current one, bumping that number up a huge amount. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone with his reputation will need to worry about mainspace % aspects Nosebagbear (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said editcount/mainspace % isn't the be all and end all here however it's certainly a valid criticism and plenty of people have opposed due to the editcounts/&s. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Based on your content creation, tenure, and general clue, you stand a good chance. Looking at your AfD record, you seem to generally make good nominations and give good opinions so I doubt people would take issue with giving you the delete button. I remember helping at a UAA backlog once and seeing your reports; from what I recall those were good too so I doubt people would take issue with how you'd use the block button. Even if you use the tools sporadically, cutting out the middleman reduces the workload so I doubt anyone will worry about whether more admins at UAA is urgent or not. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Difficult to give a score. You have a stellar record in mainspace, and you've got involved in some behind-the-scenes stuff, though not what some would consider a lot. I think a lot would depend on answers to questions to gauge your knowledge and interpretation of policy (ie not just what the policy says, but how it's implemented or enforced by admins on a day-to-day basis). For example, since you're interested in UAA, I might ask you to explain the difference between softerblock and spamublock and which is appropriate to what circumstances. Lists of hypothetical usernames for evaluation are often set as questions as well. A well-considered answer to a question like that could silence a lot of opposition on the grounds of experience in admin areas; a poor answer would probably sink the RfA. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone else above has set out your (major) pros and (much more limited) negatives, so it's all interpretation now. I suspect you're one of these cases where 3 months doing some more admin-ish stuff would make for a fairly slamdunk RfA. I'm not sure if I'd be a weak oppose, neutral, or support at the moment, but you'd be really close. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You'd pass. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sbmnlaw: June 5, 2020
I love to create pages on Wikipedia and improve the existing pages. I also translate English existing pages in Hindi language. -->
 * ...rating and optional brief comment...
 * 0/10 Thank you,, for wanting to contribute in an administrative capacity. That's a great ambition to have, and I thank you for that. However, I'm afraid it is really much too early for you to do that. You have made only 347 edits here, and we would expect editors to have gained and be able to demonstrate a vast amount of experience across many corners of Wikipedia before they considered undertaking the duties and responsibilities of an administrator. At a guess, this might happen after they'd made well over 5,000 edits (although pure numbers is not the issue). We would look for a clear demonstration that a potential admin has experience at WP:AFD, WP:CSD and WP:PROD, as well as perhaps making reports at WP:AIV or WP:UAA, and that the majority of their reports were sound, and based on a good understanding of our policies. There seems to be some past and current issue on copyright concerns on your talk page, and quite a few of the articles you created have been deleted. Again, this hints at a not necessarily strong understanding of WP:GNG, but you are to be congratulated on your efforts you put in to the creations that were successful. So keep on working and learning, and some day in the future, when you've gained a broad understanding and experience of Wikipedia editing, and have worked away 'behind the scenes' for quite some time, you'd be welcome to put your name forward for another review. I hope you found this feedback of some help, and thank you, again. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Passengerpigeon: June 13, 2020
Hello, I am Passengerpigeon. I have been editing here since October 2012 (although not consistently) with my main focuses being new page patrolling and vandalism removal. I am considering becoming an administrator, at least in the long term, and if I was handed the mop, I would at least initially put the tools to good use in my current focus areas of anti-vandalism and deletion. Apologies if my summary is brief as thinking of things to say about myself isn't my strong point; I therefore encourage reviewers to ask questions about my editing to determine my suitability for the administrative toolset. Thank you,  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  06:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 7/10&mdash;You've only been more active now that we are in a pandemic. I want to see adminstrators having consistent activity levels since once we give you the mop, you pretty much have it forever. So on your delete log, you have more PRODs than AfD !votes and nomination, even when you take out the BLP PRODs. On content creation, you're a NPP and AfC reviewer, so your fine on that. There isn't much of a problem with you being an admin, but if you want to be it, you should be here on a consistent activity level. Once the pandemic is over, you're back to you're on and off activity level. &#123;&#123; reply to &#124;Can I Log In&#125;&#125; 's talk page! 01:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply; I should note, though, that my current return to activity is unrelated to the pandemic.  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  02:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Declared a pandemic March 11; you have a new record for edit count this year; your return to activity came in March, then all the sudden, you are editing a lot after March 11, the day when COVID-19 was declared a pandemic. Unless there was some other coincidence, that looks like the return to activity is related to the pandemic. &#123;&#123; reply to &#124;Can I Log In&#125;&#125; 's talk page! 03:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The long-term vandal Supreme Genghis Khan decided to return on the 13th of March for one last hurrah on my user talk page. I noticed this and made an attempt to hunt down any other socks they might have created; this reminded me how much I enjoyed editing here and I decided to continue. I was also on holiday from my university at the time, which would have been the case even if it didn't close down before I could return.  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  03:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , can you read WP:AGF? Even if you were active because of the pandemic, I personally don't think that's a bad thing persay - I don't have time for a full review unflrtunately, but I would support you in an RFA. Maybe wait another month to show some more consistency? Cheers --  puddleglum  2.0  03:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, correlation and causality aren't the same thing. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2/10 as things stand now. Consistency is a key factor in gaining the mop. Ask again in eight months, when the numbers could be very different; you've been editing regularly this time for under four months, and your longest stretch has been only twice that at about seven months, with enormous gaps in between partial-year bursts of activity. I can't imagine a successful run without a minimum of a full year of regular activity (maybe longer), and a commitment to continue said regular activity. Even then, expect to be asked to explain the many long periods away from editing. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3/10 Three things will make a successful RfA very unlikely: activity patterns, lack of content work, and minimal AfD participation (though the small sample so far is promising). You have 19 months of active editing (>100 edits per month), but these 19 months are scattered across almost 8 years, with very long gaps of inactivity in between. Before this March, your previous active month was April 2018. Before that, October 2016. RfA participants will want to see a significantly longer period of sustained activity than 4 months.  As for content work, you only have 29 edits to your most highly edited article. You've created 20 articles (excluding redirects), none of which are rated higher than Start-class. You only have 507 non-automated mainspace edits. RfA participants' expectations for content work vary massively. Some don't care at all, and some expect several GAs or an FA. However, I like to see some combination of B-class articles and DYKs. B class articles are good articles that aren't Good Articles; they demonstrate that you can write good prose, understand sourcing, and know how to tie all the pieces together to create a thorough article without major gaps in coverage. DYKs show that you can write a substantial amount of prose about topics in some of the many areas where Wikipedia currently has gaps. I don't demand GAs/FAs, but especially for an admin who plans to do deletion work (more on that in a minute) I do want to see some substantial work on content creation. Editors with such a track record are far less likely to become over-eager with the delete button once they have the tools.  CSD log looks pretty good. I almost never do CSD work, so I can't comment in too much depth on it, but I see a ton of red and not much blue. PROD log looks very good - scrolling quite a ways up the page I only see one bluelink that's not a BLPPROD. Your AfD participation looks good. I've looked at your most recent 8 noms/votes and I don't see anything concerning. But you have very little AfD participation overall, with only 34 total AfD pages that you've edited. These are the meat and bones of deletion work, and are often very contentious. Closers need to know how to weigh good, policy-based arguments against ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST !votes. They need to know how to deal with AfDs that have been targeted by canvassing, meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry. They need to know how to deal with contentious AfDs that have suffered from nationalistic, politically-motivated bloc voting. This in particular is a big issue at AfD, and time and time again I've seen closes that don't deal with that issue well. More content work and more participation in AfD will go a long way toward ameliorating those concerns.  My recommendation: Find a few poorly-written, stubby articles on topics that interest you. Bring them up to B-class by using reliable sources, writing good prose, and filling in gaps in coverage. Find a few redlinks you'd like to turn blue, and get them to DYK. Participate more actively in AfD and continue to make solid arguments grounded in policy. You have basically 100% agreement so far according to the AfD votes tool. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it does suffer from small sample size syndrome, but don't be afraid to stick out your neck now and then, especially when it looks like an article about a notable subject is on the road to deletion based on shoddy reasoning. Then come back in about 8 months, and I think you will have a good shot at passing. &minus;&minus;&minus; Cactus Jack 🌵 03:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's very sound advice by Cactus.  Schwede 66  05:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * CactusJack's advice is very good, so instead of providing a number I'd generally go with his. I'd like one or 2 B-class articles, but am a bit more concerned by the absolute amount of non-automated mainspace edits (however, since i've not checked their size, that's not a deal-breaker). AfDs are as Cactus says - first responder participation is worthwhile to demonstrate independence of deletion discussion judgement (noms are good too, but obviously nominating means you wouldn't usually consider !voting keep). Keep u pgood work Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2/10 It would be very unlikely that the community would be convinced that there is a need for the tools any time soon. And this is why. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2/10 per Jack and Kudpung - Pre-pandemic your activity was extremely low and I feel once the pandemic is finally over your editing will return to nearly zilch again, Your AFD log looks okay but I would've liked to have seen more participation there, Your CSD log is okayish however the majority of entries are drafts and userpages with only a few being articles, If you're serious about adminship you'd need to edit consistently for a very long time with more than 2-3 edits a month. All in all if you went to RFA tomorrow IMHO I think it'd be a slam-dunk fail. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

L293D: June 25, 2020
Hi all, I'm L293D. I'm considering running for adminship.

Pros:


 * I've written 2 Featured Articles.
 * I've written 20 Good Articles, and participated in 3 more.
 * I have 32,000+ edits.
 * I have 37 DYKs.
 * 48% of my edits are mainspace.
 * I have shown through my anti-vandalism work that I need the admin tools for AIV, RFPP.

cons:


 * I was mostly inactive from April to September 2019
 * 82% of my mainspace edits are automated (usually rollback, Huggle, or a redirect-creating script I use)
 * I was blocked in April 2018 for seriously screwing up using AutoWikiBrowser, although I'used it well since.
 * I've been uncivil in the past, although I think I've learned from my mistakes.

Thanks in advance for the feedback. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 16:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * As the fella says, "Not a jerk, has clue". ——  Serial # 16:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm going to provisionally say go for it - you'd want to put some thought into how you addressed certain negatives (RfAs are absolutely a "own your errors" area), but I don't think their existence is sufficient recent or severe to warrant discouraging a run. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're certainly someone who has been around enough and been visible enough to be a legitimate candidate. Have multiple editors told you to run especially the kind of respected editors who might serve as a nom or co-nom? If yes you would stand a good chance of passing and should consider exploring a run in depth with them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A few editors, yes, but no admins. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 20:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Never in my life used this phrase until today but I agree with SN > "Not a jerk, Has clue". Go for it. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * People who aren't familiar with you will naturally look at your block, and to be honest it wasn't your finest hour, as you seemed more put out about how your edits were being rolled back than apologetic about the disruption. However it was over two years ago, and if you can show that you've learnt from it I don't think it will be held against you, particularly considering your strong content work.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're a decent candidate. I would suggest giving some thought into what areas you would like to use the tools. Having good knowledge of your skillset is a very good place to start. I don't think you'd struggle for creation of content, but maybe in what you might do with them, and you'd likely need a good response with how you would refrain from using these tools like you did with AWB in the past. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have given thought to this. As I said above, I intend to use them mostly for anti-vandalism work and to patrol RfPP, AiV, and UAA, and I feel I've done enough counter-vandalism to prove that I would use the tools well, (and not how I used AWB). <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 20:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 8/10 So first of all, Um.... I won't penalize you for the rollback since I support this, but for the test edit and that AWB incident. Now for your month/year count. You want to be admin to assist in counter-vandalism. That appears to be only from JAN-2018 to OCT-2018. Then after, doesn't seem like much. I calculate this by user talk space edits. Not much of a problem within the last year. Also, if you pass RfA, you will be the 6th youngest human admin (9th youngest account). This cadinate is not to be confused with . &#123;&#123; reply to &#124;Can I Log In&#125;&#125; 's talk page! 02:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer: July 4, 2020
I'm here mostly because I came across a copyright violation at NPP, it was deleted by an admin, then the article was tweaked just enough to not trigger Earwig and restored again. I flagged down an admin because while I knew it was still a likely copyvio, I couldn't compare the two revisions within Wikipedia. There have been a few other instances where viewing deleted content (specifically in the DRV sense) or being able to do a copyright revdel directly without having to post the arduous template would have been very helpful just in the last month. I don't want the stress of an RfA because I really don't think I'll use the mop that much (except maybe to close AfDs/view deleted docs?) so I thought I'd post here again to test out whether it's worth applying at all. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 8.5/10 - what I looked at seems really positive. Your NPP work seems positive, you have a good content history. Your AfD work looks excellent (and with an impressive Keep level for an active patroller). For an RfA you'd probably want to be a bit more specific about uses for the toolkit, but certainly AfD closes and general aiding of NPP and copyvio work would be more than enough, even if you didn't plan on being that active. Looks good to me. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One thing I did want to ask is if you do any CSDs and if you're logging them via Twinkle? If you are using Twinkle to make CSDs, logging them is a beneficial thing to do. Nosebagbear (talk)
 * I PROD/CSD pretty rarely, at least recently, but I have Twinkle and I use it. I've just turned on the Twinkle log for everything I use it for, I had to search to find it. Thanks for the advice! SportingFlyer  T · C  22:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you'd have a pretty good chance - but I didn't do a huge scour. What's worth mentioning is it's probably not super wise to comment how little you'd use the tools/want to be an admin! If you do decide to run, I found it very useful to spend a couple months getting experience in a few different areas (especially the ones which I'm stating I want the mop for). So, I'd suggest doing some adminy-like things, as it's a little bit of a hard sell to give the tools to someone for them to only be useful. :P Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is more of a fly-by observation, so I won't give a 'grade'. Though you've clearly got a lot of sound contributions to Wikipedia under your belt, it probably doesn't help to say at ORFA that you won't use the mop that much - someone's bound to pick up on that. So having a sound reason you can explain will make a lot of sense. I would suggest that more evidence of participating in high quality content creation will be expected by some RFA voters. Whilst at first sight it looks like you have one FA under your belt for Leek Town F.C., you only actually created it and made the next three edits to it back in 2005; the same with B-class page on Winslow–Lindbergh Regional Airport - so this is something to consider working on. Though not essential, you might wish to show participation at WP:AIV and (a pet favourite of mine) show clear evidence of your ability to support and engage well with new users through participation in one or other of our help fora. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Lee and Nick, thank you for your responses, they're appreciated. I understand that it's not all that smart to say that I'm not going to use the tools that much, but I'm getting to a point where I'm commonly asking for temp undeletes at DRV, situations at NPP where it'd be useful to check to see if/how a page has been recreated, and occasionally working with copyvio. It'd be nice to be able to close AfDs and maybe DRVs as well - I've over 2,000 AfDs and participate at almost every DRV. It does look like this may be a bridge too far, though. I'm generally happy with my current editing patterns and at least right now I'd rather not be judged on the fact I haven't written a GA because that's not the focus of my content creation work, or get involved with AIV for the sole reason of earning the mop as most of the places I contribute don't require AIV all that often - it's just getting to the point where I understand why the mop would be a nice thing to have in order to help the project. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the reason editors want to see a GA or two is that content creation is hard, and content creators need admins to understand their problems. Myself, I think someone who is generally civil to everyone can understand and support content creators, but I do get that many content creators have had to deal with admins who just don't get it. Tell me how you'll understand and support content creators. —valereee (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've created or improved a number of articles on a variety of different topics, especially topics from areas where we lack content and on topics where I feel like it's necessary to clearly demonstrate WP:GNG passes. (It's always necessary, but considering a lot of my articles are from non-English speaking countries or from countries where reviewers may not make right calls on what's a reliable source, for instance Nigerian press, I take it rather seriously.) Content creation's difficult and time-consuming. You have potential issues with copyvios from less experienced editors, with sourcing, with a lack of understanding which sort of content you need to create an article. I've offered to review drafts for users and at AfC I will typically comment on areas where content could be improved if the article's not quite ready for mainspace. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an admin who "doesn't get it," but this often comes up in the context of deletion, especially where the article is eligible to be included in the encyclopaedia but isn't up to specific standards, or where a user is having trouble getting a notable article onto the encyclopaedia (this occurs rarely, but my most recent example is helping save a notable article from a mistaken and very convoluted deletion process.) I hope that's what you're looking for in an answer, and thank you for taking the time to respond to me. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the kind of answer most people are looking for. Sorry, Isaacl, didn't mean to derail the process! :) —valereee (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the interest of keeping this a quick, low-overhead poll, perhaps interactive discussion can take place on SportingFlyer's talk page? isaacl (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Faendalimas: July 7, 2020
I am interested in becoming an Admin on Wikipedia and wish to see how this would fare. My primary Wiki is Wikispecies where I am a Bureaucrat and CU, I am also an Admin on Wikiversity. My edit count is of course highest on Wikispecies, however, any pages I am working on over there I do edit corresponding pages here on WP. My reasons are to assist with coordinating shared topical pages between Wikipedia and Wikispecies and to be able to help with patrolling, conflict resolution, copyvio issues etc here on Wikipedia. I understand I do not necessarily need the Admin tools for all of this. I am also interested in assisting with protected pages and happy to deal with vandalism, and various admin tasks I have been doing for some time on other wikis. As I said this is not my home wiki however I believe I can be of assistance to Wikipedia also and I do spend considerable time here also checking in particular new content here that is being updated from wikispecies in particular. I am a member of a number of projects here on WP and assist and advise where appropriate to do so. As its not my home wiki I thought I should see how this may go first. Thank you everyone.


 * It's an interesting query to what degree most editors allow like for like experience in terms of permissions at the full sysop level (people are fine in extending individual requested rights, from what I've seen). Personally, I'm happy to factor in your very extensive Wikispecies activity, but I'd still want a significant wikipedia experience. I don't think that is currently sufficiently present - only 3000 edits in total and 200 in 2018-date, with the latter a particular concern. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Being a CU is probably enough of a degree of trust to afford some good will here in any RfA (enwiki is parocharial enough that simply being a sysop would not be sufficient). But you'll gain some opposes for lack of content creation. And I would expect some people to find your need for the tools lacking. But the biggest red flag is, as Nosebagbear wrote, your level of enwiki activity. The difference in scale between most other projects and enwiki, including the scope of the toolset and the various policies, guidelines, controlling essays, and norms, means that absent a significant uptick in enwiki participation I don't think you'd stand a good chance of passing. But also no one knows anything about RfA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thankyou both for your responses in assessing myself in this, imagining I was looking at an RfA for someone like me, I agree with your views, My edit count and contributions on WP is low, hence I thought I would go this path first. It gives me ideas of what I would need to do to succeed, and I did not wish to waste people time with an RfA that may have no chance. So I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to this. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 19:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If an admin wishes to close this now its fine with me I think I have obtained the information I was hoping for and I agree and understand the points made. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 14:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow: July 9, 2020
Note: I'm not going to run for any RfA anytime soon. The soonest that I might do an RfA is Summer 2022. I'm not going to kamikaze into it like that. All criticism is welcomed enthusiastically. I am thinking long term and would like to know how I can improve. Before you rate me check all of my statistics (not sure if AfD stats is working at the moment for me though.) :) Eternal Shadow   Talk  03:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note - thanks for your enthusiasm! However, this page isn't really intended for general critique, as it says in the above section, it's preferably for users considering an RFA within 3 to 6 months. No prejudice against others giving you advice, just wanted to let you know that they might be less inclined to pore over your contributions of your not considering an RFA for another two years. You may want to read WP:NOT NOW and also note that adminship shouldn't be the end "goal" of every editor; although I'm sure it's nice to have extra buttons, that's all it is. :) Anyway, just a bit of advice, take it or leave it as you will! Cheers --  puddleglum  2.0  04:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note the instructions at the top of the page and in the edit notice have advice on getting feedback. The intent for this poll is for commenters to assess you on your currently demonstrated abilities, rather than trying to project into the future. isaacl (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense I guess, considering WP:NOT NOW, which I have read. I’m going to withdraw this for now. Eternal Shadow   Talk  15:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Phoenix: July 18, 2020
Pinging since me reading his Mid-September RfA Flight proposal prompted this. I did one of these last year, but would like to re-evaluate.

I'm Red Phoenix, and I've been an editor on Wikipedia since 2007, although most solidly active in 2008, 18 months in 2013 and 2014, and from December 2017 to now - with no intention to go inactive that long ever again. As an editor, I divide my limited available time between article improvement and maintenance tasks such as anti-vandalism, new page reviewing, and more recently some more contributions to AfD. I'm most proud of my content creation: 7 FA's (two of which I received the Half Million Award for), two FT's to which I'm the primary contributor, 30 GA's, and I take credit for 11 created articles/lists, some of which I went back and cleaned up this year after bad advice to create in 2008. Add to that I fight vandalism with WP:Huggle and do some new page reviewing, although the latter isn't always my cup of tea (though NPP sorting has helped that recently). And that's all within 16,000 edits, thanks to my WP:WikiDragon editing style. I definitely don't worry about my number of edits because my contributions speak for themselves.

I'd like to have access to the tools primarily to help with anti-vandalism, particularly AIV, UAA, and a bit of CSD (usually G11's and G3's are what I catch). While my time is a little limited, if I can help when I am able to be here, I think that would be a positive. I've been very skittish about actually going to an RFA again, thanks to this failed RFA from 2008, which was a rather embarrassing event because of a horrible nomination, but it was 12 years ago and I was barely out of high school at the time. I'm probably not a super-well known name outside of editors in video games-related topics (namely WP:VG and WP:SEGA), but I read a lot of the core pages such as AN, VP, and elsewhere frequently and try to keep a good pulse of the community.

After last year's ORCP, I tried to take the feedback and run with it. I've added some RFPP usage and added some AFDs into my contributions, and also added a CSD and PROD log (which I can explain anything that has a blue link). I also got an FA and several of the GAs in the past year, hopefully demonstrating my commitment to stay active. Under the ideal circumstances, I would hope to see at least 8/10's before running, but I'd like to have good, honest feedback that helps me to improve as an editor and an administrator hopeful. And if it comes out well, I would be interested in participating in the flight. Thank you. Red Phoenix <sup style="color: #FFA500">talk  04:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 8/10 – Your content creation experience is definitely stronger than average and is going to be your main selling point, methinks. You are active in administrative areas like counter-vandalism and deletion, and your work in those areas appear to demonstrate admin-level proficiency. A review of your user talk page demonstrates you have good communication skills, and personally I've also had a positive interaction with you. Based on an admittedly quick review, I think you have a good chance of passing! This is kind of a tangential point, but in my view, ORCP has somewhat outlived its usefulness, and sometimes I feel like ORCP tends to overemphasize some of the more trivial things like raw edit count that later get cited during the actual RfA. Instead, I would recommend reaching out more directly to admins and editors you respect for their thoughts—by email is usually fine. Mz7 (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 8/10 - I looked through your CSD log and you've had a lot of success making the right calls there which is great. You've utilized RFPP and continued to participate in AfD successfully.  The only thing that I could see being a question (not even necessarily an issue) is the amount of participation you have seems to vary, sometimes greatly (in terms of edits per month).  For me personally, it's not a concern but for some editors I expect this to at least be a question. --  Dane  <b style="color: #00AC1D;">talk </b> 05:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 8/10 - You pluses from the last ORCP (where I participated) are obviously still there. What's changed is that you went away on every potential issue point and resolved it. A year of sufficient monthly editing also should avoid concerns from all but a couple (I suspect a question will be asked, but a decent answer will be fine). With confident background in your likely tool areas I'd say an RfA should go pretty well. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 8/10. I encourage to accept an RfA candidacy. Best wishes, El_C 10:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to go. Numbers are rather bald, but let me just say it's a shame you didn't file your RfA on 29 June this year.Your last one was bizarre: but the fact that you left it a decade rather than in a couple of days or a couple of months speaks volumes, as do the quality of the !votes you received even back then. In the support column, I see highly respectable editors such as, and , while opposing...nothing particularly persuasive. In fact, you seem to have picked up a fair few trolls in a bloody short space of time. That'll prove to have been good practice  :)Current status ticks all the right boxes: a need for tools, tenure, content work, experience.   ——  § erial  11:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting since I was pinged and don't want people to think I ignored Red that I sent my feedback via email. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm extremely surprised at just how quick the feedback came rolling in, and from a mix of highly experienced editors and administrators, at that. On top of the statements here, my email inbox has quite a few messages, evaluations, and bits of advice, as well - I will make sure that each of those users that took the time for that get a personal response from me expressing my gratitude. I appreciate the honesty as well where it was warranted - I too expect variance of participation to be a question, although it is one I have a response prepared for, and amidst concerns I might not "need" the tools I would argue that we always talk about needing more admins for dealing with vandalism. It's in a lot of the RFAs and dicussions I've read over the last two years. Because of the amount of feedback I've received so quickly, and the emails that have followed and advice given, I think I'll go ahead and close this poll for now - I've got more responses than I imagined I'd get in a week (last year's ORCP had half as many respondents in a longer stretch). I'll definitely still accept feedback via email, and I'll think about what actions I want to take and when. Thank you all. Red Phoenix <sup style="color: #FFA500">talk  19:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Nihaal The Wikipedian: August 18, 2020
Please tell about my RfA thing.Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Nihaal, as you only have 118 edits it will be some time before you can even consider running to become an Admin (requiring quite a few thousands). I suggest just continuing to work on articles and in time look at other areas that might interest you, like counter-vandalism. Feel free to contact me if you want some more immediate questions answered. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)