Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 17

DreamRimmer: March 7, 2024
I'm here to see my chances of passing an RFA by the end of the six months. I'm active at various maintenance venues and have one GA and one DYK credit under my belt. As an admin, my focus will primarily be on UAA, AIV, and PERM. Later on, I'll expand into other areas with guidance from admins already active there. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In Crew (film), your plot summary reads "The narrative revolves around three diligent women whose paths lead them into unexpected situations, ultimately entangling them in a web of deceit.". It's cited to a newspaper article that doesn't really say anything like that.  So, I checked the IMDb, which is where most people copy-paste their plot summaries from.  Turns out the IMDb says "Follows three hard-working women as their destinies lead to some unwarranted situations and end up caught in a web of lies."  Changing "web of lies" to "web of deceit" is close paraphrasing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand the rules around copyright and close paraphrasing, and I'm aware that borrowing more than fifteen words from a copyrighted source can be considered a violation. However, I've sifted through numerous sources for plot information, and they all provided similar descriptions. So, I did my best to craft a plot, making alterations where necessary. Moreover, the source I used merely offered basic plot details, which I used as a foundation for my version, and in my honest opinion, it's enough to support the plot statement. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the statement is correct about borrowing more than fifteen words. Typically, you don't want to copy more than three in a row, unless they are fixed phrases or there is no way you can rephrase at all. When you quote, you can quote 50 without problem, even though WP:Wikivoice is usually preferred. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Femke, In my early days, when I asked a question about copyright violation in the Discord channel, an admin advised me that we can copy a maximum of fifteen words. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While I'm definitely not the most knowledgeable on the topic, I'm pretty sure that opinion is not widely shared. Typically, Wikipedia is quite strict on copyvio compared to what is legally required. You may want to double check Close_paraphrasing, and adjust how closely you follow sources. The reason your example was flagged is that the structure of the sentence is so similar. Mistakes happen (including when you're an admin). The important thing is to learn and adjust :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, it was a great day as I learned something new about copyright. I’ll do my best to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Thank you both for your feedback. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting yourself forward here :). I've had a look through your AfD stats. Overall matching is high, no concerns there. I looked at those instances you did not agree with the majority, incl no consensus. Articles for deletion/Kehkashan Awan was a poor NAC, as nobody but you seemed to have given policy-based arguments. In Articles for deletion/Aina Asif, you don't argue why they met NACTOR. In Articles for deletion/List of roles in the British Army I also don't see a strong policy-based argument. While you don't indicate you want to work in deletions, this will likely be looked at in an RfA, so bringing stronger arguments to the table in AfDs in the next few months may help here. You have one GA; a second one can't hurt, as content editors have an easy time at RfA. In 6 months, you'll have 18 months of proper editing under your belt, which is likely the minimum people look for. You are a part of the Indian politics Wikiproject. Given the topic attracts strong opinions, you can expect some scrutiny there. Keeping calm in difficult situation is of course something people look out for :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Femke: I was the nominator for Aina Asif's deletion. I am not at all convinced by Rimmer's argument there. And it was one of the worst AFDs I have ever seen, which was closed as no consensus just because of a few SPAs, banned socks, and DreamRimmer's baseless support. Being someone who is dealing with South Asian spam on a regular basis now in coordination with different admins, it really gave me the impression that I was dealing with one sort of UPE there at that time. That said, he has not even completed his one year of proper editing at the moment, and by digging into his talk page archives, it seems he has some temperament issues too. He is a very newish editor to me, and I regret that I was the one who sent him AWOT at some point, which didn't receive any support either. I think he should work for at least a year or two to even think about RFA. I will oppose. Maliner (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , I have looked through this user's talk page archives 1 to 3 and checked for two things:
 * whether everything had been archived (that seems to be the case), and
 * whether any of DreamRimmer's responses were of concern
 * I could not find any temperament issues whatsoever. Could you please point to any that you managed to find? It's of course possible that these occur in later archives that I haven't looked at.  Schwede 66  21:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66: Sure. I am lucky that I got the chance to assist you. Please see User talk:DreamRimmer/Archive 6, I don't think his recent interaction with at Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat)  is comfortable for me to support a future admin candidate. Although Jeraxmoira is a newly granted page patroller, But in my opinion they have enough knowledge to patrol new pages, and I appreciate their efforts in reducing the backlog. I think with some time and more editing in different administrative areas of Wikipedia, he can learn to deal with such situations in a much better way. Regards. Maliner (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I had to explain the NPP flowchart to him three times, which is literally on the NPP welcome message when an editor is granted NPP permission. He chose to ignore them as well as the flowchart and pinged Joe to 'help me understand the process', then accused me of being inconsistent with my comments. He started the discussion titled 'Unreviewed' and made it about notability. I don't think anyone knew that it was about re-reviewing articles marked as reviewed by other NPPs,.
 * In the end, DreamRimmer, what was the reason for highlighting my temporary NPP status? Were you implying I was inexperienced? And why did you assume Joe didn't know that I and Dewritech were different users? Instead of getting defensive, you could've just acknowledged you weren't familiar with the flowchart and moved on. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was going to say nothing because this was heading towards NOTYET for DreamRimmer which is where I stand, and did not wish to pile on. However, since this thread is going to be looked at every time DreamRimmer pushes for adminship in the future, I feel a need to clarify some things. DreamRimmer was correct about what NPP is supposed to do, is reading the flowchart wrong. However, being a high-level diplomat is a pass of ANYBIO#2, so DreamRimmer was wrong about what should have been done with the article, and everyone can evaluate their conduct in that incident for themselves. Jeraxmoira came to the right conclusion through flawed reasoning.  turned out to be the wrong person to call for a third opinion there because Joe's opinion that NPP should not check for notability is not the consensus position. It's not necessarily wrong. I subscribe to it too to a large extent, especially when the backlog starts ballooning, and of course, that's the way the most prolific reviewers have to have been working given the speed with which they work, but it's not the consensus position, and it's not what the NPP flowchart that was linked to in that discussion says. I have not gone into detail here because I do not wish to derail this thread which has a different purpose, but it needed to be said that not everything is so cut and dried. I am happy to elaborate further on all points, wherever is deemed appropriate to do so, including here. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding, Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat), I left a comment at Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat) just now with my opinions on this, and decided to send the article to AFD for further discussion. I think DreamRimmer is correct here that this article doesn't pass notability, and I think DreamRimmer's instinct to ping an admin for a second opinion was also fine. Although perhaps it wasn't an ideal interaction for other reasons. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would only challenge that it would not be unreasonable for another reviewer to think that he may be notable or at least not worth putting through AFD. So, a challenge implying the other reviewer had made an egregious mistake was inadvisable. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are we going to ignore the accusations and the defensive behavior? Okay. I believe I am interpreting the flowchart for what it is instead of considering, 'This is how NPP was followed over the years'. The bubble box in the flowchart links to credible claim of significance, a WP:BEFORE indicates that Ashok Attri (diplomat) has a credible claim of significance. Reiterating that the initial discussion was about the article being 'marked as reviewed' when it may not have passed GNG or other guidelines. I simply showed that there is another possible way to mark an article as reviewed if it has a credible claim of significance. If you feel the flowchart is outdated, I am happy to help with the design! Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are software-related obstacles to updating that flowchart. WP:CCS is purely for evaluating WP:A7 and WP:A9. It is unrelated to notability. You'll notice the CCS bubble on the flowchart leads to some forks that involve placing A7 or A9. Let's move this to Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat) so we don't clutter this ORCP. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae. Unless DreamRimmer is lying on your name, I was under the illusion that I was echoing more or less what you said to him privately: that DreamRimmer is still not ready for adminiship. I can paste the email here if required at some point in the future. Maliner (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Maliner. Please do not disclose the contents of my private emails. Please see WP:POSTEMAIL. Even mentioning that I did not think he was ready in my email two months ago is quite rude. A lot can happen in two months, and I'd like unbiased folks to give an unbiased appraisal here, which is why I have not chimed in with a ready/not ready opinion in this ORCP. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae. I am not at all posting it since I respect you. Maliner (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the story with your previous user name? I'm sure you'll get asked about it, hence you might as well be upfront and state why you asked for a rename.  Schwede 66  20:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't done much digging (I'm sick at the moment) but I will say that this username is somewhat familiar to me. I've seen some of their CSD noms and I remember them being accurate. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem very knowledgeable in policy, particularly deletion policy. I feel that if you get 1 more GA, you will be ready for rfa. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 9/10 Editing period - 18 months (assuming you wait 6 months) is long enough for most people. Admin need - You show a good need for the tools with your work in UAA, AIV, etc. Content - This is what a lot of people look for, and Femke's advice about a second GA seems apt. Interaction with editors - I wouldn't expect anyone to have a 100% record here, and a small number of instances of non-perfect interaction shouldn't deter too many voters, especially if it is more than 6 months in the past. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Tommi1986: March 15 2024
Hello, I am posting here in hopes of getting honest feedback on my chances of a successful RfA. I have been an editor on the English Wikipedia since 2018 and in that time my time has been spent mainly with AIV. This is the area I would focus on should I have a successful RfA, mainly using these additional tools to help with the backlog that occurs often at the AIV, UUA and ANEW noticeboards, while continuing my work with antivandalism, for which no additional tools are required. During my time fighting vandalism, I have shown I have the ability to remain civil in disputes, provide feedback and explain policy where needed. I always take a step back to evaluate the situation before commenting (learning from my mistakes as a newbie of WP:BITE and WP:GF).

I would like to also branch out to other areas, such as AfD and AfC, taking guidance from other experienced admins.

Thank you for time in giving me the feedback I require, and will take onboard any concerns or advice given and use this going forward.

Tommi1986 let's talk! 13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How are you with conflict or stressful situations, Tommi? I am looking at an incident from 25 January where you warned a long-term editor for unsourced addition of content. In response, they posted to your talk page telling you you made a mistake and asking for your response. You archived the content of your talk page including that message later the same day. I do not see that you ever responded to them. Being an admin is a very stressful job. You would have to respond to concerns about your actions even when they are raised in a hostile manner (WP:ADMINACCT). Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Usedtobecool, I understand dealing with conflict and dificult situations are a mandatory part of being an admin. Thank you for bringing this up, I can see how the archiving of my talk page may have appeared to ignore the concerns raised by the editor, but assured this was not the case, on this occasion I fail to remember the reasons behind this specific interaction. I am in no way defending this situation and will work hard in the future to ensure this does not happen again. I apologise and can only assure you I believe in open communication between all editors and accountablity. I am now, as I awlays have been, committed to addressing concerns in a timely and respectful manner, even in the face of hostility. Tommi1986 <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just making sure you know what you'll be getting into. Sounds good. I will try to look at your editing history later and share my feedback if I have something to say that others don't first. Good luck!<span id="Usedtobecool:1710512726417:WikipediaFTTCLNRequests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll" class="FTTCmt"> — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not think you would pass. No content creation whatsoever as far as I can see, which is a dealbreaker for many people. Very limited deletion experience, and none at all since last June. 95% automated edits in mainspace. Over the last six months, you've averaged only 100 edits per month, which is well below what I'd expect from a candidate focused on anti-vandalism. The incident highlighted by Usedtobecool is also concerning. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. So, there are some areas to work on, then. I appreciate the feedback. I will read more WP articles on creating content, and I will attempt to get involved with the AfD after reading up on the guidelines. Are there any specific guides or essays you suggest as the best? Or is there anything similar to WP:ADVENTURE that you would recommend that could help expand my knowledge in these areas? <b style="color:red; text-shadow:darkred 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 15:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 0/10 I took a look at your contributions, and the first thing I saw was edit-warring at Jessica Matten. Indeed, I think you were about one revert away from me considering blocking you. If I'm thinking about blocking a user to prevent disruption, they absolutely should not be an administrator. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, this was not edit warring, this was reverting of unexplained removal of sourced content which had already been reverted by another editor. Talk page messages were left for the editor in question in relation to these reverts. <b style="color:red; text-shadow:darkred 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 15:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "My edits were right, so I wasn't edit-warring" is one of the oldest cliches in the book. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey Tommi1986, thanks for putting yourself forward here! If I had to put a number on your chances, I'd go for 4/10 for now, mainly because I feel like the discussion would lean towards WP:NOTQUITEYET territory at this stage. I've looked at the two examples above, and can see where you were coming from with the reversions you made. The line that you removed at JBS S.A. was: "The company has a long history of engaging in corrupt and dishonest business practices." Without any other context, that is an immensely bold claim to make. Because there wasn't a source and recent-changes patrolling doesn't always see the full-page context for every incoming edit, in a vacuum, I'd also lean towards making the exact same revert! However, that's just all in a vacuum: much further down in the page, there is added context via 10+ subsections for various controversies and corruption allegations, so reflecting this fact in the lead is fair to do even without a source per WP:LEAD. Don't get me wrong though, the initial revert, especially if patrolling new changes, is totally a fair and quick judgement call. Definitely a "safe bet" to quickly undo a seemingly "unfounded claim" that gets added without a citation, and I would not oppose your adminship for making that reversion. Admitting when a mistake is made is a very healthy part of being a Wikipedia editor, (and this is coming from someone who's surely made loads of them :'}). I see you've apologized now, and honestly that's enough for me to wholeheartedly believe it, but what was not a good look was not responding to Horse Eye's Back following the initial undo of their good faith edit. That should've garnered a response and not an immediate archival.
 * For the Jessica Matten edit, I completely understand where you were coming from as well. After all, you weren't even the first to revert, as it was done when the same IP blanked the entire cited filmography section without consensus! From there they kept blanking cited content without an edit summary, to which your initial reaction was definitely justified. Admittedly the removed citation itself wasn't greaaat, but with the IP's background there was cause for alarm. The IP's entire edit history consisted of blanking content on that page, before they created an account just to (presumably) blank it again. It was definitely inexcusable for the IP to consistently blank with zero explanation, so I understand why you did it. However, there's also a level of "being the bigger person" and taking it to the WP:AN3 noticeboard instead. You personally didn't make more than 3 reverts, so you were totally okay within WP:3RR, but coupled with the blank and reversion that Shaws username made before you, it's probably preferable to take this to the talk page and/or report, rather than continuously engage on the frontlines. The last revert you made of Sjo probably didn't need to happen. But even then, not enough for me to oppose your RfA either. Dealing with disruption and vandalism can become a hectic environment full of reversions and re-instatements left and right, and at the end of the day you've been a big help in combatting that.
 * What I was hoping to see, and this is why I feel this is a WP:NOTQUITEYET situation, is better communication with other editors. I think you made a totally logical and acceptable judgement call in both instances above, very normal and reasonable to make those reversions in a vacuum, but there's also the side of taking accountability and realizing when a mistake is made. Both of these situations could have been avoided if there was more personalized and personable dialogue used with the editors involved. Template messages are certainly a quick and easy way of giving information behind why an edit got reverted. However, there's also the saying of: Don't template the regulars. There needs to be a healthy dosage of assuming good faith when it comes to recent change patrolling. Plopping down a template when a custom message would be preferable to explain why you made a change, as that opens the door to collaboration and consensus. Per WP:ADMINCOND, communication is an utmost requirement for admins. It may be hard to get right 100% of time, and communication styles are certainly a gray area, but it's a skill that can be gained from experience, which might not quite yet be there. I think if you reapply at the ORCP here in 6 or so months, you'll likely get a much better reception.
 * As for other categories, and something to work on in the meantime, Ingenuity made a good point re: content creation. The most you've edited a single page is 18 times on Thomas & Friends: All Engines Go, and then 14 times on In the Night Garden... is in second. While you've created an insanely admirable 2000-exactly user talk pages, you haven't made a single page in mainspace; not even one redirect either. We're here to build an encyclopedia at the end of the day, so finding something to write about I'd consider to be imperative. Additionally, your automated edits I think are concerning as well. You have 11.2k edits total on Wikipedia, but 5.7k are automated undoes, and 5.4 more are RedWarns. You only have 300 edits to mainspace that were not automated in some way. (Looking at this stat, perhaps the 4/10 was on the high side maybe...) In any case, while automated edits certainly make Wikipedian's lives easier, one should be cautious to not be overly reliant on them, and sticking to only automation while sacrificing talk page communication is likely to be a no-go for admin conduct.
 * In terms of where you can go from here, well I'd say just finding places to constructively edit would be a good start! AfD I would suggest is a great first stop. You've only edited in AfD pages twice total, which is another problem that I'd see in your path to adminship, but there's no better time than the present to start! They always are in need of help, so the more hands on deck the better. I'd also recommend finding a topic you're passionate in, and expanding on the associated article and bringing it to DYK or to Good Article status is another way to contribute within admin-associated areas. Hopefully this can help, best of luck in your endeavors! Utopes (talk / cont) 21:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you so much @Utopes, this is amazingly helpful! I do take onboard the reverting fiasco, and in future will look for other ways of conflict resolution other than becoming finger-happy with the revert button. I also agree with the Horse Eye's Back issue, for which I fully admit was pretty unacceptable and I will ensure that going forward this mistake will not happen again. I will read through the 'Don't template the regulars' article and digest, and going forward try to use personalised talk page message where relevent.
 * I fully expected the response regarding my actual editing history (or lack thereof) when reading the advice before submitting, but as I was wanting to continue on the path of antivanadlism I thought I would test the waters here! As I said, it has been my intention to branch out to AfC and AfD as well as start contributing to the building of the encylopedia, which I will begin to do once I have read through various guides and policies to ensure I do not make mistakes.
 * Once again I really do appreciate the time you took here to give me advice and guidance, I will certainly take onboard everything you have said here and use it going forward! <b style="color:red; text-shadow:darkred 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 22:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to help! I suppose my personal challenge to you for right now, or maybe within the next day or so (up to you), is to find 5 discussions listed at WP:Articles for deletion, and weigh in. That could be with a !vote to keep or delete, or just a comment, but it's certainly helpful for the closers who deal with the necessary details and closures on the backend. (I know you were asking for some sort of essay or guide, but there's no better practice than just going for it I think. Maybe WP:ATA could be helpful for what not to do during deletion discussions?) Something that essentially all admins have to deal with is deletion of pages across the board. It's highly advisable to participate in XfD discussions to demonstrate understanding of policy, so if you're free for the time being I'd recommend a batch of 5 or so while on the subject. And even moving forward, just responding in 1-2 a day (or whenever) isn't too bad of a Wikipedia habit, lol 😅. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to accept that challange! I will do that tomorrow, it's kinda late here now!! But thanks again, what you have pointed me to and advised me will help me greatly and given me some good ways to improve. <b style="color:red; text-shadow:darkred 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to help! I suppose my personal challenge to you for right now, or maybe within the next day or so (up to you), is to find 5 discussions listed at WP:Articles for deletion, and weigh in. That could be with a !vote to keep or delete, or just a comment, but it's certainly helpful for the closers who deal with the necessary details and closures on the backend. (I know you were asking for some sort of essay or guide, but there's no better practice than just going for it I think. Maybe WP:ATA could be helpful for what not to do during deletion discussions?) Something that essentially all admins have to deal with is deletion of pages across the board. It's highly advisable to participate in XfD discussions to demonstrate understanding of policy, so if you're free for the time being I'd recommend a batch of 5 or so while on the subject. And even moving forward, just responding in 1-2 a day (or whenever) isn't too bad of a Wikipedia habit, lol 😅. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to accept that challange! I will do that tomorrow, it's kinda late here now!! But thanks again, what you have pointed me to and advised me will help me greatly and given me some good ways to improve. <b style="color:red; text-shadow:darkred 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

HouseBlaster: March 20, 2024
I'm thinking about running after the conclusion of WP:RFA2024/I. While I would be primarily running because I think I would be able to help using the tools, I also would be interested in trying out whatever reforms are agreed upon. I would be primarily interested in helping out at WP:CFD and WP:REFUND (though the latter does not have a frequent backlog, the former is frequently in trouble). Project-space wise, I am probably best known as the guy who quasi-BOLDly deprecated WP:A5 (edit, discussion); I also spearheaded the removal of WP:P1 and WP:P2 (discussion) and putting RfAs on hold automatically (discussion). Content creation wise, I have recently-ish taken 1934 German referendum to GA and Daniel McCaffery to DYK. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 23:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Will likely pass based on clueful engagement with policy and discussions. AfD numbers are not high but not bad. Edit count higher than mine so not an issue. CSD log looks good, though on these occasions the pages should have been redirected instead of deleted it seems. (not really familiar with CfD, just observing) Content creation is probably good enough for the majority of people. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef  →∞ (talk to me) 04:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @0xDeadbeef Will support. I have seen him around, and he seems to be a sophisticated editor to me. Although another GA will be the cherry on top, good luck. Maliner (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ >8,000 edits. ✅ Account age >2 years. ✅ High activity for >1 year. ❓ Good article. ✅ No blocks ever. ✅ User talk page has no red flags. ✅ "Need for the tools" (CFD). I think one weak spot in your candidacy will be your GA. Looking at the diffs, it seems like the GA you worked on only grew by like two paragraphs. This may not be enough to satisfy content creators. In contrast, for my GA for example, I read 2 books cover to cover, perused 2 additional books, and added like 35 paragraphs.  I'd still support, but just be aware that this could be a weak spot. The fix would be to get another GA before RFAing. Up to you though. Good luck. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 6-7, basically agree with Novem that content writing is the only major box left to tick. Mach61 13:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 9, I think the contribution of HouseBlaster to the GA may be understated: they have 66% authorship, which is perfectly fine. The article also had a decent review. The type of work HB wants to do initially doesn't require that much content work, it's not like AfD closures where people may want a bit more content work. I'll throw in the cliché of thinking you were an admin already. Looks around talk page archive 5, and happy with responsiness and willingness to help there. I'm always impressed with those who make Wikipedia's P&Gs simpler. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @HouseBlaster I have a positive impression from what I've seen-- feel free to email me for a more thorough vet. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * YGM :) And a sincere thank you to everyone who has given feedback so far! House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 20:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Echoing Moneytrees, definitely have seen you do lots of great work around here – would love to talk more by email :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * YGM, too :) House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 20:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

TheTechie: April 10, 2024
I would like to be sysopped sometime, how much of a chance do you think I would have at it?

Context: I would like to be sysopped to prevent vandalism. I have successfully identified and reported/reverted numerous cases of vandalism.


 * Admire your good intentions, but at this point you're quite a ways from being ready for adminship (see Not now). Read Advice_for_RfA_candidates for some criteria you'd be expected to fulfill in order to pass. Maybe in 2 or 3 years you'll be ready, and I look forward to supporting you in that case. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. ♠ 22:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The lowest edit count to pass RFA in the last few years was 8,000. You're at 1,445. While edit count isn't everything, in this case it does suggest that you may not have the experience yet that the community is looking for. Please take your time, build additional experience, then look into this again at a later date. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit: April 22, 2024
Do not consider my pblock from ANI. Am I ready for adminship (not planning until at least 6mo later) and what do I lack. Will work in XfD boards and UAA, as well as AIV & RFPP Read the advice page multiple times. Toadette ( Let's talk together! ) 19:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool you're considering a run, even though it's quite some time away still. Readiness always depends a bit on what you want to help out with. Quite a lot of the toolset is about deletion and notability, and those skills are usually easiest to assess. I see you've got a 90% agreement at AfD, which is good. I'm always looking at the quality and nature of disagreements. Some of the !votes could have been a bit stronger: in Articles for deletion/Your Time Is Gonna Come (2nd nomination); I think you could have guessed a Google Books search would turn things up. For Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination), you're statement did not go into that much depth. Ideally, given the BLP issues, a stronger rational was given. More worryingly, in your most recent user talk archive, there are still AfC declines of articles resubmitted by you (but written by others). I expect an admin candidate involved in writing new articles to understand notability better. There is still plenty of time to learn, though. I see you've recently received the NPP reviewer right. The folks there are always happy to help if you're not quite certain. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the positive feedback! Toadette Edit! 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @ToadetteEdit: when you change text people have responded to, please strike removed text and underline new text. Otherwise, others seem a bit silly. As if they can't read your text properly. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A side issue that you want to certainly tidy up before any RfA run is your signature, as it does not match your user name. You'd get opposes just for that.  Schwede 66  20:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have changed the signature. Toadette Edit! 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that as per the instructions for this poll, it's [t]o request an evaluation of your chances of passing a request for adminship in the next 3 to 6 months. It isn't intended for people to predict how you will build up your skillset and editing record over the next year and a half. For a better indication, please seek advice when you feel more prepared to make a successful request. isaacl (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood, I didn't realised that it is intended for editors who are planning an RfA in 3-6mo. Toadette Edit! 23:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think one of the most important admin traits is recognizing what you do and do not know about a situation and knowing when to ask for help/clarification; no one wants a cowboy admin who takes unilateral action against consensus or who proverbially "shoots first and asks questions later". I think it was unwise for you to jump in at Talk:K. Annamalai without knowing what led to the topic being placed on the title-blacklist and WP:DEEPER, even though it is described clearly at the top of the talk page. I am worried that if you had adminship at the time, you would have unilaterally overridden community consensus in this circumstance. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * but how? Toadette Edit! 23:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just be smart when you comment in discussions/disputes/etc., and show good judgement when weighing in; it's something that builds over time as you become more confident with the non-mainspace areas of Wikipedia. I noticed you recently became an AfC and NPP reviewer, these are great areas to hone the type of critical thinking that makes a successful admin, and indeed many admins were previously AfC and NPP reviewers. Curbon7 (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will take this in mind. Toadette Edit! 23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Telling people not to consider your p-block would be a mistake at actual RFA. Because they will not be following that instruction and will definitely be considering that. This is just a heads up that you will need to handle that carefully at real RFA. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Herald: May 2, 2024
With the new RfA system in place, I want to explore the chances of me passing through the fire. I have been gathering xp in various fronts wherever possible and would like to run for sysop tools for more vandalism management and other clerking jobs at AfD. I'm hoping for a couple of GAs and at least a FA and two FLs before considering the run, even though it's not a criteria. I got a 24 hour block for EW in February, but I have been extremely cautious thereafter and I take that block as an honest mistake and a learning chance. I would like to explore the community opinions. Thanks and happy editing :) <span id="The_Herald:1714675566401:WikipediaFTTCLNRequests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll" class="FTTCmt"> — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Question: Why did an admin choose to block you in February? What part of "Advice to Candidates" relates to previous blocks and what advice is provided candidates in that section? BusterD (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the block if anyone wants to read up on it. You want to put more time between your block and an RfA run. Not sure how much time that needs to be. Half a year at least (i.e. July); one year would be on the safe side.  Schwede 66  01:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm thinking of a 6 months gap at least where I do not cross the 3RR threshold again. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, THB...this isn't an analysis of your potential candidacy, purely a response to a 6 months gap at least where I do not cross the 3RR threshold again. As a very general rule, I expect admins -- not just candidates -- to never even get close to 3RR except in cases of WP:3RRNO. Like literally the first time you're reverted, do not revert but go directly to the talk page, open a section, and ping the other editor to it. IMO 0RR should actually be the voluntary default setting for all well-intentioned editors; 3RR is actual bad behavior. A plan to avoid it for six months is not really sufficient. Admins should be avoiding it, period.
 * A related behavior is setting your default to revert>discuss: when you revert what is apparently a well-intentioned reasonable edit, just one you disagree with, go to the talk page, open a section, and leave an explanation, even if you left one in the edit summary. I don't usually ping in such cases, but I do often include 'let's talk' in the edit summary.
 * At any rate, for purposes of presenting oneself as a strong admin candidate: behave like admins are expected to behave. Valereee (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually think they'll need to put more than 6 months between this incident and a successful run at RfA, given some issues I found when I looked at the situation closer. I think they may have been well intentioned, but it comes off gatekeep-y (not a word, I know). To be clear, the IP was obviously edit warring as well. But I'm going to make some notes;
 * – IP posts on talk page about what they perceive as an issue
 * – IP removes content from article. Edit summary: Per talk page
 * – Augmented Seventh reverts the IP, restoring the content to the article. Edit summary: Undid removal of sourced information revision 1202884829 by 92.40.212.153 (talk)
 * – IP removes content from article. Edit summary: There's a So? tag on it. The relevancy of the statement is questioned! I am removing it. Please don't just revert for the sale of t
 * – The Herald reverts the IP, restoring the content to the article. Edit summary: Reverted edit by 92.40.212.153 (talk) to last version by Augmented Seventh
 * – IP removes the content from article. Edit summary: Undid revision 1202891431 by The Herald (talk) Stop engaging in edit warring and PLEASE make a statement at the talk page if you don't agree with the change.
 * – The Herald reverts the IP, restoring the content to the article. Edit summary: Reverted 1 edit by 92.40.212.153 (talk): Unexplained sourced content removal, removal of maintenance template without resolving the issue
 * – IP removes the content from article. Edit summary: Undid revision 1202893438 by The Herald (talk) I deleted the statement BECAUSE it was irrelevant! As stated, PLEASE make an effort to discuss this change in the talk page. It's not helping either of us to edit war.
 * – IP posts for the fourth time on the talk page, pinging The Herald when they started a new section for the second time. had already been communicating with the IP there.
 * – The Herald posts on the talk page for the first time
 * – The Herald reverts the IP, restoring the content to the article. Edit summary: Restored revision 1185294933 by TheXuitts (talk): Lgv, per talk page. Any change, addition or deletion must be discussed in the talk page for clear consensus
 * – IP removes the content from article. Edit summary: Undid revision 1203176484 by The Herald (talk)
 * – The Herald reverts the IP, restoring the content to the article. Edit summary: Reverted edit by 92.40.212.157 (talk) to last version by The Herald
 * Meanwhile... on the IP talk page...
 * – The Herald issues level 1 warning to the IP for unexplained removal of content
 * – The Herald issues a level 2 warning to the IP for removal of a maintenance template
 * – IP asks for further clarification and not to be templated without sufficient clarification
 * – IP removes the level 2 warning
 * – The Herald restores the level 2 warning
 * – The Herald issues a level 3 warning for removal of content on the IP's talk page
 * – IP removes all the warnings from The Herald. Edit summary: not required to maintain templates
 * – The Herald reverts the IP's removal of the templates
 * – The Herald issues a final warning for content blanking on their own user talk page
 * – IP replies stating they are not required to maintain templates on their talk page
 * – IP removes all warning templates from The Herald again
 * In addition, there were some AIV comments:
 * – You reported the IP to AIV for vandalism after final warning at Al Gore 1988 presidential campaign. In that report, you linked a where they beg you to communicate on the talk page and not to revert to simply revert.
 * – The IP responds to the AIV report, stating, "That isn't vandalism. This is a content dispute. I already asked you to make a statement on the talk page, and you haven't done that thus far."
 * – The IP responds to the AIV report again, stating, "Also, one of those "warnings" was for something else, which was me deleting the templates on my talk page, which isn't a rule violation."
 * – declined to process the request, agreeing with the IP editor that this looks like a content dispute
 * I see several issues here that you'd get a lot of flack for at RfA.
 * You reverted the IP editor stating it was unexplained content removal, but they explained why they were (it's fine to disagree)
 * You mention maintenance tag removal, but that maintenance tag was attached to the sentence they removed, meaning it made sense to remove based on the intentions of the edit
 * As such, the level 2 warning for removal of maintenance templates was inappropriate
 * The level 3 warning should not have been issued, per WP:OWNTALK, which also states, "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user;"
 * The level 4 warning never should have happened for the exact same reason
 * You reported the IP to WP:AIV stating that they had committed vandalism after a final warning, but you had only issues a level 3 warning (which was also an improper warning, as mentioned)
 * Even after the report, you issued a level 4 warning on their talk page (after a report to AIV, don't issue more warnings)
 * You did, eventually, communicate on the article's talk page, but the matter wasn't necessarily resolved yet and you went ahead and restored the content anyways. There was no sense of urgency to restore the information given that it wasn't crucial to the understanding or meaning of the article.
 * Your block appeal on your talk page
 * This was clearly a content dispute, not a matter of urgency and reverting vandalism
 * It shows a clear misunderstanding of where WP:3RRNO applies, which @Daniel Quinlan did a good job explaining
 * You failed to acknowledge that this user was not trying to be disruptive anymore than you were trying to
 * You mention you were assuming good faith, but it really didn't feel it in this case, not that you were assuming bad faith, but communication earlier would have stopped this from going further
 * This was a very poorly handled situation by you (The Herald), and you'll definitely need to put time between you and it. It's not going to be something that people can always hold against you, but it highlights areas where there's room to grow in your understanding of our relevant policies. Additionally, I think you may need a bit of work communicating considering how long it took you to go to the article's talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Josh for that detailed analysis. It helped a lot and now, looking back, I understand how I could have acted differently. Its is very informative and thanks again for going into the lengths for such a detailed analysis. I'll remember it in future instances :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked this hard because, at a precursory glance and a limited amount of interactions, I wasn't aware of any issues. What matters now though is how you move forward. Things happen, we all make mistakes and have to learn and start somewhere, but if you keep at it and work for a while then maybe in a year we could see you passing. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Cocobb8: May 2, 2024
Am I lacking anything for RfA? Experience in XfD, PROD, NPP, AfC, guiding new users and fighting vandalism. Really interested in RfA mainly to help out with CSD, UAA, AFD, blocking vandals. Less so for dispute resolution.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Question: Could you explain why Ottawa-Carleton Educational Space Simulation meets standards for notability? BusterD (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @BusterD That's one of the first pages I ever edited with little to no knowledge/understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have come a long way since my first edits in 2023, and looking back at this page would argue that it may not meet notability (tag added!)  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I consider that a satisfactory (if a bit evasive) answer to my question. As you and I are both aware, it was the first page you edited. I asked the question in the way I did because I wanted to evoke your response. It's the kind of direct question which you might well be asked during a run. Bonus points for tagging it after my question. I strongly urge you find some stubs in a subject matter area where you are aware of sourcing, and start building a few. Pagespace gets easier once you've done a lot of it. Stubs are an excellent place to get your edit count up while making a substantive contribution. Make a few mistakes. Ask a question. Don't be shy. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips @BusterD, and for putting me in a real-type scenario of what RfA questions will actually look like. I'll work on getting some more experience with the mainspace, especially with writing content, by the time I get to RfA (currently planning on writing a few GAs), though, on Wikipedia, I prefer to focus on tying up loose ends, adding sources, etc.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, we've not had anybody successful with under 8,000 edits in quite a while. You seem to be on the right track, but could definitely use some more experience. You seem responsive to feedback on your talk page, and no red flags in the last few archives. A few things you may want to work on are your WP:edit summaries (you don't always use one), continuing with CSD to master your understanding of it, continue at AfD (40-50 discussion can demonstrate you understand notability well). For instance, with more experience, you could maybe have guessed that Articles for deletion/Hellenic Mediterranean University was notable in advance. It's always good to write a GA or a few DYKs (without, you get a handful of opposes). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, @Femke! Really appreciated. I will work on what you mentioned and wait until I have more experience before seriously considering RfA  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any obvious issues, but the stats seem a bit lacking. Edit count should at least be tripled. CSD, UAA and AFD numbers are too low for someone intending to work in those areas. PPROD Log has more blue than red links. Points for good GA Reviews, Mentor, no bis issues on talk page, no Dramaboard edits. To summarize: You're on the right path, but it's going to take more time. Nobody  ( talk ) 05:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback @1AmNobody24. I agree with you that I need more experience before considering RfA, but I'm glad to hear that I'm not doing anything widely wrong. Cheers!  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

GraziePrego: May 28, 2024
Requesting feedback out of curiosity. I don't think I would apply now, but at some point down the track, quite possibly. Would love some feedback on areas to improve upon. I would probably focus on anti-vandal activity with the mop. GraziePrego (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 6/10, if you wait another six months. There will be opposers complaining about low edit count (10,000 seems to be arbitrary number at the moment), although I don't think your actual time contributing will be a concern. You've got just shy of 3,000 non-automated edits in mainspace; probably wait until that's closer to 4,000. AfD contributions look solid, and you've got a bunch of GAs which will please the content-creator voters. You've also got short but accessible articles like TEX14, which I appreciate (I can actually understand the first sentence, which is good for technical articles). But I notice there's an uncited statement there and in a few others of your short articles, which might worry a few voters. You haven't got a lot of contributions in the Wikipedia: or Talk: namespaces, which is my primary concern. If I were you, I'd hang out around XfD venues and RM a bit lot more, but it looks like you already know your way around AIV and RfPP. XfD venues are good because, even if you're going to focus on anti-vandalism, it shows you have a firm grasp of administrative behaviour and civil discussion. Good luck, Cremastra (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Sahaib: May 30, 2024
Probably not going to try to become an admin in the next few years due to my life being quite busy and likely to get busier. Sahaib (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Probably not going to try to become an admin in the next few years due to my life being quite busy and likely to get busier. So why did you open this? <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 11:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User:0xDeadbeef, I have been reading other people's requests for adminship and just wondering how close I am to becoming an admin. Also life is not set in stone and I could end up having a lot of free time in the future. Sahaib (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)