Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 6

Primefac: December 27, 2016
I was nominated for admin about a year and a half ago but withdrew due to valid points made in the RfA. Since that time, I've become heavily involved in TFD, as well as maintaining my presence at AFC and in the help room on IRC. I've been getting nudges from various corners to pull the trigger again, so I thought I'd post here and see what a straw poll would show. Happy to answer any questions. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 7/10: Content creation is not that bad, but you done significant AFC work and helping newbies in their creation of articles. Also, XFD stats are fine after seeing a bunch of red results that resulted in keep or speedy keep closes that lead your withdrawal of the previous RFA. Great work! KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 03:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind that I thought you should go for it a year ago and would happily nominate you based on your excellent TfD record, I suspect some of our, erm, more literal-minded commentators will have the following thought process: "Last RfA failed because of deletion issues. Let's check AfD stats. 59%? You clearly suck. Nominations that ended in speedy keep, in 2016? Oh noes!!!" (They're unlikely to click through and see which ones you withdrew, or where a WP:HEY level of effort was involved.) Cynically, the way to fix this is to spend a couple of months reliably voting on obvious AfDs before they get too many other comments. Ahem, I mean "getting more AfD experience" ;) Pick a couple saveable ones and put in the WP:HEY effort. Finish up whatever template stuff you're doing and polish up a moderately obscure article to GA, or alternatively create a few new ones. (Do send them to DYK, don't specifically mention that at RfA.) Find any AfC articles you've approved that were later deleted and be prepared for the oppose section to contain in succession "Oppose, too deletionist" and "Oppose, passed dreck through AfC". Also, enable your email. Then I predict (with the caveat that I'm terrible at this) that you'll pass in the mid to high 80s. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5/10 or 50/50 - it could go either way. The pattern of a RfA is that the first dozen or so supports come within the first hour or so and are done without much research. The serious oppose votes come from experienced users just when the candidate has been lulled into a false sense of thinking all is going well. Then there are the trolls and serial opposers who will always think up some feeble (or even invented) reason to oppose. We've started cleaning up RfA now by making examples of some who disrupt the process, but to get rid of the others who rest on their laurels for the outreach and off-Wiki work they do, it will take more than ANI; it will need some decision from ' band of merry people to make some decisions and unfortunately tradition has it that prolific content providers can behave as badly as they like with impunity and at the merry most they get off with just a slap on the wrist. If we could get another two or three topic banned within the next 6 months, I would give you 8/10 in June. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Take an article to GA and then come back. I'd be very, very happy to see you run given your TfD work, but this is a crucial step. It's very difficult to pass RfA these days without a GA to your name, and you seem quite close to it, so there's no point in not going the final mile. You got Astronomical spectroscopy to B-class according to your user page, so just nominate that for GA and respond to the criticisms the reviewer drags up. Don't worry too much about whether it passes the criteria at the moment, since the reviewer will point out where you need to make improvements. Before GA, I'd give you a 5/10 at best due to the fickle nature of certain RfA voters. Afterwards, I'd give you an 8/10, but ping me on IRC for a piece of advice I don't want to give on-wiki. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I do not think this is correct. GA is definitely a bonus but not a requirement. On my RfA I was pretty open about it and explained why I will never have a GA and how the community can benefit from giving me admin tools in other ways, and it was never an issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your RfA was in 2013, which was considerably more relaxed. I also don't see members of the "content crowd" at your RfA; they may not have been active at RfA at the time. My rating is intended to be a probability, and without a GA, it's really a flip of the coin. If the "content crowd" arrives in numbers with 10-15 !votes early on in the RfA, then most editors who arrive off the watchlist will see those concerns and pile on. If the "content crowd" is mostly on wikibreak, the RfA will most likely pass. It's a coin flip on whether they show up. It's all about if they're around and whether they vote early to establish negative momentum. Note that the content crowd largely "retired" all at once recently, and the result has been a much more reliable RfA process, but many of them have recently returned at least somewhat, so their future RfA participation is up in the air. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, anybody who is seriously concerned about RfA and, would have long since come up with a table of how many candidates had GA at the time of their RfA. We might then get nearer the truth about some of the conjecture about ridiculously demanding criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 7/10 If I take your last 100 AfDs over the past 6 months, I get a much more respectable 82% correct, which shows me that your rate of success is improving, and that is the important statistic. Your CSD performance over the past year has been okay, and you have a clear need for the tools at TfD. As Kudpung says, whether you can pass RfA right now depends largely on who turns up and who could knock any early silly oppose votes on the head. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tennisuser123: January 10, 2017
I have been very involved on Wikipedia in the past, and I believe that I would like to continue to serve the Wiki community more in the near future, having spent a good deal of time away from the site. As a recent donor to the Foundation and a constant user of the plethora of resources available both for pleasure and for study, I'd love to give back to my community in a fruitful and dynamic manner, making use of RfA privileges to provide a small but sincere effort to work towards a more academically-sound Wikipedia, freer of vandalism. I appreciate your feedback and hope to garner your support moving forward with the RfA process.


 * At present 0/10 but will rise very quickly if you become active again and involve yourself in admin areas. Although you've made almost 25,000 edits, only c. 400 of them have been in the past five years, so there's no way for voters to judge your knowledge of Wikipedia's current policies and practices. (Since at the time of writing your talkpage consists almost entirely of warnings, albeit mostly related to files you uploaded years ago, most voters' default position will be to assume that you don't understand policy.) Given that, other than adding yourself to this page, you have not made a single Wikipedia-space edit since 2007, it will be very hard for you to demonstrate that you have any need for sysop tools since almost everything they're used for relates in some way Wikipedia-space pages. &#8209; Iridescent 10:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 0/10 Unless there's something wrong with WMFlabs, it says you've never !voted in an deletion discussion. If that's so, your candidacy is a non-starter. You've written plenty of articles but they're all about tennis, none of which are all that impressive, and many of which are totally unsourced tournament brackets. I see no evidence you've taken a single article to DYK let alone GA. You haven't performed a single countervadalism edit or report to the noticeboards in years. Not counting 2017, you've had less than 100 edits annually every year since 2012. This community needs admins but we expect candidates to be current and active. Now is a great time to return to Wikipedia. Maybe in a year's time you'll be ready to go. Right now, I can't see anyone placing any trust in you. Frankly, you seem to have skipped reading RFAADVICE. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 0.1/10 Your chances are virtually nonexistent. You haven't edited consistently in years, and considering that you don't work in WP space areas, you don't have much need for the tools. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 0/10. Your last 500 edits take us back to 2011. No chance currently. Future chances will depend on the quality of your contributions going forward. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexis Jhon Gaspar,Jan. 15,2017

 * 0/10 Sorry pal, five weeks' tenure, four hundred edits, and a recent block for disruptive editing? Please actually read the instructions at the top of this page for the criteria. Thank you for your interest in assisting with the administration of this site today. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  08:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, let me expand on my previous remarks, having examined your contributions. Your very first edits were to request redirect creation? You claim to have a professional and native level of English. This unblock request suggests otherwise. You also claim to be running a bot. If so, it clearly is not a 'legitimate alternative account' as it does not seem to have been approved. Nor is it likely it would be. Or is their no such bot, in fact? You see,, their are some curious behavioral questions that need to be ironed out before we can consider you for adminship. Although I suppose we should thank you for posting on such a high-profile page in order to draw the community's attention to the issues at hand. Pinging User:Nthep- FYI.  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  08:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Everymorning: December 29, 2016
Haven't posted here for almost a year, and haven't run for adminship since April of last year. I am thinking about running for adminship again (which, if I did so, would be the third time; also note that the first two times were both unsuccessful). As last time I did this poll the reception was very negative, I am curious as to whether other contributors think my trustworthiness has improved since then. Everymorning (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Procedural question only I hope you're well; just to clarify, you say it would be your third RfA (if I understood correctly), but here  there is only one...? Cheers!  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The first is at their previous username: Requests for adminship/Jinkinson. Sam Walton (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks ; should have checked I guess. Although, to the candidate- that's probably the first piece of advice you get anyway- mention your previous account name in the first breath! O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry, I should have disclosed my original username. Thanks for adding it, . I didn't include it because the instructions on this page just said to include your username. Anyway, I'd also like to point out my content work: I've written 3 GAs from scratch, as well as 39 DYKs (though this should soon increase to 40 once Stella Chess is posted on the main page). Everymorning (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5/10: A profilic content creator, but looking through your talk archives, I see a few PROD, XFD notices that were not older than six months. Also, you may remove the I wanna be an admin Ubox on your userpage because I gave that rating for sufficient grounds for opposing. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 02:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the userbox (which I put there years ago; I agree it seems rather immature). As for the AFD/PROD stuff, you'll notice that only a few of those actually ended up being deleted (Paul G. King is the only one I can recall, and I created it 3-odd years ago when I was less familiar with notability guidelines). Everymorning (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 6/10: Is it really already three years ago when I wrote this? Is it also a year and eight months since I wrote this]? Read that second RfA again because it is not often that this community lets a candidate down so nicely; normally they would tear a candidate apart like a frenzied wolf pack. So what has changed now? Well you are a bit older and certainly more mature and you are in  college and these few years more make a big  difference in  young  people. I haven’t  made an in-depth  review of your  work  as I  would at  RfA, but  if you  have read and fully  understood the advice pages linked to  at  the top  of this page and taken on  board all  the comments on  the previous RfAs and these polls, you  will know enough  now to  assess your  own chances of becoming  an admin. I know you  well  enough by  now to  know that  what  others perceive as an over-eagerness to  be an admin is just  your way  of wanting  to  do  more for Wikipedia, but  that’s still  the way  it  looks to  other people. Time passes slower at  your age than it  does at  mine and I  know how frustrating  that  can be, but  I  think  you're going  to  have to  stick  it  out  until at  least  another six months have elapsed or even more, being  absolutely  sure that  you  don’t  make any  errors of judgement  with  CSD or AfD. If  you  can do  that, then you  can rely  on  my support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4/10 Take the advice I gave Iazyges. Kudpung said a lot of good stuff so please read his comments twice or thrice if need be. There are a few other issues that may come up at RfA. For example, why did you request Bishonen block you? Your CSD log looks ok but your PROD log, especially recently, shows blue. In one case you've nominated an article one minute after it was created. For whatever reason wmflabs doesn't display your AfD stuff correctly. It looks like you are typically with consensus but there are hundreds of AfD pages you've edited but haven't !voted on. Are you making non-admin closes or are you commenting? Several articles you've created have been recently deleted including one for G12 (COPYVIO) as recently as November . How do you explain this? Finally, you identify on your user page as someone with Asperger syndrome. While I understand Wikipedia is a magnet for people with this diagnosis I hesitate to put people with mental illness in positions of trust. I honestly don't know if anyone but me has this opinion; I doubt few would be open about it. Please rethink over-sharing on your userpage. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC) edit:As my comments at ORCP are about my estimate of the community consensus, I'll withdraw my comments because I seem to be out of step with at least some, if not many, editors.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Asperger's isn't a mental illness. Our article describes it as a developmental disorder, though it could also be termed a developmental difference. I think an editor should be gauged on their editing, not their identity or condition. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Chris, I think this comment was way out of line. We have many productive editors with Asperger's, and undoubtedly some admins. It is not a "mental illness", and anyone who has Asperger's is almost by definition "high functioning". The ones who work well here recognize that Asperger's contributes to their personality and actions in some ways, and have learned to compensate. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have spoken to Chris on his TP and I think he's agreed to change his stance, from what I could tell. By the way, I fully agree with your statement, as someone with high-functioning autism (Asperger syndrome) myself. Patient Zerotalk 10:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am quite happy to respond to the issues Chris has brought up above. First, the reason I asked Bishonen to block me was that I had a lot of classwork to do at the time, and I thought Wikipedia was getting in the way of me doing so to the best of my ability. The AFD pages I edited but didn't vote on are, almost exclusively, ones that I delsorted automatically (see WP:FWDS). I would like for Chris (or anyone else) to identify the article I created that was speedied as a copyvio last November (I don't remember this having happened). That said, I definitely have created articles about non notable stuff that have, rightly, been deleted since then. This is largely because I created them a while ago before I really understood the relevant guidelines. Everymorning (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am most likely on the autism spectrum (Asperger's has been deprecated as a diagnosis, fyi), and it's no more of a mental illness than your assholery. For what it's worth, I'm also actually mentally ill, as are many other editors, and we are able to contribute quite productively, thanks. I see no shame in talking about neurodivergence and neurodiversity is an important part of our community. It's incredibly inappropriate to demean other editors for being open about mental illness OR neurodivergence. There are plenty of legitimate, kind, helpful critiques for this editor. Him being open about being on the spectrum is not one of them. Keilana (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Chris, I frankly see nothing whatsoever in his comment that could be construed as 'demeaning', whereas your borderline personal attack was in fact demeaning. He was almost certainly acting in good faith and piling on him will not be helpful. Lepricavark (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * After mistaking ASD for mental illness, he argued that people with mental illness should not be in positions of trust, and that they should not be open about it. As another person with mental illness, I know that I certainly find it to be demeaning. My illness does not affect my ability to edit Wikipedia, and someone so uninformed about mental illness certainly should not be making broad statements that it does. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is demeaning, as being on the higher-functioning end of the Autism spectrum is not considered a mental illness by psychologists, and therefore it is demeaning. Also, considering that everyone here who is on the autism spectrum is offended by his comment, it's pretty safe to say that it is demeaning. WP:DICK definitely applies here. Wow, I'm in an edit-conflict with everyone today... and I just edit conflicted with GorillaWarfare twice when trying to add this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you believe Chris was trying to demean anyone? If you do, I respectfully disagree. If you don't think he meant to offend anyone, you should not be citing WP:DICK (especially since that page itself essentially says 'Don't cite me!'). Yes, some people were offended by his words, but that doesn't make it right to assume he was trying to be offensive. Chris has made some mistakes here, but so have those who have failed to assume good faith on his part. I've jumped in because I don't want to see a good editor get shouted at even though he has already expressed a willingness to listen. Lepricavark (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I've since struck my comment and left a reason why. I appreciate your reply as well as Patient Zero's effort to reach out to me about this. The COPYVIO article was National Association for genetic safety (NAGS) (in October, not November as I had mistakenly stated earlier. I guess the CSD notice went to your talk page because you moved the article to its current location National Association for Genetic Safety where I have since CSD'd it. I doesn't reflect on you. I expected better from you than name calling.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering that you just (even if not intentionally) grossly insulted and was demeaning to her, I think calling you an asshole would be an acceptable response to that.. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's disappointing. I really don't see what positive purpose is being accomplished by continuing to attack Chris after he admitted his mistake above. It's really beginning to look like you are more interested in simply shouting Chris down than in engaging in constructive dialogue. Lepricavark (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , this isn't the first time Chris has been called out for his on-wiki behavior with regards to mental illness. The pattern shows that there is no "willingness to listen" on his part. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have neither the time nor the interest required to dig through those diffs and the related backstory. This is starting to get out of hand. All I was trying to do was demonstrate some good faith toward Chris and maybe calm some of the hostility toward him. Regardless of the prior incidents you cited, in this instance, Chris has demonstrated a willingness to listen and he has struck the offending comments. Lepricavark (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 7/10 Per Kudpung, Everymorning's a solid editor. Personally, as a person with Asperger's (or on the Autism spectrum, the terminology is complicated), I'd be happy to have another admin with Asperger's, as many people with it tend to be very intelligent. ThePlatypusofDoom  (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm both glad and thankful that Chris has decided to retract his comments, which I did say over on his talk page; thanks to admins, and  - let's apply WP:DROPTHESTICK from this point forward. Patient Zerotalk 10:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Epicgenius: January 2, 2017
I don't think I'll need admin tools anytime soon, but I'm just interested. It's been a year since I last asked, so... epicgenius (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 7/10 - Content creation definitely there, and XfD/AfD stats look pretty good. CSD log is a bit thin, but maybe I'm judging it too harshly. I sure hope people will have forgotten about your 3RR block by the time you run, although in my opinion it's mostly balanced out by your strength in other areas. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4/10 - I'll keep this as short as possible: A user page looking like a teenager's bedroom wall - older professionals/academics users looking up who  is behind CSD tags and deletions will doubt the professionalism of Wikipedia. Your age and/or maturity is going to be the big problem. With over 600 edits to ANI that's even more than me and I'm a busy admin who spends on average 5 hours a day on Wikipedia.  Although there therefore seems to be no shortage of content work - on the contrary, there might even be too much of it - 159,559 can only be mainly automated clean ups at the speed you work. I'm not sure that the high number of pages you have apparently 'created' are your own work or are drafts you have moved to mainspace. Note that a lot of the 'real' work is not reflected in edit counts - I often spend a whole day unraveling an SPI, or two days traveling to a Wikipedia conference, andthat's why I only have 80,000 edits to show for 7 years of solid work. My page patrols often take 3 minutes each or more to do properly and the more work that is done, obviously the number of possible errors increases in direct proportion. It all needs further examination which is not within the scope of this project.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5/10 per : That user page almost look like a teen's bedroom wall that made me laugh, but currently, it's an 50/50 chance I think. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing  07:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Before you run, clean up your user page and find a respected admin who will vouch for your maturity. I don't know you well enough to judge your chances at RFA, but the times when I've run into you have been positive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 Mainly per . You also have some experience of content creation, which is important. Also, whilst I don't have an issue with the user page, the block for violating the three revert rule might cause for some opposers if you did run now. I'd personally wait 3-6 months more before running so the block can be forgotten about (as it was 2015 when you were blocked and its 2017 now). You were also blocked for personal attacks, but hopefully this can be forgotten about now. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback so far, everyone. I've cleaned up my userpage. It loads much faster now! Also, in my defense, maybe I should have cleaned up my bedroom this morning. (No seriously, I'm actually a teenager.) epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5/10 - I just wanted to chime in and say I've noted a significant demonstrated increase in maturity. I'm afraid some will oppose because of past dramaboard participation, no matter what, so I'd place your chances at about 50%.  I'd recommend giving it another year and a half.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 22:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4/10 – I think the perception of immaturity (whether justified or not) is likely to stand in the way of a successful RfA for at least the first half of this year. I'm sure it's no secret that you're a relatively young editor, but if it were me (and it was me, at one point!), I'd try to avoid telling people as much. Some of our more curmudgeonly RfA voters might read "I'm actually a teenager" and then see something like this and get entirely the wrong impression. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5/10 I'd like to have some more young admins on Wikipedia,but many people would not, and people might think you have maturity issues. I would support you, but it'd be a close RfA. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 per Requests for adminship/Thine Antique Pen. I was impressed at your conduct during High Line's GA review, and thought you were pretty mature back then. I would lean towards supporting you at RfA; the problem is convincing everybody else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do have some concerns over your block log, but at the end of the day, that was in the past, and I'm sure most people will overlook that in addition to your userpage and see that in actuality you are a mature young editor. I'm not going to give a score out of ten, as I think I have a small COI considering I'm of similar age to you - but overall, I'd support. I would take Class455's advice and wait a few months, though, just to be on the safe side, given your recent block. Patient Zerotalk 11:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7: January 12, 2017
I ran unsuccessfully in 2016 and wasn't intending to run again in 2017, but recent emails prompted me to consider this candidate poll. I have been editing for over 10 years. I have contributed to 54 featured articles and lists, 87 A-class articles, and 242 good articles. I have created over 400 articles. I have four four-awards bringing articles I created to featured, and three million awards for bringing articles with over a million page views to featured status. (A fourth, Richard Feynman, is at FAC. If someone would like to submit a review, that would be great.) I was awarded a Golden Wiki by the Military History WikiProject for 2012 Military historian of the year, and was runner-up in 2014 and 2016. I maintain the MilHistBot and FACBot, which carry out chores related to A-class and Featured articles and lists. I ran unsuccessfully for ArbCom in 2015; not being an admin is one of the reasons I lost. I was pretty busy in 2016 with the Paralympic History Project, but my content creation activities are now tapering off. I attended Wikimania 2016 on a scholarship, and the Rio Paralympics as an accredited journalist. I made 4,300 edits in August, September and October 2016, created 269 Paralympic pages, submitted 22 Paralympic DYK articles and took 700 photographs. I wrote about the project on the Wikimedia blog. I am an autopatroller, extended confirmed user, file mover, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker and template editor. But it would be nice to be able to build DYK queues; move pages without having to fiddle with redirects; delete pages; and assist in reducing the admin backlogs. I hope some helpful comments will eventuate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 your work is good, I've reviewed dozens of your GAs, and I admire your articles on more niche topics like Paralympians, we need that kind of person. I'm not sure if you need to be an admin, building DYK queues is possible without admin rights, just stack up Prep areas like the rest of the project are doing.  Suspect your motives would be questioned at RFA.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have at times built DYK prep areas for a month or so each year. It's pretty soul destroying though when the prep doesn't run due to no admin being available. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any prep area that ultimately didn't run on the main page due to admin unavailability. At worst, it ran later than initially expected, but it still ran its full time. Do you have any examples to the contrary over, say, the past five years? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The prep areas are set to run one a particular date and at a particular time. I would take into account what time and date it will be in certain time zones and set them up accordingly. Running late messes things up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's how it works now with non-admins building prep sets for particular times. You don't need the mop for that. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Things like this, to which a current admin replied with this. The question you asked was also- itself- questioned. In fact the same administrator then struck it. These edits will undoubtedly raise themselves, or be raised, I don't wonder. Good luck though.  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  22:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I opposed (in fact was the first) last time. I don't know how it will end if you run now. We are in a bit of a golden period at the moment in regards to RFA, but that might not necessarily work to your advantage (i.e since we have recently promoted a lot of admins the "we need new admins" argument is lessened). You have lots of friends, but unfortunately a fair number of high-profile editors that will oppose you off the bat. Content wise you are more than sorted, but you know that already, and one can't help but admire your commitment to the project despite your setbacks. You need to address the desyopping early, many of your opposes were based around your handling of this. Also the links presented above by O Fortuna! are worrisome as they come off quite bitter (which is understandable to a degree). You probably want to explain why you asked that question as it will certainly come up. Personally I opposed mainly to a block I witnessed many years ago and I was pleased to see you specifically address it (I saw it too late to change my !vote and to be honest might not have anyway). I think you will be fine if you stick to the stated tasks above and would probably be an easy support if you could get the tools without the block button. I honestly don't know which way I would go now, thinking neutral or even sitting it out. I suppose that gives you roughly a 50/50 chance. AIR corn (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked that question was that the issue has been in the headlines here lately, and therefore in my mind, and we had an incident at Wikimedia Australia I witnessed personally back in 2011. In 2012 I wrote most of a featured article about a similar situation. I anticipated that older hands would recognise the 2013 Wikipedian of the Year case. I always ask for policies and procedures rather than what action someone would take, as real-life situations are rarely simple. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to give a score out of ten, but all I will say is that I am likely to oppose an RFA for this candidate. I have concerns about this editor's maturity - they asked a rather silly question at a recent RFA. Sorry Hawkeye7, but this will be your third RFA (!) and I don't see it going well. I think many other editors would say the same as I have done. Patient Zerotalk 11:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The links provided by O Fortuna cast a very long and dark shadow which the community at large will not ignore. Leaky  Caldron  11:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna score however the links provided above would be enough for anyone to oppose and being honest I think that that question alone would be enough to sink your RFA, As noted above there's a need for admins at the moment however this won't work in your favour at all, In the nicest possible way I think you should forget RFA for a couple of years and just focus on editing, Constantly coming here & retrying RFA isn't going to get you any closer to being an admin ... infact it'll do the complete opposite. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4/10, not a review of you personally but just being honest about your chances just now. You squeaked by in 2009 when RfA was less of a shitshow, and found your way to being desysopped three years later for wheel-warring and "conduct unbecoming"; your desysop will always come up at RfA. It was five years in the past, but the discussion Fortuna posted above was not: it was very recent, it shows that you're holding a grudge about your own history, and most severe currently is that it comes off as an attempt to disrupt RfA to make a point, something which RfA regulars have taken to be the flagship issue recently (ask UNSC Luke 1021 about that). It doesn't really matter that you had a reasonably decent reason for asking the question, the discussion preceding the question casts your motive into doubt and it came off poorly; nothing you can do about that but accept it. You do have a pretty decent history of participation there, so perhaps you can counter opposition based on that one series of missteps. In the plus column, you're a stunning content creator, one of the best probably. Your AFD stats are not terrific, and there are a few recent discussions in which you were the only one (or one of very few) editors arguing keep based on a notability essay often criticized as weak and not reflective of genuine notability, for articles where the consensus was to delete. You don't seem to have a CSD or PROD log, either, you should either start both or be prepared for questions about why you don't have them - they're good for demonstrating "need for the tools" as well. Overall, I think your chances are poor now, but will improve rapidly with continued civil participation at RfA and more successful arguments at AFD (not that you're wrong, but you're failing to convince people). If all other trends continue I think you'd pass easily in six months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the problem. I have the log options turned off in the preference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't recommend it. You will always have my unquestioning support, but even your recent edits to RfA show that you still have hard feelings about the desysop and the events that led to it. Regardless of the merits, you'll need to show that you've moved on from those events before you'll be able to get enough support. An RfA now is likely to be a bloodbath, and it would really upset me to see a friend go through that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4/10 Until and unless you deal with the desysop as something that you understand and have put behind you—and you've pretty much precluded that for a while given the comments noted above at that recent RFA—I'd expect any new RFA run to have the same problems and results as the last one. And your reply above about building DYK queues doesn't reflect the actual process, which was both surprising and disappointing. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4/10 I supported you at the second RfA because I felt we should not remind others of past misdeeds and that you more than deserved another chance. However, I had to remove my support during the RfA because of your attitude. Your question at Liz's RfA was utterly unacceptable and justifiably described in User:Kudpung/RfA criteria as ".. perhaps the silliest question of all ... The editor was condemned as a troll by an admin." The recent conduct at K6ka's RfA doesn't help either. I think enough people share this view to sink an RfA, and I expect that will remain the case until you show remorse for your earlier actions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3/10 Your trolling of RfA will not help you, and although it is old, the desysop will hurt you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 0/10 Unlikely to ever regain tools short of a miracle at this point - especially since conduct is either similar or worse than the previous RFA. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3/10 Temperament: Already his comment in one of the other ORCP candidate polls above gives me pause - when I have been unable to fully do my homework before speaking, I admit it, hence to assume I do sloppy  research is not  AGF. The comment  above by, some of the newer discoveries by  , and the issues pointed out  by  would be enough to tank any RfA by  a normal mortal and I do not  think today's RfA community as regarding such excellent content work as a reason to ignore them.
 * Before voting, I think  anyone would need to  read the previous RfA - all  of it -  and understand its  implications before commenting  here, paying particular attention to the comments by highly experienced users such as ,  Dennis Brown, ,  ,  , ,  and  . I left a ‘Neutral, leaning support’ because I was on Wikileave and was unable to do any in-depth research; there were also some heavyweights in the Neutral section. Hawkeye is an adult and I don't think his character is going to change in  the space of just  over 11 months. Maybe he just has an unfortunate way of expressing himself (if his mother tongue were one of the northern European Germanic languages, I could understand).
 * What we also have here is the paradox of someone making a bid for the mop who is jointly responsible for maintaining RfA   as the  'horrible and broken process'  that it is. I wouldn’t  risk making the same mistake supporting a n’th run like I did with  Ironholds who  turned out  to  be not  easy  for many  dedicated Wikipedians to  collaborate with, and who finally  ended up  being  desysoped within  a short  time. RfA  voters are a fickle crowd, not less since the reforms that  more than doubled participation -  the tradition is still  to  let  a few opposes do the work and then for everyone to  pile on, and pile on they  will. The RfA had more than its fair share of trolls and other voters who  have since been blocked but the net result was still a clear 'no consensus'. 's user:Kingturtle's advice was to wait a year or two, I think 'two' more apt and might leave more time for the dust to set|tle, but I would still not be overly optimistic even then. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hawkeye, if you can't let bygones be bygones (and those recent RfA comments indicate this), then there's no point in running again: last time you got to 191 supports, which is an amazing number and it clearly shows you have made lots of friends with the good work you do, but you racked up 95 opposes, which is likewise a very high number. What sank the last RfA are the kinds of things that, as is signaled above, are still visible in your recent edit history. I'm sorry, but I won't be able to support, and I fear that an RfA now will go down in the same way. Don't do it--it won't make you feel much better about our project which, admittedly, has many ways in which it can sink one's spirits. Drmies (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When you bring up your "unfair" desysop in other user's RFAs, yet never bring it up yourself when the discussion is about you, that's indicitave of a problem with your attitude toward adminship. Your statement here touts your many fine contributions to content. We need content creators, you are apparently good at that, and adminship is an area where you have had trouble in the past. Why not stick to the content and forget about returning to adminship after all this time? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was here to listen, not talk, but I'm not going to let the "unfair" remark pass. I didn't bring the desysop up, and I never characterised it as "unfair". It was ill-advised, ill-judged and ill-fated, and I think that is the community consensus and not just my opinion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The credentials are impressive - there is a clear dedication to the project, and I for one would like to see someone with those credentials and that dedication be given the tools to assist in their general Wikipedia activities. The stumbling block is partly the desysopping, but mostly the attitude since. The community accepts that editing on Wikipedia sometimes results in a rush of blood to the head, and also that we are human and make mistakes. What the community likes to see is people who have made mistakes and learned from them. Indeed, it sometimes appears to me that the community prefers folks who have made mistakes and learned from them, because they are more rounded, more experienced, and we trust them more because we have seen that they won't make those mistakes again. The community appears to be more cautious of users who have not made mistakes, because we don't know how they will react. Some users put up their hands and say "Ah, yes. I made a mistake. Sorry. That won't happen again", and we love them for it. Others refuse to admit they made a mistake, and will deny it, or cover it up. We cannot trust those users, as they may make the same mistake again, having clearly not learned from it, and may even attempt to cover it up, so creating a bigger mess. The community is very reluctant to accept a user who has made a mistake and continually refuses to accept it, and worse still, acts in a pointy and immature manner about the incident. I don't think the road to adminship is closed, because you have a lot to offer, and there are many, like myself, who are appreciative of the work you do. But the first step is to acknowledge publicly that, on reflection, you made an error of judgement in wheel-warring to re-block Malleus Fatuorum/Eric Corbett. Such a mistake would be understandable and forgiveable. The community does not wish to punish someone for ever for one heated moment. The next stage would be to explain your behaviour since. And, again, it is understandable that folks get frustrated when they are restricted or opposed for reasons they don't understand and accept. But, even with this, you would need a period of space from the recent RfA incidents which the community has taken a dim view of. You do get involved and make sensible comments, but some of your "curly questions", have raised eyebrows, and given parts of the community a poor impression of you, which coupled with your past history, may suggest to them that you are a volatile person who may impose a little too much of their own personality into admin actions.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Iazyges: January 3, 2017
I have more than doubled my overall edits since the last time I ran a poll, gotten my edit summary usage up and become active in UAA, and moving files to commons.


 * Iazyges, in my (admittedly not vast) experience, one of the things fatal to an RFA is if !voters feel you are too eager for adminship. Posting a second request here two months after the first is going to seem like overeagerness to many, whether justifiably or otherwise. I, personally, would recommend that you think on that, and possibly withdraw this poll. Continue to accumulate constructive contributions in the right areas, and eventually people will see that giving you the tools makes sense. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, in Iazyges' defense, I think it's only human to want feedback on your progress. But, yes, asking often does look bad to many people.  11,000 edits is pretty good, but most RFA voters are going to want to see more than six months of editing.  I would suggest one year as a good minimum.  Try comparing yourself to various people's RFA criteria and see how you stack up.  User:Kudpung/RfA criteria is a good starting place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4/10 I would oppose you, just based upon your over-eagerness and I don't think I'm alone. You've created plenty of articles. You have at least one GA already and another is being reviewed now. Your CSD log is appropriately red although your PROD log is questionable. Your AfD stats tend to agree with the consensus. You're on the low end for both edits and longevity but you're not an unreasonable candidate in that regard. You've been recognized by MILHIST for your contributions. I have real concerns, however, in that this is your second time at ORCP since October. Your desire for the mop will be the reason you don't get it. Please, do not ever ask about adminship ever again. Seriously. Never ever ask someone to nominate you. Don't add some userbox to your user page saying you want to be an admin; nothing. It would be a shame for this project to not have you as an admin only because you're asking for it. Rest assured, if the cabal wants you to be an admin they'll invite you. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1/10 per my prev comment in the last Poll which was 2/3 months ago, Also the over-eagerness really won't help you either. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right now, your chances are low. I've been keeping a loose eye on since you got elected a MilHist coordinator and you certainly have the potential to be a great admin, but you need more time and more experience of the back end of Wikipedia. What sort of admin work are you interested in? Start by getting involved in those sorts of areas, but for what it's worth admisnhip is mostly boring grunt work and button mashing. If article-writing is what you enjoy (and from what I've seen, you're good at it), don't feel you have to do something you enjoy less just to climb a career ladder; the view isn't better from the top. On the other hand, if you spend some time on admin-type tasks and find you enjoy them, you could have a good shot at an RfA in six to twelve months. I'd seriously consider supporting you after a few months, and I might even be willing to nominate you when the time is right.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with what Harry just said. You've only been doing serious editing in six months, but I've seen what you've done from coming across your review work already, and it is good, so I think the aptitude is there. To be honest, I'd probably support you if you ran for RfA now, but many people wouldn't, so come back around September and we should be onto a winner. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment on your previous poll remains more or less unchanged - including my remark about the reading list. Take note particularly of what and  say above - the Catch 22 at the moment is that even if you would make a good admin someday, the more you work towards it, obviously it looks to others as if it's what you are working towards, and promotion through the ranks of Wikipedia shouldn't be anyone's goal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Iazyges, I would advise you to put more effort into communicating clearly on discussion pages. This will help to gain the confidence of other editors. Category talk:Ancient Roman forts in England is an example of a message from you that was not particularly clear. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1/10: Having seen the overreaction at this recent GAR nomination, I don't believe the editor anywhere near ready for the mop, and people will pick up on it based on such examples. I wouldn't ask again here until 2018 at the earliest; you need to cultivate a great deal more patience, which is something an admin needs to have and to demonstrate. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

EvergreenFir: January 12, 2017
suggested I consider adminship recently on my user talk page, but also suggested doing an ORCP. Generally I have been active dealing with vandalism, long term abuse, sockpuppeting, UAA, and New Page Patrol. I've tried assisting on ANI as well as occasionally closing/reviewing RfCs (e.g., 1). I acknowledge I'm not a prolific content creator; I tend to do gnoming and small projects like mass template syntax changes (e.g., a recent project related to WP:COLOR and another related to WP:TV).

Considering some recent RfAs, I'm taking the "saying more is better than less" approach: The "skeleton in the closet" that I foresee being a turnoff to some folks is a series of encounters with Eric Corbett a couple years ago that were related to the WP:GGTF. I admit I could have handled it better and have tried to keep myself away from similar dramas. That said, I feel like I am reflexive enough to know when to let others handle something I might be too close to. I've been able to edit on pages where I find the subject(s) disagreeable and am still able to uphold policy and guidelines (e.g., Roosh V, Dr. Luke‎, Richard B. Spencer).

Any comments, questions, or reviews would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and input!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 9/10 With nearly 70,000 mainspace edits, a clean block log and a 79.3% vote/result (11% NC) no concern from me. I'd support without question.   Aloha27   talk  06:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 9/10 - You've shown a need for the tools and i've seen you around many times and you've always exercised good judgement. I would support and I think most of the community would as well. --  Dane  talk  06:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 Your harassment of Eric Corbett almost caused Talk:Snake Pass/GA1 to crash and burn, and the Arbcom case that followed it was a fractious affair. Expect an RfA to be unpleasant with lots of awkward questions. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  06:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on the relevance of Talk:Snake Pass/GA1? The GGTF case was some time beforehand and I'm struggling to find any relevant edits from the time of that GAN. Sam Walton (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I might have got my wires crossed slightly and confused EvergreenFir with the Gender Gap Task Force generally, for which I apologise. The specific trigger in my instance was this comment from Eric "resigning" as a result of some comments the GGTF made that he took exception to, and I simply mean if Eric slinks off in a huff, feeling unwanted, he isn't going to finish my GA review. The actual AE case that EvergreenFir filed is this one, which led to Eric getting a short and controversial block. I particularly note 's comment, "My one thought is why didn't EvergreenFir simply remove the comment if it was such a problem rather than immediately jumping for the block / drama request". A few weeks later, she did it again, which led to another controversial block and then onto Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement - one of the most tedious and pointless dramah festivals in the history of Wikipedia. We can debate the pros and cons of blocking Eric until the cows come home but the simple fact is this sort of controversy sticks in people minds for a long time and you need to do some serious work to distance yourself from it.
 * Moving on to the present day, a glance through her talk page shows two worrying things. Firstly, she tends to edit in controversial topic areas which naturally gravitate towards disruption and need careful and diligent use of the admin tools. Secondly, there are cases such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this (particularly "please, do be more careful in the future EvergreenFir, with your hasty reverts and then slapping it on my talk page") and this warning for edit-warring which put together suggests she has accrued a large number of enemies, who could all come together at an RfA and sink it with multiple oppose votes over a variety of diffs.
 * I appreciate that's just a cursory view of things by skimming over EvergreenFir's contributions, but in my view there is far too much risk giving her the "block" button and I cannot trust her with it at this time. The best person I think who could give you further advice is who has been in the same situation. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your clarification and understand your concerns. To me, the Corbett thing is ancient history (I've not directly interacted with him in over a year), but I understand that not everyone feels that way. I've gained a better sense of boundaries and norms since the Corbett thing (and yes, it was a train wreck and handled very poorly by many people) and know which issues not to touch in any admin capacity. I hope to not be held accountable for dozens of folks' actions, but understand my association with the mess. The warning was from a misunderstanding of a joke I posted on 's talk page. You are correct, though, that I've butted heads with some folks in the past, especially since I edit on social science, politics, and current events rather frequently. I do not actively seek out drama (I hope the past 1.5 years has shown that I've learned that lesson), but my areas of expertise and interest do attract drama unfortunately. The white pride page, for example, was inundated with trolls due to the first image in this search making the rounds of social media. I think  can attest to the trolling. But your points about hard feelings and mistrust are honestly my main concerns with an RfA. I feel I've maintained a cordial relationship with folks I've disagreed with in the past (happy to ping a few if you want their input), but I have no way of knowing if they feel the same. FWIW, I do fully understand the gravity and responsibility that comes with the tools. They are not warning templates or reports to AIV and are a last resort to stop disruption. In cases where I know my POV might be getting in the way or where I have history with a person, I am more than happy to ask for 2nd or 3rd opinions, make reports at ANI if necessary, or simply leave it to someone else. I find parallels with teaching: most cases can be handled with dialogue or warnings, but when a student does something repeatedly or egregious it requires a higher level response. In those cases, I consult with colleagues to see if I'm being too harsh or unreasonable (though I'm usually the "softy" in my department when it comes to student discipline). I wish I could demonstrate in some way that I understand the difference, but I know it boils down to trust.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, White pride is the sort of article I would run full speed away from in the opposite direction and is just the sort of topic that attracts loonies and nut-jobs. It's for this reason I have the Donald Trump userbox on my userpage, partly because Trump's policies and ideals are almost a polar opposite to mine (to put it mildly) but also to warn people that I don't trust myself to be able to police Trump-related articles in a neutral manner. While you are free to edit any articles you like, by focusing on those that see a lot of disruption and aggravation, you are going to pick up a reputation that you just aren't going to get from gnoming away at Louth railway station. I appreciate you feel remorse over the whole Corbett affair, but this wasn't just a mild dust up, this was a front row seat for one of the nastiest fall-outs in Wikipedia history, and a key part of it is that a lot of people felt you had no empathy or understanding for those editors who do a lot of high-quality article writing. This is particularly important for handling content disputes; as I remarked on Ad Orientem's talk page this evening, just because a longstanding editor complains an IP is disruptive, it doesn't follow they are right and you need to look at what is under dispute to make a firm decision. Or a few days ago I turned down a report at WP:AN3 by an editor who screamed "FUCK OFF" in an edit summary but I felt was actually right on the merits of BLP (that doesn't obviously mean that I felt the edit summary was acceptable, rather that it was by the far the lesser evil than having false and potentially libellous content on Wikipedia). I wouldn't normally go as far recommending this, but I think in your instance you could build a lot of bridges by improving a few articles to GA from scratch, and seeing what it's like when you put a lot of work into something, only to have people fiddling with spelling, citation formats, or infoboxes, or add unbalanced and / or unsourced content. At the moment, there are too many people who do not trust you can keep a level head with them, and doing some article work will meet them half way. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for the comments and input. I agree that white pride is not the sort of place one goes to have an easy time (or black pride, which I worked on and helped at least get sourced and up to minimum standards), but someone has to do it I guess. I generally trust myself now with the contentious topics (I follow Donald Trump's page, though I utterly despise him, because I know BLP violations when I see them and am willing to remove things I otherwise might agree with in private; same with Dr. Luke or Roosh V). I think your point about working on GAs is a good one; you are correct that at the time I did not appreciate the amount of time and work that goes into even a simple page. Pioneer Cabin Tree took me 1.5 hours to get up to where I wanted it, and it's a C-class, B-class at best. I do have a draft page I'm working on of a larger article. I can think of a few article that might be near GA that I could work on.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 8/10 - Ritchie brings up some good points, but you're a decent editor, as everyone else has said (70,000 edits and a clean block log = very good) and I'd be likely to !vote Support. Patient Zerotalk 13:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I was pinged here, and this is my advice:  For those of us who have done stuff that has been controversial, the bottom line is how a person responds under pressure. You have to show by your actions that you aren't going to abuse the toolkit, and especially the block button.  I am thinking about running again, myself, and  raises a good point that my last RfA is illustrative of the ways the process can be daunting. You will have every mistake you've made since joining wikipedia discovered and questioned; some things you've totally forgotten about will come up.  You will even have some people make remarks that come out of left field—there was stuff said at mine that needed to be oversighted.  You need to figure out how to make it clear that you can distinguish between having your strongly held personal views and how you would behave as an admin.  You might fail on your first attempt, I did. I've dusting myself off and am thinking about trying again (see below), and I take heart from the experiences of those who eventually succeeded on their second or third try.  I won't give you a polling number on your chances, because I suspect you will have a rough go either way.  If your experience is like mine, be aware that you will probably be doxxed off-wiki, subjected to both on and off-wiki canvassing by opponents, and it is not impossible that there could be real-life harassment (what I dealt with was minor, but it was mean-spirited and annoying—and it was an attempt to go after my real-world work).  But you, like me, may decide it's worth doing anyway.   Montanabw (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to be perfectly clear, I am fine with constructive criticisms and concerns at RfA, but I find personal attacks, doxxing, outing and harassment utterly abhorrent and unacceptable. If I wanted to see dirt dug up, I'd read the National Enquirer. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't provided a thorough review, but you fall within my "Wait, they're not an admin already?" bundle. That's an easy support from me. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I admittedly know very little about the Eric Corbett issue raised above, but I thought I'd leave my two cents here as somebody who successfully ran at RFA despite a fair bit of my content work being in a monstrously contentious area. A few things that seemed to help were that I had content work in non-contentious areas, too; that even if I had exhibited temperament issues at various points, I had learned from them: that I had managed to avoid being on the wrong end of drama for a good while before my RFA; and the fact that my content work stood up to scrutiny from folks who were not deeply entrenched in their positions in the topic area. I don't have the time to determine whether these things are true for you, just thought I'd offer them as food for thought. One thing I did not have was particularly heavyweight opposition: though my oppose numbers were somewhat high, a lot of them (not all, certainly) came from the fringes. So if you do think some heavyweights will come out to oppose you, perhaps look at addressing those issues before any RFA, or even plans thereof. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Editing in contentious areas should never be a bar to becoming an Admin, although it might make you enemies. And I agree about the trolling. I can see where Ritchie is coming from and you may have a bit of a rocky time, but that's life. If you fail, you can try to fix the problems and run again. Sadly Montanabw may be right. I know I've been attacked off-wiki partially because of my being active in some fringe archaeology issues, here and in the past elsewhere. Again, that's what happens if you work in certain areas. Vanamonde's last sentence may be relevant, you may need to work on some issues first. But I'm with Rob in the end. Doug Weller  talk 19:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4/10-- per Ritchie333. Harassment of another user, particularly Eric, is enough to ring alarm bells.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   13:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7/10 - your name pops up in many maintenance areas I visit frequently, and I've often been surprised that you've not run for RFA yet as you obviously know your way around. My general observation is that you get involved in controversial areas, which is an asset because you're no stranger to conflict and you're obviously willing to dig into difficult administrative situations, but also a liability because you've no doubt earned yourself some enemies here and so surprising things are likely to come up in your RFA. Absolutely make sure that you passively distance yourself on-wiki from any real-life political leanings (do it, but don't look like you're doing it) as far in advance of your RFA as possible, there have been quite a few wacky opposes lately over perceived and projected political biases, but at least as of now a wacky oppose is still counted against you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5/10 - This project should be an indication of how we think others will vote on RfA, not generally  an expression of our own probable votes, but we may offer advice. Being  a female is of course fine, and the community  is genuinely favourable towards electing  women admins. Socio-political activism however, is regarded with a very critical eye and many voters will be wary of trusting admin candidates to be neutral in such areas. I can personally understand why anyone would like to have a go at people who may be perceived as misogynists or admin haters, but poking those bears is unwise - they have friends; our strange policy also demands that we tolerate incivility by prolific content creators, turn the other cheek, and paradoxically allow them the satisfaction of knowing that they will always come off best. After all, RfA is their one playground where they can say what they like with impunity. The solution is to help out with backlogs in maintenance areas but stay away from drama boards, Arbcom cases,  and other contentious areas for a year and perhaps get a couple of articles promoted to GA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Exemplo347: February 5, 2017
I don't plan on running for a while due to time commitments, I'd just like an idea of how successful I'd be should I decide to run. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 0/10 at this time - Don't take this badly, it's just conventional on Wikipedia to require at least a couple of years experience and more than 10k edits before a candidate is taken seriously by the community. You've been here for less than a year and have 7,000 edits (1,377 non-automated edits in the main namespace). Keep working on stuff that interests you, involve yourself in deletion debates, try not to get blocked, and wait a year or so and ask again. You can see some semi-formalized critera here. Many of them say 5,000 or 7,000 edits, but I'd stick by my estimate that "veteran" level at WP:Service awards ~10k, across spaces and 2 years, is really a number to shoot for before running. - Brianhe (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As per Brianhe, and referential to . Cheers, O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  08:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As per above, Concentrate on admins areas and perhaps come back in a year or so. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 0/10 at this time . Far to little demonstrable experience. Admins are supposed to be able to read instructions - so it's back to the top of this page you go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw: January 12, 2017
.

I ran previously in the fall of 2015 and I am ready to try again. Running a poll has been recommended to me before I toss my hat in the ring. I am a prolific content contributor (93,000 edits) with a 10 year history and absolutely clean block log, but I faced quite a bit of opposition last time around. Since that time, I have obtained the page curation and page mover toolsets and I believe I have handled them responsibly. My continued interest in the admin bit is because I have an interest in: 1) Being able to work with protected areas, such as building queues for DYK;  2)  having the tools to protect articles; 3) to be able to delete articles if needed and, conversely, to view, and when appropriate, restore deleted content;  4)  to assist generally in areas where there are backlogs or a severe shortage of admins; 5) Other duties as needed.   I have mulled over the feedback that I received last time around, and I would hope that the record will reflect that the biggest concerns raised have been addressed.  I invite comments.   Montanabw (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Assuming you're going to run soon .... I'm not going to give a rating as I've got absolutely no idea; it depends entirely on who turns up to the RfA, what arguments they make, how well they make them, and who else agrees with them. It could be a straight pass with a few grumpy opposes, it could be a 'crat chat, it could tank within 48 hours of opening. I haven't got a clue.
 * As you know, I've spent time recently looking at things again and chatting to you via email because I would have loved to stick you on the pile on the recent good run of RfA candidates - but I can't do it in good confidence if I don't have conviction you will pass. I can't doubt your enthusiasm and dedication to the place, and there are areas where you can do a lot of positive work with the tools. However, I've also asked around my group of regular RfA enthusiasts (mainly to see if I could put a nomination together) and there are a number of people who I am absolutely positive will !vote oppose if they get a chance. I can only repeat what I said in November, which is : "better calls at AfD, don't let your systemic bias concerns get in the way of policy, keep calm and DGAF about critics. If you can adopt that attitude for the next six months, we could be onto a winner". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * We also had some discussion by email, and my offer still stands for a time when we can all be fairly certain of a pass. I'm not 100% sure that that time has quite arrived yet and at the moment my thoughts are very much the same as 's. Let's see how this poll goes and hope that those participating here remember that this poll is an assessment of how we think the community will express itself rather than how we would personally vote. Let's not get too excited about 7 or 8 passes in the first two weeks of this year - if the math has anything to do with it, we have reached the 2017 'quota' already! During the next six months there may also be some positive changes at RfA which might help those who really want to vote objectively to understand more about the process, while convincing trolls and serial opposers that it's probably not the best venue for testing their back-office skills. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you reconsidered your own appraisal of "her frequent brash and snarky outbursts"? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I do hope that is a purely rhetorical question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would not hesitate for a second to support the nomination, and admittedly, we've had our differences in the past. She never raised her voice, worked toward compromise, provided options to consider, and exercised patience.  I would think that any editor who is worth their salt could see there are far more positive reasons for giving her the mop than not. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 19:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (6/10) which is bollocks, because that's what I think your chances are, not what I would vote. You're an outstanding candidate and would 100% be a net gain for the project, but having been around a while, and while we have "commentators" like Colonel Warden/Andrew Davidson who will work damn hard to find any reason to oppose you, I couldn't give you more than a 60/40 right now.  You dare to stick your neck out and that's something I hold in the highest regard, but the community has recently demonstrated more of a passive tendency which your style may not suit.   That notwithstanding, I'd be fully behind you, let me know when you go live.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't usually give percentages, but I agree with Ritchie that this would be a toss-up. I'd probably go neutral myself. It's hard to support after this interaction, though I doubt I'd oppose outright. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of a percentage, so won't give one. RationalObserver was fueling the oppose flames on the last RFA, and she is obviously gone. I'd support, but some people may go out of their way to stir up dramahz. I don't think that's a reason not to run, though! Overall, I think you'd be a good admin and could help a lot at DYK, which we are both pretty active at. Revdel would also come in handy on some of the BLPs, and I don't see a reason not to give you a mop. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 5/10 - 86 opposes is a lot. More, in fact, than any RfA in the last 5 years (besides Hawkeye7, who got 95). I don't think the issues raised there have been fixed in their entirety. For instance, regarding AfD judgment, this !vote was a month ago. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "and I would hope that the record will reflect that the biggest concerns raised have been addressed." They haven't been.  I'd oppose.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * (6/10) I'm agreeing with TRM here. I remember your last RfA, which left me with the impression that you not only make a great admin, but a good friend. You'll certainly have my vote if you run again. In order to pass, you need to keep the number of opposes down to about 50, and get 150+ support votes - somewhat more than last time. This should be do-able. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I was not very active when you ran last, but have read through you RFA since. First off, that was one of the nastiest RFA's I have seen for a while. You behaviour in it was exemplary though, which went against many of the temperament concerns raised. I have not really interacted with you, I half remember some comment at organic farming or a related article which rubbed me the wrong way, but most of the times I see you discussing things they have been constructive. Although while not referencing me, the strength more in numbers than in argument comment did raise my eyebrows and could be interpreted negatively. However, the biggest issue seems to be a concern that you would take admin actions in support of your friends. This is tricky, because I do not know how someone can prove that they won't do something. I know someone with you tenure and experience would know what WP:Involved means, but you may need to emphasise this. You should probably address the AFD percentage as some will rely on that, although personally I don't have a problem with it as it should be more about the arguments made. Like others I have absolutely no idea how a second RFA would go. If you and Hawkeye run at the same time it would be a very interesting week. AIR corn (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't the confidence to give you a rating, but I'll say this much. The last time you ran I !voted oppose, reluctantly, for what I perceived was an unwillingness to let things go. This was not tied so much to any philosophical/political views, but to behavior in disputes in general. After more than a year in which I have encountered your work numerous times, I have regretted that !vote, and will support if you run again. However, this is not because my concern has been addressed, but because I find it outweighed by your enormous positive contributions to this project, and the potential for more. I don't think everyone will judge the balance the same way, which I believe should be food for thought in the time before you actually run (I do think you should run eventually, provided, of course, that you don't believe it will be too dispiriting an experience). Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 per : Well, at XFD, are you a a secluar includsionist? A lot of keep votes indcate your a bit good on XFD. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 21:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 or lower. In addition to arguments brought the last time, I will oppose and will bring more recents diffs.  You do make a lot of good contribs but you have demonstrably shown bad judgement in some places as well as obvious wiki-politics (in other words, the whole "supporting friends/attacking enemies" thing), and the diffs showing that will drive many no !votes.  How many, nobody can predict. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, no chance. You have too many fervent opponents. &rarr; <b style="color:green">Stani</b><b style="color:blue">Stani</b> 13:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The last run was quite a while ago now and was one of RFA's low points in several ways. The Opposse has generally been better behaved since then. I think that another run would still be contentious, but many of those who opposed over a year ago will support unless there are problematic diffs from the last year.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Go for it. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Montana, I have no idea how to guess what would happen, but I'd like to see you try. I do think a lot of the opposes would support now. You've got numerous FAs and GAs, you know the place like the back of your hand, and you'd be great at helping to resolve disputes. SarahSV (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not encouraging to find stuff like this August 2016 ANI. I don't have an immediate opinion on the merits of that complaint as I haven't read all of it, but it's just discouraging to find big sections at ANI with your name in the title. How are you getting along these days with ? wbm1058 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in response to wbm1058: Montanabw and I have been avoiding each other since 1995. I'm still angry about her apparent need in 1995 to control Wikipedia affairs in Montana, to the extent of repeated deletions of non-controversial information without giving helpful ideas re alternative views or RS or even civil explanations. Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Really Rj? Wikipedia didn't exist in 1995.  I also did not start editing Wikipedia until 2006.    Montanabw (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally I agree with Montanabw on something. I wrote '1995' and I really had '2015' in mind. Time does fly. Rjensen (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , the ANI you cite is a vicious pre-emptive strike and as such, for the OP an almost blockable PA/harassment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * note that it was wbm1058 who cited the ANI <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 10:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * re: "vicious pre-emptive strike", that may be, but I'd ask why that is happening. Most admins don't often have such attacks launched against them, do they? Evidence of how she diffused conflicts before they escalated to noticeboards would help her case. An olive branch handed to Rjensen would be nice to see too. wbm1058 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to think the opposes will change their mind this time around. I would have opposed the last RFA if I voted even without knowing back then they had been previously desysopped . Montanbw does fine at a lot of content work when there is no controversy. Add in disputes though, and I've seen a tendency to antagonize the situation, which is the exact opposite of what an admin should be. I can think of a few editors, including myself, who could present diffs showing the same belligerent behavior since the last RfA that was so concerning. At the end of the day, a lack of admin tools isn't going to prevent Montanabw from content creation, and the same problems are going to come up again if they go for another RfA. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One small point - Montanabw was never desysopped - they've never been an admin. The last RfA was the first RfA as you can see at this link. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. Hawkeye's poll (and Ivanvector's comment) bled into this one as I was scrolling down. I struck that portion out. No wonder I was surprised by the thought in the first place. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Pretty much the same as Kingofaces. I do not see any real improvement since the last RFA in temperament. I highly doubt a majority of people will vote for admin a user who when in a conflict situation makes things worse. I would only go ahead with another RFA if I was feeling particularly masochistic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of the 86 opposes last time, if you generalise the issues raised, do you think you've substantially addressed m/any? This (well, maybe combined with the arguably better moood at RfA at the moment) is the key point. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I am glad to see the feedback and food for thought provided here. I'm not seeing any surprises, but overall I am heartened by the responses.  I am mulling over my answers to the "classic three" questions that are answered at a RfA nom so that those responses will address your question, and the questions others have posed here.  Anyone who wants to discuss my potential (and probable) candidacy further with me directly is certainly welcome to send an email if they have private comments, or they can chat publicly on my talk page.  For anyone watching this poll, it will be at least a few weeks to a month before I actually file, as I have some RL things that have to take the front burner for the immediate future. Stay tuned.  Montanabw (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I supported you before and I shall again. I still hang my hat at support #104 by Drmies. He echoes my opinion. I cannot assign a number (too many variables: which is why I do not fill in brackets for March Madness). The thrill is in the unknown. If you have the heart for it, I will show up in support. All the best  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 22:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This, of course, .Cheers, . O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  22:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not everyone who has commented has assigned a number rating for success / failure. Ping me when all else do; until then I likewise defer.  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 23:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How about I ping to say that I wasn't suggesting you do assign a rating; rather, the opposite, in that this forum is for gauging how someone will do at RfA, not for offering personal support. As you did. Cheers!  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  13:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers in return, . ツ I look forward to seeing you in the actual run.  All the best,  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 14:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Relevant? ツ  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  15:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 5/10 because I'm a pessimist, but I support Montana fully. Having collaborated on a number of articles, and having heard her talk at the US Wikiconference in person, I am convinced of her skills and passion that would drive success were the mop handed over. I did not participate in the old AfD but having looked it over, it is full of spurious issues that revolve around the politically charged question of addressing systemic bias. Unfortunately I think those who take a certain position on that will oppose those who take another position no matter what. This is spoken as one who has faced unexpected opposition to a more inclusive 'pedia at places like Sarah Ballard AfD (a woman scientist), Manufacture New York AfD (a woman-owned business) and Marissa Johnson AfD (a powerful black woman, oh my). I don't think it's just my articles; just today I saw an argument that a notable woman must be a state-licensed engineer (in a state that she doesn't even work or reside in!) to be called a "software enginer" in her WP bio. But what the heck, go for it and I'll !vote yes. - Brianhe (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apart from Wu (which is an ongoing gamergate crapfest), none of those linked had any indication of bias due to the sex of the person involved. Until you brought it up in one case. Without re-arguing the AFD's - A low-notability post-doc with little impact, a company of no real achievements, and someone who only made the press due to one event (regardless of her actual work). That these were women were irrelevant, they would have been nominated eventually even if they were men. On the other hand plenty of evidence was presented previously that in AFD's Montana was voting keep on women of low/zero notability because of their sex. Which is clear and demonstrated bias. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your eagerness to nit-pick these examples proves my point. Those like Montana (and maybe me) who are associated with promoting diversity of coverage on ENWP, or any other contentious issue, will have an uphill battle. - Brianhe (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Conversely, your objection to having your claims scrutinized proves 's point. There is a difference between nit-picking and pointing out obvious problems. I'm not entirely persuaded as to how I would !vote at Montana's RfA, but I am concerned by the evidence of bias. Promoting diversity is a good thing, but policies do not change to accommodate such efforts. Lepricavark (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As per Ritchie - It's a hard one and I have no idea how it would turn out nor do I have any idea where I'd stick my name if you ran again, I don't want to give a rating or say "oh yeah i'd support" when infact issues may crop up, It's a difficult one. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Amortias: January 30, 2017
Having previously run one of these in April last year I would be interested in seeing any changes in opinion or any new/different/same stumbling blocks.


 * 5/10 - I expect that you will receive opposition for your AFDstats. In particular, the number/proportion of your delete votes, failed nominations, and overall participation. There will also likely be oppose !votes citing the limited number of articles you have created or significantly expanded.  You might also receive questions about the apparent proficiency with which you edited when you started using this account.  It may be advisable to disclose any prior accounts, even if from a clean start.  Also, some editors may oppose for the appearance of over-eagerness as possibly suggested by your creation of a Portfolio, Admin Dashboard, and use of this userbox. Also, some editors may take issue with having another ORCP less than a year after the last one.  There have been a string of successful RFAs recently, and maybe it could continue with you.  Perhaps there are areas of activity outside of AFD that you could emphasize that would attract enough supporters.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The portfolio page was used (and had since been forgotten about) when I was asked to evidence things I had done for an application for access to OTRS.Amortias (T)(C) 10:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 6/10: Mostly per, but I still support you getting the mop with some constructive opposes. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7/10 I sense a pattern On a review of your contributions compared to recent successful RfAs and the currently "expectations" we see at RfA, I believe you would do well. You have some content creation, though you will get opposition for not having FAs and the such. Your pie chart looks good, and with 328 reports to AIV you could use the tools well. Your CSD log is mostly red. Please consider contacting a nominator or two and drafting your answers to the standard questions to get the ball rolling, but there's no rush -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 19:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5/10 Started well, but editing has been less frequent for the last 10 months and voters will pick on that. Being an Arbcom clerk may be perceived as a plus by some participants, but others will see it as a deliberate stepping stone to adminship (which it often is). OTRS is a bonus, but it’s relatively easy to get (do they still strike off people who have not used it for 6 months?). You are of course aware of the staggering backlog at NPP - is there any reason why you stopped patrolling for 6 months only to start again 2 days ago? Nevertheless, it is nice to see someone using the Page Curation tool. Very few other kinds of patrols though. Some voters may take exception at some of the earlier (since removed) statements on your user page which may give rise to concerns about age and/or maturity. The  only  real  fly  in  the ointment  is this almost immediately after registering - most users don’t  realise what  a disservice they  are doing  themselves for a future run at RfA;  it  actually  rings alarm bells - there are no spare seats  in  the admins’ cantina for power seekers. I would probably oppose an RfA attempt any time soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 Per Samtar and Becky Sayles. You're a good editor, and although RfA voters are notorious for nitpicking, I doubt that an edit that's over 2 years old, and made when you were a new user, will matter that much to most people, the only people that will care about that are the people that would oppose you anyway. You're an ArbCom clerk, which is also a positive, and you do good CSD tagging and vandal-fighting work. I would support you in this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7/10 - Amortias is a good editor with lots of participation in a large part of the project. I think that there is a great chance that an RfA would pass - I agree the AfD votes may be a sticking point for some people but overall I think that with the red CSD log, AIV reports and ACC participation, Amortias would succeed at RfA. --  Dane  talk  23:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

GSS-1987: January 21, 2017
I have been active dealing with vandalism, sockpuppeting, new page patrol and also perform non-admin closure at the AfD's since more than a year now and created 651 articles so far. I believe I have a good understanding in dealing with CSD and AfD's especially with Asian related articles. I am an autoreviewer, extendedmover, patroller, reviewer, rollbacker also have access to use AutoWikiBrowser and I'm a member of the OTRS response team but I'm wondering if I can use the admin tool to protect/delete or restore articles if needed and also would like to assist generally in areas where there are backlogs or a shortage of admins. I appreciate your feedback and hope it will encourage me moving forward with the RfA process. Please find some links below to see my work.


 * Pages created
 * CSD log
 * Sockpuppet investigations
 * AfD nominations

Thank you – <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 07:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 8/10 lots of positives, clean block log, clearly here to build an encyclopedia, lots of articles created and no evidence I can see of incivility or major controversies. CSD log pleasingly red, and AFD log within consensus. You might get a handful of opposes based on voting delete 88% of the time. The only thing that would give me pause would be the userbox and the statement on your user page that "This user will not hesitate to delete or CSD tag your article if it falls under CSD criteria." To be honest, I'd prefer people who consider alternatives to deletion rather than those who just pull the trigger. Also, even though I'd consider it an ill-founded oppose, for some people, only being active for just over a year would not be long enough and I expect "come back in 6-12 months" style opposes on that. I'd expect you to pass, but think your chances would go up a bit if you waited a few months more. Valenciano (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For sure I will take WP:ATD more seriously but generally I don't apply speedy deletion tags without doing a quick research on the subject and I try my best to save the article. I have removed that statement and the template from my userpage as I don't want to look rude or unfriendly. Thank you so much for your suggestion. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 17:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 8/10: An obvious net positive, and activity level is absolutely no problem. I think that your RFA would pass anyway with some constructive opposes. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 13:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5/10 I think the ~year's tenure would rack up far more critical reception than has been suggested; as will the edit-count- ~half of them are semi/automated. I expect another six months to a years' worth of non-automated editing would allay those opposes. Time to turn off Huggle, perhaps, temporarilly. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  13:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm already not very active on Huggle or AWB since I was busy in Asian Month Edit-a-thon but for sure I will take your advice into consideration. Thank you – <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 17:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 8/10. It's likely you'll get some opposes for having so many semi-automated edits and a lack of tenure, but I doubt it would be enough to sink your RFA.  You might want to check out my RFA, since it's likely you'll be seen in a roughly similar light as me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The cases are not synonymous. It's true that issues of tenure did arise in your RfA, but ultimately you overcame them because you still had ~20,000 manual mainspace edits and four years' active editing. Which is, indeed, something for all potential RfA candidates to aspire to. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  13:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You scared me lol sure I will take a look. Cheers – <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 17:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 8/10 per conversation on GSS' talk page. A couple of niggles but otherwise suitable admin material, in my view. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8/10 . Sounds almost like a shoe-in for adminship, and I echo the thoughts and advice of . We certainly need admins who fully understand the culture of the Indian sub-continent, who have an excellent command of English, and who express themselves well. With the majority of new pages nowadays coming from editors from that region about people and topics there, such skills are desperately needed to oversee the work of New Page Patrolers and qualified New Page Reviewers. Wikipedia is on the whole, rather more inclusionist than deletionist, indeed alternatives to deletion are anchored in policy, so it's best not to give voters the impression that mashing the delete button is going to be a preoccupation. Some RfA voters will take exception at the short 15-month tenure, and some will comment on what they will perceive to be an editor who wants to be an admin. There will also be the almost inevitable early oppose from a serial opposer, but I would most likely make a strong, early support. I recommend waiting at least another six months.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll provide a review of your OTRS contributions in a few days when I have a chance. I won't be able to give much more than a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" publicly, but that is good experience that you should highlight in any RfA (assuming the review comes back good). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Having lived and worked in India (as well), I don't think your Indian English which is just as much a recognised regional version of the language as, for example, American, Australian, or Hong Kong variants, would be an issue - we have several Indian admins, such as . We have non-native Dutch, Swedish, and German admins whose English is not 100% perfect. We have plenty of native English speaking admins who wouldn't get through my classes at school. If you try to change your English to British or American, you'll get into a muddle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8/10 - Generally I look for candidates who have been here more than a year however you make up for that with your AFD !votes/closures, CSD log, AIV reports, Articles created etc etc - In short surprisingly you tick all of my boxes bar the year, You'll probably get some opposes due to the tenure however hopefully if you ran you'd get more supports than anything. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8/10 - I agree completely with Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. His assessments and comments are so thorough and close to my thoughts that I will just adopt them. I know this is not an !vote and "me too"s may or may not be helpful. In some cases such as this one, I do think it may be helpful to add another positive comment. I also agree with the recommendation to wait at least six months before putting you candidacy forward. Donner60 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 - if you ran right now. I'm highly impressed with your article creation.  However, your tenure is just over a year.  If you take Kudpung's suggestion and wait 6 months, I'd move that to 8/10, and if you wait until November (2 years active) I'd say 9.5.  Strong AfD record, strong CSD record (some minor nuances could be learned, but that applies to me as well, still.)    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 21:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2/10 I did a summary review of the entire history of AfD work, and there is only one keep !vote in the entire history.  This by itself is not definitive, so I also began reviewing some !votes.  These were hard to find since the candidate's contributions are mostly deletion nominations.  I saw two cases of !votes from WP:ATA, but these were supported by the context, so again were not definitive.  The nominations tended to be minimal, but again, the selection of topics was weighted toward non-controversial deletions, so this is not definitive.  Red flags for me appeared on two nominations in which the candidate was using AfD for the purpose of discussing editorial decisions.  The biggest flag is a caution flag that there was not a single NC close in which this candidate has participated since last June.  This means that the candidate lacks the confidence to participate in difficult AfD decisions, and this in turn means that evaluators have good reason to doubt that this candidate has the skill and experience to participate in any but the simplest of AfD discussions.  I also wondered if these non-controversial deletions were preceded by PRODs, and in a sample of 3 out of 3, which is all I can see since the rest are deleted, the answer was that these articles were taken to AfD without a PROD.  The candidate posts on many AfD pages due to providing delsort notices and relisting, but I could only find one NAC, which was to report a speedy deletion.  In summary, helpful wikiGnome work with non-controversial deletions does not by itself prepare an editor to be an admin.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ....or it could just mean that GSS prefers improving articles and only sends them to AfD when he can't find any other alternative. Regarding, "there was not a single NC close", there is Articles for deletion/India and state-sponsored terrorism. I am not a fan of NACs as there is no vetting of them (I have seen several NAC keeps where I thought "that's a keep? really?") and several users have been blocked or topic banned for doing to many of them. Finally, the score here is based on how well you think the candidate will do at RfA : 2/10 means you expect the RfA to get something like 20 opposes in the first 12 hours and speedily closed. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit comment is "nonsense". Maybe you think the community wants potential admins to pad their AfD statistics, but I don't think that is what the community wants.  If this editor is only sending articles to AfD when there is no other alternative like you suggest; where are the PRODs and talk page discussions and templates as per WP:BEFORE?  While that would be nice, even that doesn't get to what we need to see, which is the ability to assess complicated situations at AfD; along with an understanding of the various elements of WP:Deletion policy; including the DEL-REASONs; and closes including wrong venue, userfy, and incubate; and evidence of understanding what defines sufficiently-significant significant coverage in GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I also reviewed the AfD you found, which is indeed a contentious AfD, and does address my concern of venturing into uncharted AfD territory. But now look at the !vote itself, "Delete or Merge into State-sponsored terrorism#India but make sure to cite reliable source there. ".  Note that the word "delete" stands alone as WP:JUSTAVOTE, which states, "This is not an argument for or against deletion at all, it's a vote. As Articles for deletion states, 'The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments' ".  Unscintillating (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well if you check the history of each article I nominated for deletion you'll found that more than half deletions were preceded by PRODs and speedy per WP:BEFORE. I noted you said the selection of topics was weighted toward non-controversial deletions so what kind of article you want me to nominate for deletion and why you think deleted articles were weighted toward non-controversial deletions? because no one voted to keep? I'll take it as a compliment. Thank you – <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 12:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Errr, I don't think WP:BEFORE says what you seem to be implying it does. It's not just about alternative avenues to deletion. - Brianhe (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You got me wrong U|Brianhe but yes you are right WP:BEFORE is not just about alternative avenues to deletion and I do search for additional sources to check if the article can be improved to support notability before nominating for deletion and if I see strong evidence supporting notability I follow WP:ATD. Thank you – <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 04:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sanjev Rajaram: February 18, 2017
Yo yo Sanjev here and I'm running for adminship. I am a rather new editor with fewer edits than most people have but I'm able to be a fairly active user on Wikipedia and can quickly respond to inquiries. I've contributed some good stuff to the encyclopedia and I upload alot of images I take to be used across the wikis this gives you an advantage since everything I publically photograph is fair use. I'd be a pretty chill admin who is fair minded and firm. Let me know.


 * 0/10 Per WP:CIR. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 0/10 See the notice at the very top of the page and WP:RFAADVICE. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 0/10 - If you cannot do something simple as file this correctly then to be blunt there's no hope for you at all!, "Yo yo Sanjev here" doesesn't do you any favours either!, Come back when you've grown up!. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You know,, I think he's 25...? O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

YITYNR: February 23, 2017
I do not intend to run for admin in the near future; this is merely out of curiosity to see how well I'm doing so far and to receive feedback as to what areas I should improve in. My username is YITYNR, and I was formerly known as "Bad Weather 2014"; my account was renamed in March 2016. Since joining Wikipedia in October 2014 (February 2014 if you count sporadic anonymous edits), I have made roughly 1,600 edits and created one article. I am a rollbacker and extended confirmed user, and my focus on Wikipedia has been pretty varied over the years. Most of my edits are reverting vandalism, but I am also a WikiGnome, fixing spelling and grammatical errors when I find them; the latter is how my career started.

I hope I have done a good job in editing Wikipedia so far and welcome any comments or suggestions.

Thank you,

YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 23:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 0/10 For inability to follow instructions. This page is not for general editor feedback. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a place where I can request general feedback, and may I withdraw this nomination? YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 23:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We used to utilize Editor review for that purpose but it was shut down years ago. Yes, you can withdraw your request; just strike your request and leave a comment stating such. I'd recommend you ask individual Wikipedians you respect for their opinion. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This nomination has been withdrawn. YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 23:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-dropframe: February 9, 2017
Hello! This candidate poll is my very first foray into the (potential) RfA world. But I've been around for 9 years so by no means do I expect punches to be pulled. Basically what I'm hoping for is feedback regarding "holes" in my Wikipedian resume. I know, for example, that I have very limited content creation experience. This has been pointed out to me as a potential RfA hurtle. I'll also point out that my contributions have some pretty significant time gaps. Pointing out any other issues you notice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance, — Non-Dropframe    talk  19:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 4/10 Your absence from 2012 through 2014 might come up. And yeah you've created three articles unless I'm mis-counting, one of which is still a stub, so that might be an issue for some reviewers. Another issue will be the understanding/correct application of speedy deletion, considering light creation history plus warnings from a senior admin here (2009) and here (2015). Right now I'm going to say 4/10 because AfD has been kind lately and you have not been blocked, and the only case I see you named at in ANI was without merit. - Brianhe (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your candid feedback. I'd like to think that a warning from 8 years ago wouldn't be too detrimental to my success, having always taken such criticism to heart and appropriately amended my practices. Again, I genuinely appreciate your comments! — Non-Dropframe    talk  22:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 5/10: The inactivity issue give me pause, and also a majority of edits are automated. I would recommend you wait another 6 months before considering an RFA. (might time to remove the I wanna be an admin ubox?) KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 20:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 5/10: I don't think  this edit count monthly  profile will  be met with  much  enthusiasm by  the RfA crowd. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3/10: the fact that you had significant activity in only two months of 2016 (and seven months of 2015), with lengthy absences before and after, is enough to decisively sink any nomination. If you have at least a few hundred edits in every month of 2017 and can assure people of your intention to continue such regular editing, you could stand a chance in 2018, but I wouldn't try before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)