Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 7

Headbomb: February 10, 2017
I'm not really planning on running for admin, since I don't really need the tools (at least in as much as I'm usually patient enough that admins will eventually get to my db-move requests, or whatever it is I want to get done) and have zero desire to get involved in behavior policing or the dramaboards in an admin capacity, but I'm kinda curious to see what the feeling would be if I decided to run to get access to a couple more tools that'd make some maintenance easier, or review deleted some old article for salvageable content that could be merged into other articles. If support is high enough, I might let that convince me it's worth running, but it's mostly a hypothetical for now.

I've got a few hats already (filemover, templateeditor, WP:BAG member). I had an editfilter or accountcreator (can't remember which) rights at one point I believe, but I'm not sure where that's gone. I think it was mostly for technical reasons related to Books, I forget what exactly I needed it for, or why exactly it's gone (probably lack of use). Some of my content work is given here, but that is mostly limited to pages I've created. I've got 1 FL List of baryons, 1 FA Quark, and 1 FP (File:Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map edit.jpg), 7 DYK (see user page for list), and I'm currently working on getting a DYK and GA (and eventually FA) out of bouncing ball. Some content work I've done is more on the "organizational level" and had a big hand in crafting WP:NASTRO which set up the groundwork to clean up the asteroid mess, and I've likewise laid the groundwork to create, categorize, and create redirects for everything in Category:Isotopes via bots. I've also touched WP:JWG, WP:NJOURNALS, WP:BOTPOL, and probably a dozen others policies or guides in ways I can't remember. I even got a namespace created (Book:). Also wrote/got interviewed for a couple of WP:Signpost articles (e.g. "The Science Hall of Fame").

I do lots of behind the scenes stuff, and came up with stuff like WP:AALERTS, WP:JCW and User:JL-Bot/Project content (although I take none of the credit for coding). I do lots of cross-project collaboration between say WP:JOURNALS and other projects like WP:FUNGI to improve our coverage of academic journals. I also run 3 bots (2 coded by me, User:Bibcode Bot, User:CitationCleanerBot), but my coding skills are blergh so they're currently inactive while I figure out how to revive them. The 3rd (User:AAlertBot) is coded by User:Hellknowz.

With some 150K+ edits, it's impossible to not have ruffled some feathers over the years, or to have had the occasional bad day, but I don't think anyone could accuse me of WP:NOTHERE or to be in danger of abusing the tools. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you would coast through RfA. Please strongly consider running, I think you would be an even bigger asset to the community as an admin. Jenks24 (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 10/10: Great work! Strongly just go for it. Good luck at RFA! ;) KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 16:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing score to 6/10: Not everyone need the admin tools but I'll advise you not to say "I don't need the tools" before considering an another RFA. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 17:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7/10 You've been around easily long enough to understand what admins do, the main concern is the attitude at ANI and elsewhere. 5 years ago you'd have got a lot of civility-based opposes, but you've dialled that back a lot in the past few years. It does still crop up in User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2016/October, so I'd expect a bunch of "candidate was mean to me waaah" opposes to crawl out of the woodwork. The edit-warring at Notability (academic journals) doesn't help either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I'd probably advise against saying, I don't really need the tools, eh ;)  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that's an issue, I'd rather have somebody who could make use of the tools if people felt it was useful for them to have them, as opposed to somebody putting the "I wanna be an admin some day" box on their userpage (which more often than not is a warning sign). To be honest, I think if Headbomb ran for RfA today, I'd expect a similar trajectory to . Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Crawl out of the woodwork'? Something else to advise against saying on the big day perhaps. I expect you mean 'Good faith opposes' :) O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I'd also argue that anyone that needs tools to get anything done hasn't been around enough, or needs to work on their patience. I don't have revdel rights, but that doesn't prevent me from dealing with things like User talk:Headbomb. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 4/10 Good work so far, and you have plenty of experience... BUT saying you don't really need the tools puts me off slightly. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My personal feeling, having observed the process these past few months, has been that the majority of current RfA voters consider WP:NONEED to be a fairly weak argument for opposing a candidate, so I don't think this will significantly drop Headbomb's chances on its own. Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7/10 I think there is a fair chance that  an RfA might  succeed and I  note that the score by  probably reflects his own opinion of the candidate rather than an estimated possibility of a pass.   has certainly ruffled some feathers over the years, including  mine, and for a long time I was of the opinion that  his temperament alone would make him  unsuitable for adminship -  's comments  above are not without importance, and woodwork-crawlers are also very  much  a reality  at RfA. However, others who  have more closely  followed his career claim  this to  have become milder. Headbomb is certainly  a highly dynamic and much needed kind of editor and in  his work he would certainly  come accross the occasions where the admin tools would prove useful, so  I am left  wondering  why  he personally does not feel a distinct need for them. Any attempt  at RfA  would need very  carefully  worded nominations from  strong   nominators, and the answers to  the set questions would have to  be the result of very careful penning, and stepping  back  from  what  I  anticipate may be a natural tendency  to  riposte  against some of the inevitable opposition. Headbomb can go for RfA any time he likes, there will  be no 'take your time and consider running  in  a year's time' - certainly  not  from  voters who  actually  know what  RfA is all  about (and many of them clearly  don't). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 Like Kudpung and Ritchie333 said…You’ve ruffled some feathers and if my experience is any indication, they will all come out of the woodwork at the RfA. That said, if at first you don’t succeed, try again.  It might take two runs, but if you stay above the fray and act like an admin during the RfA and thereafter, the second time may be successful.   Montanabw (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7/10 – I've seen you around and have a positive impression of your work. Better not emphasize that you don't need the tools. People will probably accept that a person with 160,000 edits may occasionally run into a need for tools. You have stated "have zero desire to get involved in behavior policing or the dramaboards in an admin capacity", but this does take away some of the case for your adminship. It wouldn't be very risky to take on the task of blocking obvious vandals that you might run across while doing your other work. Also, handling requests for protection is unlikely to get anyone in trouble and is usually not hard to do. People might want to know your record on speedy deletion nominations and it wouldn't be difficult to enable logging for that. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, obvious vandals and RFPP sure (I already take care of a couple edit requests on protected templates), but it's fairly rare I run into those in my every day routine. I'm just not interested in doing mediation or policing edit wars, or be an WP:AN regular. How exactly do you "enable logging for speedy deletions?" Is there an adminbot that can dig through my deleted contributions? I can't recall any instance in the last 5 years that a db (or PROD) request I've made has been declined, possibly longer. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a good example since I don't have a CSD log, but see WP:TW/DOC for how to turn it on. Twinkle is now a gadget and just needs you to enable it in Special:Preferences. From there I think there is a further step to create the CSD log. The template used here in the ORCP poll has an entry called 'CSD log' (if you have one set up) so many of the admin hopefuls who post here already have it on. This won't report on your previous speedies, only any new speedy tags may apply from now on. This might seem like busy work if you don't use speedy much, but the log is used by RfA voters to get a view of someone's judgment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Bleeerghhh Twinkle. But I if it's a gadget now I suppose it's not tooo much of a big deal. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad: February 20, 2017
Hi, I'm GAB, and I'm interested in making a run for adminship. Currently, most of my work revolves around my SPI clerking, and I am seeking the tools (deleting pages and viewing deleted edits, history-merging cases, and blocking socks) to battle the daunting SPI backlog. I am also heavily involved in recent-changes and new-pages patrolling, and have considerable experience in CSD, RFPP, UAA, and the like. I have acted upon the recommendations in my previous RFA attempt by participating more in AFD, and have added further content work under my belt, including Operation Infinite Reach (DYK, GA, FA), 1995 CIA disinformation controversy (created, DYK, GA), and Carré d'As IV incident (DYK, GA). Thanks very much, GABgab 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not ready to assign a rating yet, could you briefly address 's opinion at the previous RfA "UAA is basically trivia, and AIV and RC are 'sexy' and already have enough hands..."? This is bound to come up. Brianhe (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7.5/10: Good work, but almost half your edits are automated which can receive constructive opposes based on your edits.  KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in the habit of giving numerical ratings. At your last RFA, though, I was neutral leaning oppose because of a lack of mainspace, non-automated edits, and generally low content work. I think you've addressed both concerns. Another red-flag some folks raised was a conomination by an editor described as a Neo-nazi (I'm not acquainted with them myself); this, of course, you should avoid repeating. I did a quick run through your World War II work, and I see no glaring neutrality issues; but remember that thanks to that conom, folks will go through your contributions with a fine-tooth comb, and your edits need to stand up to far more scrutiny than I am currently able to give. Given that these were the substantial issues the last time around, I would see you doing well; personally, I'd probably support. Honestly we do need admins who have had experience with politically fraught content work, whose edits can still stand up to scrutiny...because there are other such messy areas which need attention. Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * SPI is definitely not trivial (even if username policing is); rooting out socks involves a lot of work and judgement. Both RfPP and CSD require careful thought, too, though I'm unclear what your "considerable experience" in them would be as a non-admin; if your requests regarding them are usually correct and acted upon by the admins who respond to them, this will be a good sign.  Be prepared with answers for questions about ones that were rejected.  The AfD participation will help, if you're usually on the prevailing side and your input was thoughtful not just obvious.  GA and FA work will help mollify those who feel a strong content record is essential (I'm increasingly neutral on the matter, but there are many who are not). Not prepared to offer a percentile rating without further examination, but "better prospects than last time", surely. :-) PS: KGirlTrucker81 is correct.  The way to resolve that is to just  all automated tools (at least any that leave an editing history trace) for several months and edit the project manually.  There are lots and lots and lots of people patrolling new pages, recent edits, and new users, so nothing will fall apart if you give baddie hunting a rest for a while.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 8/10 - Ive seen you around at SPI as a clerk and I do think you need the tools to expand your work in that area, as well as in other areas, but I do think a lot more mainspace work is required. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  14:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7.5/10: The automated edits are going to raise some questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 8.5, 9 on a good day, 9.5 on a very good day with the wind behind you and a strong nomination statement and strong answers to the three standard questions. When you took Infinite Reach through FAC, I was very impressed and thought then that you'd make a good admin, but I thought the last RfA might have been a bit fresh in the memory. You were calm and responsive in your responses to criticism of your work, and getting a big article like that promoted involves lots of the same sorts of skills we look for in admins. Having people pick holes in something you've spent weeks writing requires patience and leaves you with policy shortcuts burnt into the back of your eyeballs. Most of the opposition in your last RfA focused on insufficient experience outside of Huggling. There's nothing wrong with vandal-whacking (it's essential, and it's bread and butter admin work) but adminship is about judgement and you needed something that showed that you can make complex decisions that involve weighing up policies. A year on, you've made a name for yourself doing other things and you've got a featured article to your name (hopefully the first of many). I wouldn't expect a unanimous pass because it's RfA—there will always be something you've done wrong or someone's toes you've trodden on, and some people will oppose for the sake of opposing—but I would say you're in with a good chance. I'd be more than happy to nominate if you want. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 8-9/10 - I agree with the comments above. Editors of your caliber have passed with relative ease. I shouldn't be generalizing like that though; it's bad. — Yashtalk stalk 14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 8.5/10 – The automated edits are going to certainly raise some opposes, although I seriously doubt that will sink your second RfA.  J 947  18:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Cameron11598: March 1, 2017
Hello! I'm Cameron11598 and I'm considering make the run at RFA. I spend my time on Wikipedia at The Wikipedia Library providing access to Oxford University Press and Newspapers.com. I'm involved in counter vandalism work, which is how I got my start at editing wikipedia. Until recently I avoided content creation mainly because I couldn't find an area to interest me. I recently found WikiProject Olympics where I've started work on getting Djibouti at the Olympics up to a good topic, as a result of finding a topic of interest I now have four good articles to my name, which is something I didn't think I'd ever be able to do. I'd be more than willing to answer any questions people do have about my editing here on wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to respond I really appreciate it! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 6.5/10 Good content creation. I've seen you at IRC, so I know that you're fairly active, but your edit count is low for someone who has been on WP for over 6 years. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 8/10 Good CSD and AfD stats, some GAs, and you've had an "attaboy" from . If 6,500 edits is not enough to pass these days then I despair. Let's chat about getting an RfA set up. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 8/10 Clean block log, a fair amount of content creation and involvement in the adminy-areas topped off with a calm and collected response to conflict and vandalism. Given the current RfA climate I personally think you'd pass if you ran now. Agree with Ritchie that 6500 ought to be enough editcountitis, and with his backing you'll sail through -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 15:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You guys have more faith than I do. Some of the oppose reasons from a recent RfA: "just over 11,000 edits"; "only two years and 11,000 edits"; "11,000 edits, although a mesmerizing number to a budding Wikipedian, just doesn't cut it in an RfA". It may not sink the RfA entirely, but "only" ~7,000 edits will definitely garner some objections, unfortunately. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ought, but not suggesting that Cam won't get some editcountitis-based opposes :-( -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 15:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I had over 24,000 edits at the time of my RFA, and I still got an oppose based on edit count...I'm not saying that such a concern would be justified, but it will be expressed. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 8.5/10: Edit count is not a problem here, but your RFA could pass anyway with those constructive opposes. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 13:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 8.5/10: Almost certainly a pass, but is right: if, and it's a big 'if', the trolls would stay away with their ridiculous demands for high edit counts. No need to feel ashamed if it doesn't work out, plenty of our best admins passed at their second run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 7/10 – I hate to be pessimistic, but I agree with strongly in regard to that low edit count. Although you will probably receive around 85% support, the opposes count most and can be quite unpredictable. Me and many others will !vote support, but expect a lot of constructive opposes.  J  947  02:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4/5/10 - I would oppose purely based on the edit count & tenure alone, But I would probably also oppose due to the fact you've been at ANI more than any other Wiki-space here, There hasn't been much experience with UFAA or AIV either, and last but not least you've not really had much experience with AFD or any XFD either, All in all I personally don't believe you have much experience here to run for RFA just yet however I could be entirely wrong and your RFA might succeed, I suppose I'm a "troll" now but hey ho I'm sure I'll live with that. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a rollercoaster of a poll response! Having an opinion doesn't make you a "troll"  -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your perspective and insight, I don't consider you a troll by any means. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5.5/10. Sorry to rain on your parade. My best guess is that an RfA now would end somewhere in the 60s and either end up being withdrawn or being closed as unsuccessful. Yes, 65% and up is bureaucrat discretion, but in reality the bureaucrats only have discretion because they almost never use it, and crat chats have been consistent in declining to pass an RfA that has substantial, well-reasoned opposition, which I would expect yours to receive. There are a handful of things in your CSD log that raise an eyebrow just on a quick glance, you've made almost 450(!) edits to ANI which sends up lots of red flags, and the edits themselves tend to add little (an unnecessary closure here, a drive-by comment there, but nothing that improves the signal : noise ratio). I'm not seeing any evidence of judgement or decision-making or deep policy knowledge. A lot of adminship is about judgement and not rushing in headlong when you actually have no idea what you're doing (some would say that's rich coming from me, especially in my early days as an admin), and the large number of short comments at ANI suggest to me a tendency towards the latter. I'd want to see evidence of weighing up arguments and policies (be it at AfD or FAC or RfCs or somewhere else, but preferably not ANI) and more involvement in the project space. At the moment, I'd oppose. So why 5.5? Because your content work and work with the Wikipedia Library show dedication and promise. Carry on with that sort of thing, maybe write some longer articles on bigger subjects and aim for FAC (itself valuable experience), and get to know the back end a bit better and in a few months your chances could be much improved. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5/10 OK let's start with the good news. I don't see any real Red Flag issues (i.e. show stoppers). Your content creation looks good and you've been around for a while. The problem is that I see a number of Yellow Flags, which is to say issues that are going to make people pause and think carefully. If you get enough of those the tide tends to swing against candidates. Here are my yellow flag issues. Your edit count is low for RFA. Whether we agree with it or not, the current standard for most regulars at RFA seems to be 10k+. On the flip side your edit count at ANI, as already noted is a bit high. That's gonna cause more than a few editors to take a deep breath before pulling the support trigger. We don't want editors who look for drama as admins. And your behind the scenes work like AfD is also a tad light. A lot of this has already been pointed out above. My general take is that you are a good prospective future candidate, but you need to polish up your resume a bit. Here are my suggestions. Spend the next six months focusing on various adminny things like AfD AIV UAA and maybe see if you can help out at SPI which is perpetually backlogged. Maybe help out with closing some RfC's that aren't so contentious that people are going to insist on an admin closure. Avoid the drama boards. You've spent enough time there. And you can always try helping out in some of the areas that don't get a lot of love and attention like the main page (OTD ITNC etc.) and FTN. Then come back with the 10k+ edit count and we can take a second look. As of right now however, I think your chances of passing are dicey. If you do choose to run in the immediate future be prepared for a week of stress as I can all but guarantee you will get some oppose votes. In the end though I don't see anything that is likely to cause a SNOW close and the shortcomings in your resume are mostly correctable with a little focused editing in some of the neglected areas that people tend to look at in RfA discussion. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 8/10 - It'd be 10/10 if it wasn't for the people who think edit counts & experience are the same thing. Feel free to counter them with the fact that someone once created 18,000 articles and they were all nonsense. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I realise Requests for adminship/Dr. Blofeld is not likely to happen any time soon, but it's not very nice to call his work "all nonsense" :-P <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear god, do not call the wrath of Blofeld down upon me! Exemplo347 (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think who has made a greater in-depth assessment than I did, has made some very valid observations. Not all voters at RfA are drive-by ones (even if I may appear to assume that many of them are), and it only takes one seasoned RfA regular to oppose with the same rationale and it could make an RfA come tumbling down. I'll not revise my score, because I still think it could go either way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Would someone mind closing this? I have some self reflection to do before I make any choices. Thanks for the feedback everyone I really appreciate and will take the comments on where I need to improve to heart. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: March 22, 2017
I have been considering running for admin and thought I would ask what others thought of my chances. I have been an editor since 2010 and have around 65,000 edits to my credit. I am basically an article creator / expander / improver with plenty of DYKs, GAs and FAs, some of the latter groups being joint efforts. I have won the WikiCup twice and am now a WikiCup judge. I am much involved at DYK, and am principally seeking the mop so that I can do more there, moving prep sets into queues and providing the administrator attention that is not always available at short notice. I would also aim to get more involved in maintaining the main page, another area where administrators are sometimes needed at short notice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 3/10 To cut a very long story incredibly short, unless you can settle your differences with Fram (random example) I predict there will be just too many pile-on opposes to pass RfA. FWIW I see a similar trajectory to Requests for adminship/Thine Antique Pen (except you're probably older than 15). Sorry. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Although the vote is my view on how likely an RfA is to pass, I might as well give my personal view as well. You clearly have the project's best interests at heart and have continued contributing in the face of some pretty unpleasant abuse that would cause many a person to give up and go elsewhere. My concerns are typical of what I feel towards regular WikiCup contributors, in that you sometimes contribute a little above your station, and seem to try and run through a process to get the green blob or brown star at the end, at the expense of what is actually best for the article and the end reader. For example, in Talk:Severn Railway Bridge/GA1, I said the bridge's completion date was not in the source given, and you immediately removed the claim. While that technically means the article is closer to the "factually accurate and verifiable" part of the GA criteria, it conversely takes it further away from the "broad in coverage" - an article on pretty much any British bridge in the last 200 years will have a source somewhere with its completion date. If you'd said, "I haven't got a source, let me ask around" or "I can't verify this, what options have we got?", that would have been fine. Later on in the review, you pressed me for completion to meet the West Country Challenge; I said it would be done when it was done and there were still outstanding issues. Put that altogether and you've got someone who superficially seems to be doing a lot of really good work, and indeed in many cases probably does, but scratch beneath the surface and you find issues that just seem ... wrong. If you had the mop, I feel you'd slowly accumulate enemies, and it would grind you down so much you'd get completely frustrated and worn out. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You know you are possibly the strongest argument I've seen for unbundling the ability to edit fully-protected pages...I'm afraid I have to agree with Ritchie. Your content work is really solid, and that will bring you a number of supports: and you'll probably get a few more from people who have seen the massive amounts of hard work you put into DYK. That said, I can think of a few heavyweights who, justifiably or otherwise, will express strong opposition, and I'd guess that this will lead to enough pile-on opposition to sink an RFA. That said, you are no stranger to standing up to harsh criticism, so if you're willing, perhaps you should give it a shot. Yours is not the sort of candidacy that will necessarily be improved by waiting X months (unless by some miracle there are no difficulties at DYK for that period!). So if you can find some strong nominators, I'd guess it would do no harm to try. Vanamonde (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd support you, but that may not be to your advantage. You're cool enough under pressure, you are neutral in tone and do a lot of very good work.  The issues noted above will not help you cause, not because they don't make you worthy to be an admin, but because you're a human being and Wikipedians don't, in general, like human beings, they prefer robots.  There is not one iota of evidence that you would be anything other than a net benefit to the project with the mop.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4/10: There are no age limits in any RFA, but there will be some opposes based on your age that you're too young. In my experience, I always hide my age when running a future RFA compared to yours. That's an tip for preparing an RFA. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 15:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe Cwmhiraeth has asserted at least once she is married with kids, so you must be getting confused with somebody else. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And, of course, although it's easy to hide one's precise age, it's a lot harder to prevent a general impresion being given. &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, its quite easy and a bit hard to prevent it. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 15:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 4/10 - I would 100% support you without a doubt however the issue with Fram won't help the RFA and as noted above you need to resolve the issue with them before running otherwise your RFA will probably sink (In all fairness it may not but I have a feeling it will), You've done some amazing work at DYK and elsewhere so I'd happily support but I don't think others will, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4/10. sums it all up pretty well. Like, I would probably support your RfA but the DYK issue is likely to attract some very strong opposition. You are obviously a dedicated Wikipedian and a content contributor par excellence, one of a kind the encyclopedia desperately needs, however, DYK is such a complex and contentious area, it's probably the one corner of Wikipedia I have never gone near in my long career as an editor and admin here. I have always regarded it as a mainpage trinket, but at the same time, I do not belittle it's worth as an important motivator to the regular editing community and as such, I find it a shame when even admins resort to language which my generation has rarely accepted into their everyday personal lexis - leastways not in the politer workplaces or in public. There was a time when when attacks like  's would have got an admin hauled before Arbcom. I'm pleased to see that  would also support your bid for the mop, but again, his comments here are pertinent. Adminship is not a badge of honour, in fact it can be really hard work if taken seriously, and can make one a target for a lot of unwarranted nastiness. To the exception therefore, of the recent issue at DYK (I'm not judging anyone here) which could well be sufficient to scupper a run for the mop, your Wiki career is so illustrious, would you wish to damage it with a failed RfA? Not that the community would care two hoots of course, but I'm worried about how you would take it personally and how it would affect your enthusiasm for the encyclopedia. (BTW, if ever you need a second opinion on translations from German, you can always ask me). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 – You're a content creator, and one which will probably get a lot of supports. I don't think the issue with is a RfA-sinking issue for you; although it would be for the vast majority of candidates. All in all, I'd support you for the bid. Honestly, I thought you already had the tools.  J  947  02:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2/10. I was pinged here, so I might as well give my opinion. Apart from the DYK issues, there is the problem that an admin needs to show understanding of and experience with dispute resolution (even if they don't ask the tools for that reason, it still is one of the main reasons the tools exist). Cwmhiraeth's recent major example of an attempt at dispute handling is this ArbCom request about me, which was rejected unanimously and with some talks of a boomerang against Cwmhiraeth instead. I don't think that someone who believes the "evidence" he collected for that case is sufficient for an ArbCom case (or believes it even correctly represents the situation), someone who thinks taking admin actions against globally banned users is evidence of admin abuse, someone who thinks "secret" evidence is acceptable or convincing, someone who keeps that onwiki "evidence" page and keeps adding to it long after the case has been rejected, and despite requests to delete it, is in any way ready to pass an RfA. I see little to no evidence of dealing with vandals, deletions, disputes, ... Their editing has markedly improved since the 2014 lows, but being a good editor doesn't necessarily makes someone fit to be an admin. Fram (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked Fram to comment here because many people will be unaware of the matters at issue between us. Fram criticized some of my actions at DYK and tried unsuccessfully to get me sanctioned at the TRM ArbCom case, to which I was not a party. I later tried to initiate an ArbCom case against Fram concerning his behaviour. This was declined by the committee, not because the case had no merits, but because there was insufficient evidence to proceed and sufficient prior dispute resolution had not been undertaken. The "evidence page" to which Fram refers, is a sandbox where I had collected diff's that supported my arguments. I have hardly added to it in recent months and could delete it, but doing so because Fram requested me to delete it just didn't appeal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You should delete it because that is required by policy. That you let personal animosity overrule policy is a good reason why you shouldn't be an admmin. Fram (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now deleted it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For clarity, the arbitration case was rejected as it did not 'meet [the] criteria for acceptance,' and was 'unripe for arbitration.' Further, at least one admin. was 'tempted to accept [the case] for boomerang purposes' and that ultimately your 'choosing to interpret people's reactions as "closing ranks" rather than taking the feedback you're receiving and considering your own contributions to the issue is unlikely to lead to a resolution.' Unfortunately, I think it will take a while for that Arb case to be erased from the colllective memory. Just my OpEd. &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  11:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 6/10 because you are a wonderful content contributor and would be a very good administrator, I would support you. But you will be fighting the usual opposition that I too faced - most content contributors make a few other editors unhappy and these sorts of fights become !oppose !votes at RfA.  (Though probably fewer than I had because I’m more openly feisty — LOL!) You have shown that you have a lot of grit and determination and I don’t see having conflicts as disqualifying, though some folks do.  I think it is more important to look at how the disputes work out, how a person responds when under attack and the fact that you’ve stayed here and kept on doing content work is impressive.  Your block record is clean.  And Fram, (nodding to Fram) sometimes can be kind of difficult; I don’t see a spat with a few users to be disqualifying so long as you  didn’t get blocked as a result.  Frankly, people who have survived the tranches are apt to be better admins than someone who has barely been here a minimum amount of time and has never had to defend a GAR or live through a series of drama board battles.  I don’t think having a failed RfA is a huge issue (I’ve got one, I’m still here and I AM going to try again if I get enough mental space in real life for another round of outing, doxxing, off-wiki personal attacks, and dealing with the really weird people who vandalize my  personal business page with fake reviews, etc…) The one thing that Ritchie333 is right about, though, is the way that people who become admins can get ground down by the trolls… I’ve seen it happen to a number of admins who now have a “retired” banner on their pages and that is a real issue to think about.  Montanabw (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't recommend it. I would happily support but it's likely to be a bruising experience and I have a feeling adminship wouldn't make you happy anyway. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that Cwmhiraeth has just shown another aspect making him unfit for adminship. In an Arbcom case I just started against admin Magioladitis, Cwmhiraeth added a comment with the first paragraph indicating that they didn't even understand the simple basic issue at the origin of the case, and using it to reiterate his failed ArbCom request against me with quotes like "Fram targeting certain vulnerable individuals by humiliating and bullying them". Making personal attacks to further your own, already soundly rejected case in an unrelated case you don't even understand (and inadvertently calling admin Magioladitis a "vulnerable individual") is harassment, not sound dispute resolution. Fram (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your comments. I will not be running for admin in the near future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood: March 25, 2017
It was recommended that I come here by There'sNoTime. So here I am. Note that this is my second account. User:Timothyjwood was my first, but I abandoned it after finding lots of empty talk pages and no real reason to not edit anonymously. I would pay special attention to my own attitude, since I strongly suspect that's what would fail me, and is basically the reason I haven't even really considered RfA. No doubt some would auto-oppose simply because I have edited on political topics, and am IMO pretty centrist, which seems overtly leftist to those on the right, and rightist to those on the left.

If somehow passed, I in no way intend to become some backlog-clearing-admin-bot, and would probably just aimlessly wander AIV, RFPP, AFD and the like as I now wander RC, AFD and NPP when I'm trying to find a place to do in-depth content creation. Personally, the biggest advantages would be being able to contribute more fully to the Teahouse and Help Desk without giving the standard "I'm not an admin so I can't view your deleted article to tell you in detail how bad it was" disclaimer, being able to block obvious vandals without needing to go AIV, and being able to protect pages that obviously need it without having to bother someone else.

So yeah. Here's your opportunity to prove me right and tell me how nonviable I am as a candidate. Timothy Joseph Wood 14:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – I will rate you later, but just looking through you're recent contributions, there seems a lot of ANI participation, which will be a problem for some !voters. In regard to: No doubt some would auto-oppose simply because I have edited on political topics, you might want to see (a major contributor to New Zealand politics)'s RfA, which passed almost unanimously. I'd !vote support if you put up a RfA.  J  947  19:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Ticks all the right boxes; as for politics (but- no religion? lightweight!), we need candidates who are willing to dirty their hands on the sordid underbelly of this thing. After all, the last man who entered parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes. Best of luck with your run! &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  19:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to give a vote just yet, but the conversation at User talk:Ritchie333#Shelby Cragg just gives me pause. Okay, I snapped and lost my temper, you didn't, but I'm concerned your views on what constitutes CSD A7 may cause similar problems to what was seen at Requests for adminship/Dodger67 2 and Requests for adminship/CaroleHenson. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah ha. I was waiting for this one. I 100% stand by the position that citations in and of themselves do not constitute a claim of significance. Anyone with a public facing job can probably find some citation for the fact that they exist and do what they do. In A7 the onus is on the article creator to make some credible claim which is well below the standard of notability; whereas in AfD the onus is on the nominator to do an in-depth search and verify that the subject is not in fact, existentially notable.
 * I appreciate that the guidance you cited gives helpful advice, but I would probably not support this particular portion if it were put forth for promotion to a guideline, because if a person is in fact notable, it should not be difficult to make any claim whatsoever that meets A7. In fact, for someone who is patently non-notable, A7 should be an easy standard to meet even if the author is outright lying. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A follow-up conversation is at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy The problem in the context of RfA is not one of who's right and who's wrong; rather you just need enough people to write convincing enough oppose votes with diffs to sink it, and then enough people to side with that point of view. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would point out that I've been on the project since 2008, and I never argued that I was more experienced, but rather that I was correct in principle, where I believe you were lowering the already quite low standard of A7. But I "get" that A7 is de facto the average of reviewing administrators, and is subjective by its very nature, although less so than PROD. I'm also starting to "get" that this process is apparently more like running for public office than an actual evaluation of individual merit. If I fail that standard that's fine. The most exciting part about the whole project is finding a well documented area that's not yet been covered, and being the first person to fill that gap, and I don't particularly care what permissions I have as long as it doesn't interfere in that process. Having extra bits is convenient only in as much as it makes that easier. Being an admin would only serve to make me more productive to the project as I look for those holes. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Timothy, I often find myself agreeing with your opinion whenever I see you comment on an admin board. Nonetheless, someone who glanced quickly through your ANI contributions might get the impression that you are argumentative. If you can come up with any examples of where you have helped to resolve a dispute, or calm down someone who was angry, that could help your case. If you are in fact someone who likes arguments, then you might be able to balance out your reputation if you would do more work in some of the more (usually) peaceful areas such as article development. For instance, if you sometimes rescue articles that would otherwise have been deleted, that would be significant. If you have already done some of these quieter things then gathering some of this evidence would help in an RfA. Your work at AfC appears good, and I see you've done a lot of uncontroversial moves. You have stated above that RfA is like running for office and that sounds correct. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, there is this ANI thread, which put me in touch with, with whom I helped to negotiate a dispute on Ferenc Szaniszló, and who came back later to ask my help in resolving a dispute on Sebastian Gorka. There is also this comment recently referring to another ANI thread (I'm afraid I've contributed enough to make finding diffs hard) where I invoked IAR in order to link to a discussion at the refdesk talk, rather than starting a new ANI thread. As I stated in this thread, I enjoy mediating disputes and lose that enthusiasm pretty quickly as I become a belligerent, and have actively warned users against posting at ANI for no other purpose other than being argumentative as can be seen here, which was seconded at some point at ANI by User:Bishonen in a diff too buried to resurrect.
 * As a matter of practice, I don't post at ANI unless I think my contribution will likely lead toward an end to the thread. I do post the occasional friendly banter, and was probably rightly warned against it recently by ; a rebuke the validity of which I fully accept.
 * But overall, I end up at ANI the same way I end up at most other places: because I'm looking for disputes to resolve or articles to contribute to. This is the same way I browse new file feed on Commons. Most of the time it's boring categories, but occasionally it's Sabinoso Wilderness. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling it a "rebuke", but I do think it was an unwise comment, and simple removal was better than making a big deal out of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 6/10: Most of your ANI contributions are good but I prefer people to stay away from the drama boards as the voters would probably oppose based on that. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 11:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 5/10 I would be neutral, leaning oppose, primarily because you tend to be a bit tendentious at times; and note you are already arguing with people here who are trying to point out potential problems with a future RfA. It’s one thing to have vigorous discussions about content or at the dramaboards, it’s another altogether to model argumentative behavior where you need to be showcasing who you are at your best.  Montanabw (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it took me about a day to realize that I'm not actually expected to respond to these ratings. I don't really hang out here and that's my bad. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 8/10 It'd be 10/10 were it not for the fact that people obviously have bees in their bonnets about certain issues. A high post count at AN/I shouldn't be a reason to turn someone down for Adminship - prospective candidates are told to get experience at admin-based tasks and AN/I is one of the most high-profile. Yes, tempers can get slightly frayed but it's not just the non-admins who lose their tempers. Personally, I'd see a low AN/I participation level as an issue - experienced editors should be willing to dive in and resolve conflicts, getting their hands dirty, rather than sitting back and watching the drama so they can drag up "offending" diffs months later. Wikipedia needs admins who are willing to perform tasks that may draw a bit of flak - reluctance by admins to take definitive action on serious issues has caused at least 2 major problems in the year I've been editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5/10 - drawing this discussion back to an evaluation of what we think the candidate's chances are rather than an expression of how we would vote ourselves, I would reiterate the comments by  and   which concur with my own perception, suggesting that RfA participants basing their votes on such issues can easily turn a bid for the mop into a non starter. Nevertheless, it could go either way and I'm not sure which way I would vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 – Good work; although I'd recommend coming back in ~6 months and giving this another whirl. I largely echo others comments and please refer to my first comment for further analysis. Support from me.  J 947 (c)  05:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Object Not the right person for adminship, some are just not. There are many who does this voluntary work and its almost everyone's despair in wiki for not having the tools to be more productive. Some just do what they do and their way of handling might be interesting, there are seasons too were one might get an easy adminship as a wise admin once commented it only takes 4 months of clean and active work for passing the qualifications. Giving user-rights is one thing but giving adminship for people with a history of games, poor social and supportive skills or similar mentality will only further problems than solving it. Shutting down a problem is easy, appealing to active users for personal gains only requires investing time but for really solving problems it takes leadership qualities (takes time) and in a voluntary work such as wiki it takes a heart of service or the place will remain and remind of a sordid underbelly even if it has functioning laws.
 * "we need candidates who are willing to dirty their hands on the sordid underbelly of this thing"
 * The rest is drama and this is what I stated. Let an admin candidate truly come out through the wiki system as a person of quality, better standards of engagement and with a 2-3 years of solid history (there should be clerks evaluating the activity history with some sort published standards). Not with a false balance of boiler plate support votes.59.96.163.132 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time taking seriously a logged-out user hiding behind an IP in Kollam to throw stones. If your opinion was valuable you wouldn't display such cowardice in expressing it. I'm glad Timothyjosephwood can see first hand the sort of behavior mop-swingers have to deal with. I find it amazing we have contributors that will volunteer to be admins knowing this is the price for exercising authority. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time taking seriously any person who uses the term "sordid underbelly". I mean, cliché! Timothy Joseph Wood  18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

YITYNR: 3 April 2017
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 over 1,800 edits and created one article, in addition to quite a few redirects. 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 have some experience in WP:CSD, but as I do it manually instead of using automated tools such as Twinkle, I don't have a log to show for it.

I have made a few mistakes here on Wikipedia, both in terms of content and policy, but I try my best to learn from them and ensure they don't happen again. Each day is a learning experience, and I continue to gain experience and Wiki knowledge in every Wiki session.

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

Thank you,

YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 20:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 0/10. I'm sure you have the best intentions, but my suggestion is that you return to the top of this page and read the instructions and follow the links. If you can't invest that much time, I don't see you investing sufficient commitment to find out what adminship is all about and learning what admins need to know to be able to do their job. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNOW- Your interest in helping is appreciated however you have no realistic chance of passing an RfA. I suggest you withdraw your name from here (self close) and then spend the next 12-24 months working on content creation and behind the scenes stuff per the various suggested reading material for RfA candidates. See also my criteria for RfA candidates. Best regards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Dane: April 6, 2017
I am considering a run for adminship after realizing how much more beneficial I could be to the project with the tools. I've had several editors suggest I consider it and I've been a registered user for over 10 years. I was primarily a reader vs. an editor for several years (although my first article was published about 10 years ago). I contribute to several areas regularly (ACC, RMs, AfD, AIV, RFPP, UAA) and i'd like to help keep the back logs under control in these areas. I look forward to any feedback you provide. --  Dane talk  01:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 7/10. I don't see any major issues, and you have some content creation. You have a good chance of passing RfA. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback! --  Dane talk  16:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your chances are but they'd be better if you improved your first article so that it didn't have a big cleanup banner tag, which has been there since 2010. Andrew D. (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. I took care of that. Thanks for the advice! --  Dane  talk  16:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 6/10. You have a good history here and I personally think you'd likely make a good administrator. That said, you've only really been editing for ~8 months, and that would earn you plenty of opposes, including probably from me. In another 6-12 months I think your chances would be much better. Sam Walton (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'm at about 10 months of continuous editing today and definitely understand the time measurement that is taken into account when voting at RfA. I use it as a factor as well when I vote there. --  Dane  talk  16:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 7/10. Err, Dane has been editing for about ten years, Sam, and I suggested he might want to think about RfA at some point (not right there and then, but in the future). Anyway, for the positives - admin score, AfD and CSD scores all check out okay on a basic search. However, you have a number of skeletons in the closet which may cause issues. For example, I personally would not have accepted your A7 nomination of Sandhya (skier) as there were news sources showing a claim to meet WP:NSPORTS, and I offer a trout slap to the admin who deleted it. Then there was the drama-fest that was the infobox feud on Noel Coward (which I finally closed after everyone had collapsed in exhaustion) which you apparently ignited. So you might still pass RfA but it will be a bumpy ride. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure he's had an account for that long, but I wouldn't call 140 edits over the space of 10 years 'actively editing', which is why I said 'really been editing' for 8 months; that's where 99% of his edits are. Sam Walton (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 138 edits in >9 years until June last year, for the number crunchers :) &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  16:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see you'd ade precisely the same point above! &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  16:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, after your suggestion I had another two people reach out to me and suggest the idea and I realized I do have a need for the tools. I see the mistake I made there on Sandhya (skier).  I will never claim that I won't make mistakes, but I do acknowledge them and hope to learn from them.  Noel Coward unfortunately was a drama-fast and I had hoped that the situation there would be different but I learned quite a bit regarding the importance of collaboration and how the lack of it will drive an articles editors apart.  Thank you for the feedback! --  Dane  talk  16:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The basic advice I can give you is : never work with children, animals, or infoboxes. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 7/10: I'll happily support, but some voters will only complain that you've become active in November 2016 and a low edit count from 2006-16. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! Just to note, I became continuously active at the tail end of June 2016. It definitely sounds like timing will be a big challenge for some RfA voters. --  Dane  talk  19:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, your RFA would pass anyway with constructive opposes. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 7-8/10 -Normally I would oppose as you've only been here a year however on the hand you've done some fantastic work here and you certainly get your hands dirty in the various boards here, I think the majority would support and despite my tenure concerns I too would probably support, Also as silly as it sounds you also seem so experienced around here ... it's hard to explain but basically one would think you've been here 5 years not 1 which again goes in your favour, In short although there would be opposes due to the tenure I think most would support. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback and the kind words, Davey! --  Dane talk  17:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 5/10 . I'm not as optimistic as some of the commentators here. For all intents and purposes you've been an editor for less than a year and that how the voters would see it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kudpung for the feedback! --  Dane talk  09:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Kostas20142: April 14, 2017
Hello, I am and I am considering running for admin. I realise that I am not the typical RfA candidate, since I have low to very low content creation. However, I am doing a lot of anti-vandal patrolling, CSD tagging( warning, my CSD and PROD log shows tags placed only after 13 april 2017),page moves and AfC reviewing. Also I have a lot of reports in AIV and UAA. The main reason I am considering to run RfA is to help reducing the(admiteably significant) backlogs. The main admin work I intend to take part in are CSD, UAA, AIV(and all the related), routine AfDs , requested moves. Please be as objectional as possible and address me all your concerns. After all, by this way, you actually help me.--Kostas20142 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * admins, if have enough time, please check my deleted contributions for full CSD logs --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment only Wouldn't really want to put a number on you,, although it would be a low one I'm afraid, the way RfA seems to be at the moment; but looking at just the editing side, very broadly, you mention content creation being low. I think the RfA community might also say- too few manual contributions generally, as nearly 50% of your edits are automated so far. A CSD that should not have been tagged so, and a couple of PRODS that should have been speedied: a continuation of that would raise eyebrows and lower supports. This is all trivia, and can be easiliy overcome; I'd just have to say, that the view from RfA would be 'not yet.' Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)
 * 0/10. Sorry, but you just don't have enough contributions. Only 2000 edits and 3 votes on AfDs, 2 of which were incorrect. Your highest edited article has 5 edits on it. You say you wish to work in CSD, but there's no evidence yet that you're experienced in that area, having only had a log for a day so far. Also, you've only had the rollback right for 10 days. Your account is barely 8 months old, and recently people have been opposed for having only 10 months-1 year of proper activity; at least half of your edits have been in this month alone.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick: April 14, 2017
Hello, I'm TheGracefulSlick (or Grace if it's easier) and I'm considering a bid for adminship. After discussing with User:Ritchie333, he recommended I go here for more opinions. I think my greatest strength is my work in content creation; at the moment, I have written 262 articles, 10 GAs, and 11 DYKs. I also have experience at AfD, reverting vandalism, and helping to resolve issues at ANI occasionally. If I was granted the mop, I would mainly work at AfD and AIV. I realize I may not be the perfect candidate at the moment but I would appreciate your thorough reviews on my strengths and weaknesses. If you could also access my chances in 6-12 months, that would also help me. Thank you!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 6/10: Your blocks are a bit of concern and when you created an sock account in question of a CU block. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 17:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, KGirlTrucker81. Here are the comments by Garagepunk66 and TheGracefulSlick herself. --George Ho (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, she didn't create any socks either, my rating still stands for past blocks. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 22:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 4/10 - I personally would be in support of your RfA as you've always shown pretty solid judgement but I feel like the community itself would look at your block log and hold it against you. Your content creation is wonderful (and I may lean on you for help in improving my skills in this area) and your AfD percentage is within an acceptable range to me.  You do lack reports to AIV (5 reports total according to XTools) and your editing in the Wikipedia namespace is quite low, this would be more of a concern to the community as well.  You do not have a published CSD log that I saw.  If you increased participation in those areas mentioned above and maintained your current performance in deletion activities, I would say 6/10 in 6 months and 8/10 in 12 months. --  Dane  talk  22:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you and  for the honesty so far. If it is okay with everyone, I want to keep this open for at least two other editors to comment. This will be a tremendous help to me, and it looks like waiting 6-12 months will be the better move.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Having GAs under your belt is great. As a content contributor, I have found the best use for my admin tools is semiprotecting pages, and also necessary deletions when jiggling some pagemoves. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for the feedback. May I ask, is it appropriate to ask an admin for a nomination or do they just volunteer their services when they find an editor they like? I am not thinking of opening an RfA right after this poll but would like to know when I consider it in 6-12 months.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, generally better if someone else nominates you (not necessarily admin but experienced user is good). I personally wouldn't nominate someone unless I thought they had a really good chance of passing though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The block administered to the TheGracefulSlick by checkbuster Mike V involved more than just sockpuppetry, but also harassment. The surrogate editors implicated in conjunction with him were (ALongStay and User:ABriefPassing).  Both harassed me on various occasions such as in December 2015  and at other times.  I was a victim of their harassment.  I am sorry to have to mention this, but it has to be dealt with in the current deliberation.  Right now I would not recommend that this candidacy be approved unless it can be conclusively proven that TheGracefulSlcik was not connected to these sockpupptes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 0/10. TGS, the fact that you created at least two sockpuppets to (1) impersonate a user and (2) harass another user is going to completely nuke any chances you have for adminship. The fact that you have still been apparently harassing said user is further damage. I don't see any reason that you need the tools or any evidence that you work in administrative areas. Stick to content creation, which is what you apparently do best and what you apparently love. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 2/10 mainly per . I would !vote 'weak oppose', and I'm pretty liberal on RfA.  J 947 (c)  05:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Final comment - Thank you everyone for the opinions you brought here, especially to those who gave me valuable advice. I plan to reconvene here in 6-12 (leaning toward 12) months to have time to improve on the areas brought up and continue to work on my strengths. I am sorry to say but your perspective is grossly incorrect: especially the claim that I'm harrassing someone still. But it is fine, I received the knowledge needed to help me become an admin in the long-run. Thank you again to everyone for beginning this process with me. I will keep this open a little longer in case there are some closing remarks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment TheGracefulSlick, I suspect your RFA will hinge on how you handle the issue of the CU block. Are you willing to be upfront, and describe what you have learned from your mistakes (whatever those might be: I haven't the time to investigate this issue in detail)? Or will you obfuscate? The canvassing block is less of a problem, so long as you acknowledge it. Your content work seems quite solid, which is a definite positive; folks like to see an editor whose primary purpose is content writing. You've engaged with some politically charged content, which can go either way; but edits such as this will come in for a lot of scrutiny. The question for many users won't be "what is your take on this situation?" but "can you set that aside, and only present what the sources say?" from a brief look the answer seems to be "yes", but folks will go over this with a fine-tooth comb. Finally, I'd suggest that you leave this poll open for a while longer. I mean no disrespect to those who have opined already, but I think you should give some experienced admins/voters a chance to respond; I wouldn't even place myself in that category, since I've only held the bit for 7 months. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for coming along; this was very important for me to read. I was near the point of closing because Softlavender's false claim of me continuing to harass an editor did not make this constructive toward helping me with how to prepare and improve for RfA. You are right, I need to be upfront about my mistakes and I will when I am questioned about it. I also will keep this opened longer, per your suggestion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that what Softlavender means is that there were situations where you may have been unduly harsh in your words and actions regarding the Garage rock article. Whether or not that constitutes constitute bona fide harassment, I don't technically know.  But, there were situations where, in light of your recently concluded investigation regarding the two sockputtpetts mentioned above, it would have been best to, either recuse yourself and stay out of that debate, or at least temper your words and actions there if you wished to be critical.
 * You coalesced with another editor's well-intentioned but excessive proposal to slit the article into three parts, which would have been extreme and damaging to the article--I'm sorry you know the topic well-enough to know that it would have been a bad move. I'll be the first to admit that there were problems--my second expansion was too large and needed trimming (and it also brought about the need to trim other sections that would have been OK before).  I wouldn't have minded if you had kindly pointed that out and pointed to specific areas that needed to be addressed and practical ways to fix them.  But, instead you coalesced with what I perceived to be an extreme proposal and used rash words.  I found it particularly hurtful when you said the article was "a mess", but did not tell me why or give tips to fix it.  This was two months after the investigation, right?  You don't do that to someone who has been a friend who you've watched labor to take what was once a way-too-small article on a major general topic, grow it into a long page GA, and hopefully get it future FA.  I've had to give up a lot of green pellets for smaller articles to get that one where it is.  The green pellet that sits at that article may not look like much to you, but until you work on an expansion of that size with hundreds of kilobytes, citations, and historical personalities, you will not understand.  Yet, a few weeks before you had given me a Barnstar praising the article (I was thankful and believed it was sincere), but then you went to calling it "a mess".  You can't contradict yourself in such a way without loosing credibility in people's eyes.  In fairness, I will grant that you later did give constructive criticism about the Airplay/Peak of popularity section--and because your critiques there were specific and constructive, I responded kindly and worked to fix the issues.  But, that was only after I had taken you to task for being so rash in your comments in the previous thread.
 * But then, later, you lobbied another editor to have the article's GA status re-assessed, while you knew I was in the process of working with other editors to address everyone's concerns and prepare the article for possible FA. While any editor has the right to have an article's GA status re-evaluated, I did not take your move to be in good faith.  Do you remember that I had taken my time, after you asked me, to review three of your GA's including your first ever?  Does that mean anything to you?  Yes, I did something I never do--I edit warred with you over the GA re-evaluation.  But, I felt like I was being harassed.  There was just too much in the rear view mirror for me to take it any other way.  And, now I have to fear that if you become an administrator, I will not be able to take any of the probable rash and negative moves you make against me as being in good faith, and I worry that it will happen to others.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I need the criticism but reporting on every single instance I criticized your editing is not helpful to this discussion. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 0/10. You are the only editor who has me on a talk page ban, after several contentious (on your part; I asked nicely with a smiley) edits over signing your posts...you first veiled an accusation that I was stalking you to articles you were working on and to keep away unless I had good reason. Although you partly apologised: Even if I think your wrong or otherwise I now know there is better ways to resolve it. (still not signed...) Even though this was in February 2015, the sting of it has made me never edit anywhere you are. If your record had been clear since, I could overlook it but it seems the harrassment has been and seems to be still continuing. "Tiger stripes and inability to change comes to mind"...I will be happy to provide diffs.  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 18:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect the criticism but please get your facts straight: there is no ongoing harassment. More importantly, I honestly have never forgotten how I treated you when I was new. I wanted to apologize to you for a long time but I did not want it to be taken the wrong way and get blocked as a result. I offer my sincere apologies here if it means anything to you. I was a stubborn person then who did not care to be here long-term but it is no excuse. I don't want it to change your rating here; that is nothing compared to me admitting I was wrong so you feel comfortable again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * '0/10' - We all do stupid shit at times especially when we're new here however there's a fine line between making a stupid mistake and going out of your way to create sock accounts and harass someone, The whole "The CU findings were wrong" also doesn't wash with me and so inshort due to the CU block I personally see no chance in hell of you ever becoming an admin any time soon (It would've been sensible to do this ORCP 4-5 years after the block not 7 months!), My best suggestion is come back in 5 years time. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to establish a long track record of sensible decisions and 'good behaviour' to the point that the socking and the block are ancient history. Only then would I even think about adminship. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  20:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd share the comments from Dane, as well as HJ Mitchell - a total of 5 AIV reports, 0 UAA reports, 1 RFPP request, 8 page moves, 0 template-related - you'd want to be able to demonstrate some work in admin areas, especially areas you intend to work in, to show both competence and a need for the tools. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to give a score as I'm sure you can see which way the wind is blowing, but I strongly suggest you close this now. Leaving it open is only going to annoy people—since this page is currently being spammed across multiple talk pages, there are more eyes than usual on it, and every person who was previously unfamiliar with you, sees this and remembers you in future as "the one who can't take the hint", is one more potential opposer further down the line. On a practical matter, two years is generally the minimum I'd say to allow before a CU block can be forgotten, since that's the unofficial "if I'd abandoned the account and done a clean start, that new account would then be an established editor" cutoff. &#8209; Iridescent 21:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

ONUnicorn: April 14, 2017
I received a suggestion on my talk page that I take the ORFACP. I've toyed with the idea of becoming an admin several times throughout my tenure on Wikipedia, but it's never seemed like the right time, either because of stuff happening in my offline life or because of the general atmosphere at RFA. I took the poll when it was first launched, mainly out of curiosity, and it sort of confirmed that that was the wrong time. I'm not chomping at the bit to become an admin, or to put myself through RFA, but if people think more admins are needed, that I'd make a good admin, and that my RFA would have a good chance at passing, I'll run. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 7/10: That previous RFAP poll have a high chance of succeeeding lately, and a bunch of inactivity ranging from 2007-15. Anyways, your RFA would likely an pass.  KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 17:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 - I think your RfA could succeed, but some likely areas the community will bring up is your low edit counts by month (44 in Feb 2017, 53 in Nov 2016, 17 in July 2016) as well as your long absence from 2008-2014 (very minimal participation). Your AfD percentage is currently 67.9% which could also be a problem for some voters. You do have some good content creation work on your record though which will be helpful to you. --  Dane  talk  18:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5.5/10 - I think that your RfA would probably get some pile-on opposes because of the fact that a few of the articles that you have recently reviewed, such as Amazonian build, have been deleted. Your AfD participation (as mentioned by Dane above) would also likely incite criticism. I suggest that you come back with a higher AfD percentage and a better review log. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  02:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (Um... I nominated Amazonian Build for deletion.) ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 04:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh... I see. Make that... say... a 7/10. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  05:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Your chances of passing will be higher if you improve some content to GA or Featured level. Just sayin' Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh, that's spot on. If you're looking for stuff to work on can I ping who I think said somewhere that they have a list of hundreds of (err, or some, anyway!) potential articles? Apologies to BU Rob if I'm, mistaken or spoken out of turn.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a list of quite literally thousands of notable subjects that needs articles either created or expanded in the form of an encyclopedia that lists the stats of all Canadian Football League players in the modern era. All are notable per WP:NGRIDRION, and I can often find substantial other sourcing to make a solid article (usually GAs!) in LexisNexis or other academic databases. If you would like topics to write about, email me via Special:EmailUser and I'll give you a name, scan of their information from the encyclopedia I have a physical copy of, and any other newspaper sources I can find in academic databases. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7/10. I don't think most voters care about meaningless statistics as some people like to make out. The opposes based on things like low edit count/month counts/etc tend to come late in an already-struggling RfA, and they tend to come from inexperienced editors. I can't see any obvious problems and you seem generally sensible so I think you'd have a good chance. I took a look at a few random edits to the projectspace and was impressed with what I saw. 7/10 might actually be a bit conservative, but I don't know you very well. I'd need a bit more information before I can make a better estimate. Tell you what, if you email your answers to the three standard questions (or post them on my talk page if you prefer), I'll seriously consider nominating you if you want. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  20:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6/10 The principal problem is I can't see what obvious need for the tools you have. The AfD stats are okay, on things like Articles for deletion/Queens of Hip Hop you put up a good argument against several people saying "delete - pah", but there's not many of them. You don't have a CSD log, and I can't see much evidence of CSD'ing, and you haven't been on the usual maintenance noticeboards like AIV / RPP / UAA much. I think maybe in a year's time with more maintenance stuff, you'll do better, but right now people will pick up on this and oppose accordingly, I'm afraid. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * you mentioned CSD log; are those made if you use Twinkle? I don't use Twinkle, and have no desire to do so, and it seems like too much work to keep a manual count of CSD pages.  I do nominate some things for speedy, although when I patrol new pages I typically work from the back of the feed, and most of the obvious speedy stuff is at the front.  I could probably track down a few examples of pages I've nominated for speedy deletion that have been deleted if I wanted to. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I threw this together. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For Twinkle, one can turn on, in the Twinkle preferences, CSD logging. This makes it so every page that one puts a speedy deletion tag on is logged to a subpage of the users choice. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  23:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I have no interest in Twinkle. But thanks for letting me know how to turn on CSD logging if I ever do decide to use Twinkle. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 00:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 7/10 is the chance I think the community would give you. I've seen you around a lot in areas where I used to provide the most initiative, and that (failing deeper research) might lead me to support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to say- going by some of the above- that would be particularly interesting would be what the RfAers made of a candidate who has 'no interest in Twinkle' and who has 'no desire to do so.'! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7/10 – Clean block log; Good variety of NPR, RCP, and content work in the last 500 edits. However, your AfD percentage is a problem, along with the fact that your last 500 edits take us back to January. All in all, I'd support.  J 947 (c)  21:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Flat Out: April 19, 2017
Here at Wikipedia, like my day job, I tend to go where I think I can make a difference and as such I have focused my efforts in different areas of the project over the years. If people think I can make a contribution I would consider an RfA, but I don't covet the title as such. Feel free to give your feedback. Best wishes, Flat Out (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm no longer giving numerical scores as I clearly can't predict what the aggregate at RfA will do but I'd like to comment for the good of the conversation. Flat Out's CSD log is appropriately red and has a clean block log. Edit count and longevity are what we'd expect, if not more than the norm. He comes in at 74% with the AfD consensus, showing a deletionist streak. He's created maybe a dozen articles, none of which are impressive, so this nomination would be as a vandal fighter. I don't see any activity at GA or DYK, although he has participated at AfC and NPP. 54% of his edits are semi-automated (mostly Twinkle) and 38% of his edits are to the main namespace with some 6000 deleted edits. He's made a handful of reports to ANI and has contributed there, although not heavily. The community's biggest concern might be activity levels, which are currently at a low point punctuated by months-long breaks. Still, maybe the aggregate is willing to pass him as they have other admins, based on temperament and CLUE alone. I will say that if the role of admins is to keep the cranks and partisan at bay so editors can focus on writing the encyclopedia, I trust Flat Out to look out for Wikipedians while we make our contributions to articles. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It's true that I have spent a large part of my time fighting vandalism and acting as a gatekeeper for articles on non-notable subjects, rather than creating a great deal of content (only 11 articles). I have also done a lot of work at AfC to reduce backlogs and have worked to save a number of articles from deletion. My deletion streak is in part due to work patrolling new articles created by new users Flat Out (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * After a brief review, I cannot find any red flags, but at this stage you are going to get some "lack of content" opposes. Your most substantive creation is Okta Logue, but most of the work was done by somebody else. I'd guess that your chances would rise sharply if you spent a couple of weeks expanding and polishing some articles to GA standard. There's no dearth of topics that need to be written about. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5/10 Things like Articles for deletion/Dorothy Berry show you don't have a great handle on how to present a good argument at AfD (in that instance there was no evidence of WP:BEFORE). In Articles for deletion/House Afrika Records, you were criticised for calling Independent Online an unreliable source. Indeed, many of your AfDs seem to be not much more than "delete, fails WP:BLAH". I don't think Police Health should have been deleted as A7 as an argument could be made for a redirect, Gaur Niwas probably wasn't an G11 (indeed, it was created and now does not obviously meet the CSD criteria), BRAND'S Essence Of Chicken was a declined G11. Elsewhere, your CSD log has quite a few blue links. Your talk page shows vague and woolly answers to why you declined AfC drafts or nominated articles for deletion. Essentially, I can't see evidence that you have the required level of communication and diplomacy to manage situations admins find them in, and unless you "do a GoldenRing" in the RfA, I would probably oppose. Sorry. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4.5/10 per : I'm quite concerned about your XFD stats mostly noms that resulted in (speedy) keep closures. I recommend you stay away from vague wording and clearly explain why an article should been deleted. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 14:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Anarchyte: April 9, 2017
Hey, I'm Anarchyte and I'm considering running for admin again, depending on the outcome of this poll and the advice from other editors. I was approched by about it, and after talking to a few people on my talk page (,, , and ), I've decided to come here. My previous RfA had a few problems that I should've been able to see coming, such as the lack of content creation and the account age. Because of my lack of content creation before, I've now got 8 GA's under my belt, and I'm trying to get one to FA standards. People also mentioned my edits on GamerGate and the referencing issue on Ketchapp. Because of those events I haven't made any bit edits to any sanctioned ArbCome articles; my only edits there recently have been copyedits. The Ketchapp edit was a mistake 100% on my behalf, and I've learned from it (I discussed this in more depth here). Please be as thorough as possible with your reviews because I don't want to run until I know I'm ready. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   00:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 8/10 I don't see any red flags, a couple of people have suggested fixing some of the content issues that appeared on previous RfAs, but generally I think a pass is likely. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it seems to be the vogue to nitpick over CSD performance, I have checked all your CSD A7 nominations for the past six months, and the only ones I could possibly criticise are Hsenpai News Journal (A7 does not apply to newspapers), Mohamed Hesham Amer (the article appears to claim the subject has been on national television), You may kiss the bride (speedy was declined due to having some claims of appearing on Turkish television - see Articles for deletion/You may kiss the bride), Chipukeezy Vinny (has one local news source) and Ulrika Faerch (has published two books) - all of these have been deleted. Utpal Bhadra was declined A7 (your last "miss" - 18 October 2016). I don't think that's enough to make me want to oppose, and I hope it isn't anyone else's either. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well; at least three of you colleagues won't oppose, anyway ;)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the analysis. For the most recent one, Utpal Bhadra, I realised I had incorrectly tagged it after it was declined (see history, I added a few sources). Looking back even when I had tagged it it showed signs of significance through the "Fellow Royal Society of Biology as well as Fellow of Royal Society of Chemistry in United Kingdom" sentence, oh well :).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 7.5/10: Well, you've done a great job on content creation and no red flags or issues. Your RFA is very likely to pass anyway. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 11:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8/10 Some NACs of AfDs and RMs and great edits on video game articles. No issues with article creations either, and it has already been 2 years since the initial creation of the account. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8/10 - Mainly per above. You're likely to pass and the issues from your previous RfA have been fixed. Support from me! and possibly a nom :)  J 947 (c)  06:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7.5/10 - Overall you're a great candidate and I think you'd be well received. The only concern I have is your use of minor edit summaries (89%), but you've improved this from your recent edits and I don't believe that would be a huge issue at RfA. Your CSD issues were covered already but that is why I lowered my rating a bit because the CSD performance could lead to an issue for you. --  Dane  talk  23:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8.4/10 - Mainly per above Kostas20142 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8.6/10 - Although the content creation is a bit lacking, your CSD log is frankly amazing. Your AfD voting record is pretty good, but not really truly amazing. Overall, I would surely support you in an RfA. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  03:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Candidates who failed first time for a particular reason and who come back a respectable amount of time later having addressed those concerns often do well at RfA the second time round. You've got some decent article-writing under your belt now, nine months have passed since your last RfA, and you've gained some experience since then so you probably have a good chance. But I'm not seeing anything that really stands out. Something that makes you stick in people's memories. Returning to Fallout 4: Far Harbor and successfully taking it through FAC would get you that. If you did that, I might even nominate you. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  23:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the points. Regarding Far Harbor, I've already attempted to make it through FAC, and in fact I've got a peer review up right now (though there's barely any discussion there) to see what could be changed as I'd love nominate it again to make it an FA.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I read through the original FAC. Looks like there were some prose concerns but it just didn't generate enough attention. I'd be happy to lend a hand of you wanted to re-nominate. You'd be surprised how much the skillsets overlap between admin work and handling an FAC. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  12:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd love some help . I'm not too experienced with the FAC process, I've only voted only a couple and nominated one, so any help would be greatly appreciated.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 9/10 I believe the last poll you had did not receive the inputs of editors experienced at RfA dynamics; which culminated in a post-haste Rfa. Having said that, your work on the points put forward at that unsuccessful Rfa has been extremely diligent. I've come across you many a time at the Afd desk. In my opinion, the efforts you've taken since your last Rfa will be viewed very positively by our community of editors; one reason I believe that the community will perceive you at a 9 rather than less. Best of luck. Lourdes  02:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly: April 16, 2017
I received an invite to try this poll on my talk page, and 3 other editors said they'd support me, so I decided to post here. If I do run for adminship, it'll probably be a month or so from now (depending on how this goes, of course). I don't hang out at AfD much, but I do tend to !vote on any I come across. If anybody is curious, I consider my two biggest contributions to Wikipedia to be writing content (over 100 articles, 27 DYKs, 6 GAs and one FA, plus one currently undergoing GAR) and helping newbies. I do enough vandalism patrol to have rollback, and enough new page reviews to have NPR as well. One admin task that particularly interests me would be going through the deleted articles and undeleting any of interest to me that were notable enough to pass GNG but unreferenced or had a fixable issue, fixing their problems and re-publishing them. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 3/10 - Honestly, i'm not seeing a need for the tools and that's the biggest problem I think you'd encounter with an RfA. The community likes to see a proven need. You have 8 page protection requests and less UAA/AIV contributions.  I will admit your content work would be helpful to an RfA and your AfD stats where you do participate is acceptable (74.4%, 98 total AfDs edited), which is why I gave you a 3/10. A CSD log is not currently on file for you which would be helpful for evaluating CSD work.  All that being said, I think if you began contributing to these areas and showing a need, this number could change in 6-12 months easily. --  Dane  talk  21:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, Ealdgyth does not have a CSD log, has not AFAIK contributed to UAA or AIV ever, yet Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth got 100% support, no opposes. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Very true. Requests for adminship/GoldenRing was also a success.  There are outliers for sure and I could totally be wrong. --  Dane  talk  21:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that, as much as anything else, that sort of thing only supports my longstanding observation that many or even most RfA voters view adminship as an award. Very popular editors or very prolific article writers can easily pass despite a lack of experience in admin maintenance areas that would kill less prominent but equally trustworthy users. Ealdgyth is obviously one of our most valued contributors, but as you predicted, I can't find a single edit they've made to an administrative noticeboard, and they haven't logged any admin actions since being promoted. That's not a problem, of course; I personally believe that "just in case I ever need to fix a botched page move or something" is as good a reason as any to have a mop on hand. That said, the 'need for the tools' criteria is very much a charade IMO. Just a passing thought... my success odds for White Arabian Filly to come shortly. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (an aside - I have been weighing in on AN/ANI a bit for various proposed sanctions, and I believe I actually poked my toes into AE. Also done a bit at ERRORS and recreated a couple of deleted articles... so I've actually used the tools some... plus expanded my commenting into admin discussions...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for clarifying. It's difficult to judge use of the admin tools since many of the duties are not recorded in the user log, as you mentioned. In any event, like I said, my goal wasn't to criticize your work - your adminship is of course very well deserved.–  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 6.9/10 - I agree with Ritchie333 above, and I think that if you just go a bit more into the "maintenance" areas, then you will have a significantly better chance at passing. Overall, if you can do that for, say, three months (probably less, although), then you should be set. Also, you seem to be pretty civil, so that is really good. Your AfD percentage is not too shabby, but not amazing either. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  22:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7/10 You are a good content creator, which is a good quality to have in an admin. If you can articulate well your areas of need for the tools, it will improve your chances and as others have pointed out, a little more work in the areas you would like to use the tools would likely raise your chances to 9/10. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7.1/10: You've don't have any CSD or PROD logs which is okay, but you made tons of non-automated edits which is a bonus plus point. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 3/10
 * The good
 * Nearly 90% manual edits is a good sign for many voters.
 * Your strong point on Wikipedia is obviously your content work. As near as I can tell, your article creations and additions are always well sourced and reasonably well-formatted. (I will note that many of your references are bare URLs, which isn't ideal, but also unlikely to sink an RfA.)
 * You've received a very respectable number of barnstars in a relatively short period of time. Don't laugh - this is a bigger deal than most people will admit. A history of receiving praise and kudos from respected users goes a long way toward illustrating your collaborative attitude. While I don't believe I've ever interacted with you personally, a quick look at your talk page suggests that you're friendly, helpful, and an effective communicator.
 * The potential issues
 * Your AfD accuracy rate is fairly good, but a spotcheck of your votes reveals rationales that are often lacking in depth and policy backing. Here you voted keep on the basis that "I think we'll be seeing more of her", which is obviously not a strong argument in a deletion discussion. Here you accused the AfD nominator of failing to follow WP:BEFORE, but didn't really justify your keep vote. Irresolute comments like this don't contribute much to the discussion. Even today I noticed an AfD vote that asserts the subject "seems notable enough" with nothing resembling proof. I don't mean to belabor the point, but your perfunctory AfD votes will likely be a point of opposition at RfA.
 * Your monthly edit count has been falling rather uniformly since you opened this account. Your current 300-400 edits/month isn't a bad place to be, but if that dwindles further, you might have to address the concern that you're on the brink of burnout.
 * Some people consider it essential for admins to have an email enabled. It's not a requirement as far as I can recall, but be prepared for people to bring this up at RfA.
 * As noted, you have very little experience in the admin maintenance noticeboards. I see one UAA report and no AIV reports. Some exceptionally prolific FA writers can glide through RfA with no admin-y experience; for the rest of us, a well-rounded contribution history is necessary.
 * Political userboxes... eh, lose 'em, I say. It's your userpage to do with (generally) as you please, but several recent adminship candidates have faced claims of subtle political overtones in their Wikipedia presence, and that's a headache you may wish to avoid.
 * In light of my above observations, I think you're likely to have a somewhat difficult time at RfA if you run in the immediate future. If you decide you badly want to be an admin, I think you could get within striking distance after 6 months of hard work. If you need any suggestions or guidance, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. "Admin coaching" is frowned upon these days but they can't stop me from nudging you in the right direction. Best of luck, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3/10. Honestly, I have no idea why this poll is being spammed onto so many users' talkpages who have had no interest, no indication, no need, and little or no qualifications for becoming admins. White Arabian Filly, you are one of the "good guys", but there's no reason for you to become an admin, no need for the tools, and little or no experience in areas that would qualify you for adminship. Your field of editing interest is very small, and though you do very well in it there is no reason for you to become an admin. Forgive my bluntness, as you posting here has more to do with the ill-advised rampant spamming of this poll than your actual qualifications for adminship. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is indicative of the problems we've seen with RfA, and which GoldenRing very kindly proved to be misleading. The fundamental question we should be asking at an RfA is "does this person have trustworthiness and clue?" Content, AfD and CSD logs and AIV / UAA edits are straightforward metrics to determine this, but they're not the only way. Indeed, lots of AIV edits on its own won't tell you how many of those were actually content disputes misread as "vandalism" and declined, which would guarantee an oppose vote from me if they were frequent and / or recent. So, does WAF have trustworthiness, and do they have clue? If so, exactly what harm is it giving them the tools? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 3/10. While you are really good with content creation, you don't have very much experience in admin noticeboards, like AIV and UAA.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 02:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Having no need for the tools is one of the worst reasons to oppose someone. You are a great contributor, very clueful and extremely approachable. These should count more to your potential as an admin than grinding away reverting obvious vandalism, patrolling pages and making requests for page protection (although I am not saying that these are bad things and as someone who finds that rather boring it is much appreciated) . The number of low chances given above is misleading and may be more indicative of the types of editor who patrol these polls. Barring any skeletons I think you should comfortably pass an RFA if you run. AIR corn (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Conversely, I find the smattering of positive forecasts to be misleading and not reflective of the applicant's actual likelihood of success. This forum is not intended to assess an editor's suitability for adminship or to advertise our own voting intentions, but instead to predict, objectively, how an RfA would actually pan out. Nobody here has suggested that White Arabian Filly shouldn't be an admin. I myself am reasonably likely to support her nomination if and when it comes, but then again, my personal RfA "criteria" have been among the most liberal on the site for almost a decade now. Like it or not, people do oppose in large numbers for reasons that you and I might find silly, among them being "no reason for the tools" and "not enough time spent at ANI/AIV/RFPP". As for "the types of editor who patrol these polls", well, I'm not sure what to make of that. Having participated in around 660 RfAs, I feel that I have a strong grasp on how the process tends to work. Most candidates - with a few notable exceptions - do not pass without a mix of content work and behind-the-scenes maintenance. I know that people will be looking at the GoldenRing promotion as evidence that RfA is now easy to pass for highly specialized or relatively inactive editors, but I'd strongly caution against viewing that case as any sort of new precedent; GR was an exceptionally articulate editor of 13 years who, according to an uncharacteristically divided crat group, barely managed to achieve a marginal community consensus for promotion. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By types of editors who patrol these polls I meant the vandal fighting, policy wonk and noticeboard focused editors (which may or may not include you, I didn't research the editors but came to this conclusion based on the general comments left here). I also wasn't thinking of GoldenRing, in fact they are almost the opposite of White Arab Filly, but Schewde, Ealdgyth and others whose main (or sole) focus is content and breezed through. For better or worse (I think better) RFA has become a lot more acceptable of editors who have demonstrated expertise in only one particular area. There will be "doesn't need the tools type !votes", but they will be countered by editors calling them out for the poor !votes that they are. I mean no one "needs" the tools. Even if these are numerous enough to force a crat chat it has already been demonstrated that they are willing to weight !votes accordingly. Anyway dissuading potentially good candidates because they will get poor !votes seems the antithis to what this page is trying to achieve. Also, while we are here, I think your second "issues" bulletpoint is a bit harsh. I can't imagine opposes based on a falling edit count, that is still very good, are going to gain any traction? AIR corn (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My goal isn't to dissuade WAF from running, but to candidly identify some of the potential sticking points if and when she does decide to run. Even if we trust that oppose rationales purely based on need for the tools would be discounted, I still believe some of the other issues highlighted by myself and others would collectively garner not-insignificant opposition. If we're very fortunate, WAF's levelheadedness, collegial spirit, and skill as an editor may still be sufficient to sway enough voters into the support camp for an easy pass (cratchat promotions are a shot in the dark), but I remain unconvinced that this would happen more than a few times for ten similar candidates, hence my rating. Anyway, probably time to let others chime in and see if we can get this poll closer to a consensus. Thanks for the friendly discussion. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be really leery of using my RfA as an exemplar to follow; unless you've been around for almost 10 years, have years of contributions to FAC or similar processes, and generally don't get involved in contentious areas of the wiki. I'm actually pretty uncomfortable with people using that RfA as a generalization for all "content creators at RfA". I don't know why I didn't get the opposes I expected, but I fully expected some and would not like others to assume that they won't get many opposes because my RfA didn't get any. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I see good reasons why an RfA should be successful, but am not going to give a "likelihood of passing" score as I don't consider myself sufficiently RfA experienced to predict the moods of those pages. I am posting to disagree strongly with one piece of advice that you have been offered, by  regarding your userboxes.  According to your user page as it stands presently, you are pro-life, opposed to gun control and marriage equality, and a Southerner "by the grace of God" and proud enough of the Confederacy to display the File:Flag of the Confederate States of America (1865).svg (the "Blood Stained Banner") incorporating the highly contentious and controversial "Southern cross" battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (which, though inaccurately, is often referred to as the Confederate flag).  Add to this a user name and previous account each beginning with "White", a declaration that you are a Christian holding a view of the First Amendment that sounds (to me) like a conservative media talking point, and a userbox which appears to mock the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (an animal rights organisation which advocates for extreme views at times) and it is not difficult for you to be seen as possibly biased, potentially hostile towards those with whom you might disagree, and for questions about advocacy as opposed to NPOV editing to be raised.  To be clear, I have not looked into your editing, the impression which I suggest the userboxes can create may be totally unfair, and I am not trying to be critical of you or your actions as an editor.  However, I do think you need to consider how this can be taken by someone unfamiliar with your work.  I disagree with Juliancolton's advice to "lose 'em" because quietly removing the userboxes could look like trying to hide potential issues... and when it is raised at RfA, it will look worse that way.  If you do run for RfA, I would suggest that you put together some diffs showing that your editing in areas covered by these userboxes is neutral, balanced, and encyclopaedic.  I suggest being up-front on your beliefs and values.  There is nothing wrong with being conservative or having religious beliefs or holding opinions about issues and current events, and I say that as someone whose views differ from yours... I hope you would agree that there is a problem with advocacy and importing conflict onto Wikipedia.  I am not saying you have done that, but I am saying someone evaluating you at RfA may wonder and the best way to dispel such concerns is to recognise and address them.  EdChem (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, editors that openly support homosexuality or leftist causes don't face this discrimination and sometimes are widely embraced on wiki. I think no Wikipedian should announce their religious or political views, at all, because it alienates people. But I think to be honest, there's a hostility to right-wingers on the internet, generally and Wikipedia, specifically. WAF should know that by now and her apparently failure to inculcate that is questionable. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I considered putting up no political or religious userboxes, but to me that's tantamount to being ashamed of my beliefs. As stated above, many liberal users have ubxs stating that they have beliefs opposite of mine and nobody brings it up on RfA. They don't seem to feel they have to hide it either. I don't agree with Jennifer Lawrence or people like her who are ashamed of being from the Southern US and are just sucking up to today's pop culture, which nobody is going to care about in 100 years. As for my editing, I seldom edit those types of articles. I once tried to get Margaret Mitchell more neutral because it was written in a really derogatory tone, but that's about it. Yes, I have a version of the Confederate battle flag. My family emigrated to this country from Scotland and has been in the Appalachians since the mid-1700s. They fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War, but, as far as I can determine, never owned a slave. (Only about 20% of Southern whites actually owned slaves. Most were too poor or didn't believe in slavery.) I don't think we should be rewriting history because of idiots like Dylann Roof who's both extremely atypical for a white Southerner and apparently a natural born terrorist. If he'd been born in the Middle East, he probably would have been a suicide bomber. People like him tend to pick a group to hate on, and I think a lot of times they care more about the act of  terrorism than the politics behind it. I don't think I've ever edited an LGBT type of article. I don't believe in gay marriage because of my religion, but I don't hate gay people. I personally think that gay marriage should have been left up to the individual states to vote on, or else the Supreme Court ruling should have included a provision to protect pastors or others who choose not to perform gay marriages because of their beliefs. (Sweden did that when they legalized it.) Anyway, I am going to close by saying that if my userboxes were the opposite political views, I don't think this would have come up. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, not just liberals, although I know that it tends to attract liberals.  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think as long as userboxes are on your page, they express only your personal views, and they do not contain anything obviously illegal or have personal attacks, I see no issue with you putting them up. I think it's better to admit your personal biases up-front so people can watch out for them. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think EdChem makes a good point. If this were an RfA, I'd absolutely be arguing that it shouldn't matter - quite loudly too.  But, as we're not at RfA, I think it's fair to point out people's perceptions.  As unfair as it'd be at RfA, very few people are going to care that they are injecting politics into the matter and the userboxes would absolutely be brought up.  I cannot see it passing while they're there, and I cannot see it passing even if removed.  I don't know what a way forward is.  Like I said, it's totally unfair.  But those people are out there, they !vote at RfA, and they will interject their political beliefs without shame.  It's fair to be concerned about that in this discussion.--v/r - TP 00:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for recognising that I was making a relevant point., I hold beliefs that differ from yours in some areas, and I don't see that as any sort of problem.  I think your userboxes can be used to paint a picture (fair or not) that would lead to opposition and decrease your chances for a successful RfA.  Personally, I would not oppose based on userboxes pointing to beliefs where I can see a basis for reasonable people to disagree, nor would I support based on userboxes relating to opinions I share.  I would oppose, however, if evidence (diffs etc) were provided that showed those beliefs were resulting in advocacy and (worse) leading to biased / unbalanced content in mainspace.  I like to think that I am intellectually honest enough to oppose advocacy in cases where I agree with the views added, and so I would not support for adminship any editor who was unable to edit neutrally, but I do also recognise that no one is immune from overlooking bias which conforms to one's own views.  However, in contemplating an RfA, you do need to consider that some !voters may oppose based on impressions and concerns without needing to see diffs showing bias in editing, and you are right that more conservative views are less prevalent in communities like Wikipedia than in society at large. I posted after seeing Juliancolton's comment as I think just removing the userboxes would lead to opposition, and that you deal directly with the issue if you are to attempt an RfA.  One approach which I suggested would be to make a statement addressing it as part of your RfA – for example, you could ask yourself a question and include your answer before transcluding.  I have no problem with you being open about and proud of your beliefs and heritage, I have no problem with you holding views and opinions with which I disagree.  Making a strong statement that your beliefs should not be at issue at RfA so long as your editing and actions show neutrality and integrity is a view I can accept and respect... and I would accompany it (as you have begun above) with evidence of what you tried to do at article X, and why, and that you do not have interest in editing on topics Y and Z, etc.  Another approach would be to write an essay as a page in your user space on your philosophy of editing and how it intersects with personal beliefs, and maybe integrity vis a vis admin actions.  I don't know you, I have no idea whether you would make a fine admin and I would not !vote without considering your editing history and coming to an informed view... but every editor contributing at an RfA takes their own approach.  I note your point about a double standard in evaluating majority and minority opinions / beliefs, and there is some truth to it... but I would not pursue that line of reasoning as it is likely to come across poorly.  I suggest an assertive but polite approach to addressing concerns about advocacy and noting that a diversity of beliefs are an integral and healthy part of the community of editors striving for neutral encyclopaedic content. One point about values, however: there is plenty of disagreement about topics like gun control, religion in society, marriage equality, etc, but much less about racism and slavery, and I agree with  that displaying Lee's Confederate battle flag that is widely seen as a symbol of oppression and defiantly displayed by some racists is something that is going to be a problem.  I note you have created your own userboxes before, perhaps you could create a new one that asserts your pride in your Southern heritage without using a symbol that will be interpreted by others irrespective of how you personally see it.  Replacing the flag UBX with a note recognising the common view of its symbolism while disagreeing with that meaning for you would show respect for the views of others.  Just some thoughts for you to consider.  :)  EdChem (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure nothing is misunderstood, I never considered that my suggestion to remove the potentially divisive userboxes might be seen as a plot to conceal biases or something similarly shadowy. It's an interesting point. I spent a fair bit of time reviewing the applicant's contributions and never saw any evidence of an agenda showing through, so I wasn't overly concerned with the userboxes... I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that they could prove inflammatory. I still don't believe that WAF should be pressured to leave the "offending" fixtures up indefinitely, even if she has a change of heart about the merits of advertising your political views on WP, but I guess that's a discussion for another venue. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I would like to apologise for any impression I have created that the intent behind your advice was either for WAF to be deceptive or to mislead – rather I thought that such an action by WAF (particularly coming shortly before an RfA and after an ORCP comment) could be seen in that way. I would also like to clarify that I do not want WAF to feel or be pressured to take any action. , I believe that just removing some or all of the userboxes could be misconstrued, but I also think that what (if anything) you do is entirely your decision.  You could remove some or all of them with an edit summary noting ORCP comments and then address the topic in an RfA, or pointing to an essay.  You could add a hidden comment to your user page visible in edit mode and add an edit summary like "comment on userboxes" to which you could point in a diff.  Noting Juliancolton's comment that he "spent a fair bit of time reviewing the applicant's contributions and never saw any evidence of an agenda showing through, so [he] wasn't overly concerned with the userboxes" to which you can point with a link / diff can be helpful in separating belief from advocacy.  In principle, your beliefs should not impede an RfA in the absence of advocacy, but in practice the world is not ideal and you have face a situation / challenge.  To me, how you respond would be relevant in assessing a candidacy, but others may take different perspectives.  My basic point (yes, I agree, I talk too much at times) was that removing boxes and hoping no one notices, which was my impression of Julian's suggestion, has a high chance of backfiring.  What you do with comments and advice from everyone is up to you, of course.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , I note that your edit summary appears directed at me, so I would like to make some points in response:
 * "you wouldn't make that comment if she were a strident left-winger" – please do not declare what I would or would not do. I considered whether to make a comment, and only did so after seeing the suggestion to just remove the userboxes, which I think would look awful in an RfA.  Julian drew attention to them here at ORCP and so they would likely come up at an RfA, and I think offering a constructive suggestion as to addressing concerns about advocacy is both reasonable and appropriate.
 * I have not discriminated against WAF, and I ask that you withdraw the suggestion that I have.
 * Yes, I am gay, but that doesn't make me a "leftist cause." I am a person and a Wikipedia editor and I ask that you treat me as such, and not as a cause, a label, or a political football.  I was careful to not treat the impressions created by the userboxes as facts about WAF, and to point to potential issues going to advocacy and bias (which are problematic in an admin) and not about beliefs.  I don't !vote at RfA often, but would not care about a candidate's beliefs so long as editing and on-wiki behaviour is neutral and civil, etc.
 * You are entitled to believe that "right-wingers" face hostility and discrimination online. I know that members of the LGBTQI community and other minorities also encounter hostility and discrimination and more, both online and in the "real world".  I have had homophobic abuse shouted at me while walking down a street.  I have been subjected to hate speech online and seen actions taken that were hugely hurtful... but I've also seen actions that embrace and support an editor who has been attacked.  As a whole, Wikipedia tries to be accepting and supportive towards all who want to contribute, and that means we all need to accept differences of opinion.  However, that does not mean that historically privileged groups are entitled to mistreat minorities in ways that have happened in the past, and supporting equality for groups that have historically suffered discrimination is not hostility towards or discrimination against the majority.  You will need considerable evidence from reliable sources if you want to convince me that hostility and discrimination against those with right-wing views and against members of the LGBTQI community are comparable.
 * EdChem (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you've already overreacted to my words I see no point in responding, except to affirm that I still support all persons willing to edit constructively to contribute to Wikipedia. Clearly, userboxes and other such statements bring out the vitriol that admin candidates should avoid. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I also "support all persons willing to edit constructively to contribute to Wikipedia" and nothing that I have said suggests otherwise. WP need contributors who can add neutral and sourced content, and as I have said above, personal views and beliefs don't matter so long as they don't lead to advocacy – and I would appreciate it if you would stop implying otherwise.  That you are unwilling to step back from your unfair comments about me is disappointing and sad, but I believe reflects poorly on you rather than on me.  EdChem (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Now then fellows- this is rather turning into a general discussion on the nature of the administration and advocacy, which is less helpful to . Can we perhaps take this discussion elsewhere, and here stay focused on assessing this particular candidate? Cheers! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  04:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't ordinarily comment on these, but the userbox opposes I thought were weird and probably over the top, so I looked into it, and I think it would actually cause some issues. There was recently a fuss over another editor having a British nationalist userbox on their userpage. gave them some good advice as to what it meant to others and why some people might find it offensive. I think you would get a huge backlash for having a Confederate Flag userbox at RfA. I don't want to get into an argument about what you mean by it, but there are people who view it as pure hate speech, and how people view it is all that matters when at a bare minimum you need 2 supports for each oppose, and 3:1 to pass without a 'crat chat. Ad Orientem's RfA drew a few opposes for mentioning that he was a monarchist on his user page, and that was with a joke userbox about it. Whether it would be weighted heavily or not in a 'crat chat, I'm not sure, but combined with some of the other things pointed out above, I think it would very much hurt your chances at passing RfA. This is not a reflection of my thoughts on you or your views, but is just what I think would likely happen at RfA TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I had the Sun and the Mail userboxes when I ran for RfA and there was no comment. The Trump and Farage ones came later. I've had a few criticisms about the Trump box, saying it's a little too close to the wind, but it's hardly surprising I hate Trump with a passion, since if you plug our values into the Political Compass he comes out top-right and I come out bottom-left. Wikipedia does have a left-wing / liberal bias because that's the sort of demographic that think it's okay writing an encyclopedia in your spare time for no money, so in that respect, having userboxes that oppose two of the best-known and best-selling right-wing and factually dubious newspapers (and doing so in a humorous manner) is probably not going to rub enough people up the wrong way. In that context, having something like the "straight marriages" userbox could be problematic, but I would hope enough people would see you don't go around LGBT articles spouting anti-gay rhetoric and you can put your biases to one side when adjudicating disputes. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My point was less about the other political issues, where I don't think opposes would get much traction, than the Confederate Flag userbox. Fair or not, our article on Modern display of the Confederate flag points out that 44% of people in the States view it as racist with 24% thinking it extremely so. In a process where 75% is needed for a clear "promotion" those numbers are going to be hard to beat, especially if a supporter engages an opposer in criticism over it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as an illustration, this current discussion is useful, perhaps, in describing the sort of percentages that could be faced. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  16:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 3/10 and  sum it up well. Anyone who has been around RfA as long as we have will know that trends in voting come and go - there was a trend a few years ago, for example, where atheists would garner oppose votes - of all the most ludicrous reasons to oppose. Ritchie is allowed to be openly critical of an American president because he's a Brit and can't influence the outcome of US elections - he also gets the gist of the saffron dungarees, sandals, and patchouli aura of free collaborative movements that partly pervades Wikipedia (well at least my generation). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rodw: April 22, 2017
While I was away on holiday I was mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search where I was used as "an example of a candidate who'd be a near-certainty at RFA failing vetting" by one editor, with another suggesting "little or no recent posts at AN/I, AIV RFPP, etc. Have I made an error there? Would he pass an RfA without recent work in those areas?" so I thought I would put my name here and see what people think.&mdash; Rod talk 16:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 9/10 – Something like four dozen pieces of featured content, extensive work in the project namespace building a platform for the encyclopedia, consistently active for well over a decade, deeply involved in the Wikimedia movement. Iridescent had it right in the linked discussion; you'll pass RfA with no trouble at all. (That's my objective prediction. On a personal note: long overdue.) –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8/10. Ironically, I've probably done slight damage to your chances, as some of the clique which supports the notion of pre-vetting will be wanting to demonstrate that their system works and will be searching for pretexts to oppose. Provided you don't indicate a desire to work in a specific area I see no reason why a lack of involvement in that area will be considered an issue by sensible editors; there are some areas like blocking and verification where it's reasonable to expect every admin to be familiar with the policy, but nobody should care whether you understand the details of (for instance) the username policy unless you plan to work there. (I passed RFA with AFAIK a total of zero edits to AIV, UAA or RFPP.) &#8209; Iridescent 17:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 9.5/10 - Whoa! Although this user isn't too active in posting to ANI and such, they seem to be an excellent candidate. They have created an exceptional amount of articles, and their recent work seems to be dedicated anti-vandalism. The featured content mentioned above is amazing. Really, the only opposes I see coming are from those with extremely strict criteria who oppose pretty much every RfA. This should pass. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  17:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 8/10 - I love reading Rod's articles on Somerset history and architecture, one of the best and important writers on the project. Hopefully you can "do an Ealdgyth" and get a very strong support, even if you don't use the tools much. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 10/10 – yes. No issues at all.  In fact, if anyone voted against you, I'd declare a conspiracy.  Great editor, great history of work on Wikipedia.  What's not to like?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 9.9/10 - You've done absolutely good work on content work, as I could possibly nominate you. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 20:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the above comments are meant as a parody of some of the more ridiculous claims made at RfA. I do not actually believe Jimbo, Eric, and Rod are trying to create a Facepedia, and Rod's content work is stunning. From what I see, this should be a certain 10 / 10 pass, but then RfA can be a very strange place. EdChem (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see... over 10,000 edits marked as minor, suggesting a desire to hide some edits, coupled with an outrageously low use of edit summaries (something like 0.3% of edits have no summary, which is scandalous!)... user page shows that Rodw has met Jimbo face-to-face, and his most edited user talk page (other than his own) is 's, hinting at membership of the Jimbo-Eric sooper-seekrit conspiracy to turn Wikipedia into Facebook (to be named Facepedia and include content solely on every person on the planet)... Rodw has been hiding this nefarious intent behind trivial content editing (95,000 edits of which barely 90,000 are manual, and only 6,000 edits to Commons – how can that be enough of a track record to evaluate?... a clean block log is nice but with only 12 years of editing, the account is an obvious sleeper being activated to sneak a member of the conspiracy into the admin corps... as for the content: Rod claims only one featured picture though other reviewed content is slightly better (14 FA, 25 FL, 3 FT, 2 FP), plus also 144 GA and 151 DYKs – but only one ITN) – seriously, there must be anywhere up to tens of editors with stronger credentials as a content writer... then, we have Rod's lack of contribution to admin areas like ANI, AN, UAA, AIV, and most significantly RfAR, which is clearly a smokescreen to cover the true plan to join ArbCom and declare himself first overlord of Wikipedia and Prince of Facepedia.
 * 9/10 I don't recall having had a chance to come across you in my minimal tenure here but what I see of your contributions makes me mirror the comments of the much experienced editors above. In the recent past, since the start of 2016, you've had 7 Afd appearances, with 5 noms and 2 !votes; in your full tenure, you've !voted in 12 Afds while being a nom in the 52 rest. Some editors might wish to see more !votes on non-nomm'd Afds. But this would be simply a trivial opposition, if it comes about. I don't see any other critical hindrance. Go for it. Lourdes  03:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 9/10 - duh. The only problem would be the "no need for the tools" types. Needless to say, I would support. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 9/10. If I'd known you were interested I'd have offered to nominate you a long time ago. By all means shoot me an email if you're in the market for a nominator. The only possible problem is your relatively minimal involvement in the back end/maintenance/administrative side of things. I imagine the groundswell of support you'll get will deter any silly drive-by opposes and vastly outnumber any genuinely principled opposition. But, before you commit to anything, consider whether you want the hassle. Adminship is mostly boring grunt work and people come to admins expecting us to know all the answers. I get the impression you'd be happier with the quiet life you've got. If I'm wrong then by all means go ahead but it's worth thinking about. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  13:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 10/10 - You live in Kent so you have my full support!, Plus you've done some great work here and to be honest I thought you were already an admin, As noted above this is long overdue. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8/10 - I agree with what most of what other editors have said, so I won't repeat it. I was a bit confused with this AfD nom (which is from Nov 2015 but still, an experienced editor like you shouldn't really start AfDs that end in speedy keep and that might come up in an RfA although I doubt it can really be harmful when considering the whole history of your AfD participation; still, you might want to have an explanation ready. I see the possibility of WP:NONEED opposes but based on your record RfA should not be a problem. So don't listen to HJ and go for it Regards  So  Why  19:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When I reviewed Bridgwater Bay, I had never encountered you before. So when I saw that you had more recognized content than I could dream of, I was rather surprised, because the article itself had large chunks of unsourced content when I came to review it. You fixed it quickly, though, and if that's the worst you've done, I can't imagine that you'd receive much opposition...I myself would support without hesitation. Vanamonde (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 10/10 – But don't bother. We've got plenty of admins, and your value to the project lies in content creation. That's what I want you to spend your time on site doing! Harrias  talk 12:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 9/10 - I find the tools very useful for content editing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 9.5/10 - There will be the usual raft of drive-by opposes on 'hasn't done enough adminy stuff', but those votes usually come from people who just think it's cool to vote on an RfA. Nobody with your experience is lacking in knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Indeed, as  points out, many admin tasks are thankless and can make you enemies for just doing your job, but you don't necessarily have to radically change the focus of your work. I did, but I had run out of ideas for writing articles and the thought of simply copy editing or improving other people's stuff just didn't appeal to me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 9.5/10, obviously. Per everybody here.  J 947 (c)  06:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 9/10 No issues at all. Don't be concerned about the Vetting, that's just a pet project. Go for it. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Cabayi: April 26, 2017
Hi, I'm asking for opinions in response to a post on my talk page from, and a passing comment from at a wikimeet a few months ago. I've stood before in 2009 under a previous username, Bazj, and edited for several months last year as For (& learnt that usernames with syntax are a BAD mistake). Thanks for your consideration, Cabayi (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 5/10 – I'll start by noting that I supported you in 2009 and am likely to support again should you decide to run. You've got plenty of experience here and have apparently conducted yourself well with just about all of the unbundled advanced perms, including the more delicate ones like template editor and page mover. It's encouraging to see that you've actually become more active through the years instead of doing the protracted-burnout-with-occasional-spurts-of-activity maneuver that the rest of your fellow 2008-era editors have perfected. That said, in looking at your CSD logs, AfD record, etc., I anticipate at least some opposition characterizing you as a trigger-happy deletionist. Your AfD accuracy rate is strong at 81%, but quite a few of your noms have resulted in "keep" or "snow keep". As far as the AfD counter and I can tell, you've only voted "keep" once in eight years. Your CSD record is long and (to my eye) appropriately red, but a few different admins have declined some of your tags just in the past several weeks. While your speedy deletion nominations are overwhelmingly appropriate and accurate, RfA has been exceptionally unforgiving of errors in the deletion arena as of late. One particularly detailed analysis of your tagging is liable to sink the whole candidacy if it turns out you've used misapplied criteria more than a handful of times within the past several months. Candidates can often assuage deletionism fears by pointing to their record of content creation and assuring everyone that they have skin in the game. While you have created a fair number of articles, many of them are one-line stubs, unsourced, unreliably sourced, or some combination thereof, so I'm not too confident in this escape route. Basically, I expect it depends on who turns out to vote and what kind of mood they're in. My intuition is that from ten candidates just like you, about half of them would pass. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , thanks for taking the time to give me such a thorough review - and thanks for the support in 2009.
 * You're right, my record at AfD is almost totally negative. In fact, the one keep vote was on my own nomination where the article was improved during the course of the discussion.
 * If I'd been coming to AfD to vote on the nominations, I'd feel ashamed of that record, but I wasn't. Most of my activity there wasn't Delete but Delete (nom). I end up there through a number of routes:
 * Declined CSDs or PRODs where I still believed the article to be irredeemable.
 * Where I've dealt with several of the author's other contributions and felt that I was losing objectivity, yet still felt that the article didn't merit keeping.
 * Where I've stumbled across a case of sockpuppetry in which the master had not been blocked before the article had been created & so G5 wasn't available - I'd raise an AfD there as a procedural necessity. If they go Keep or Snow Keep, and I'm on the "losing" end, fair enough. I haven't shied away from nominations on this point for fear of tarnishing my stats in the past, nor will I in the future.
 * The Delete !votes on other noms have been because I looked at the contributions of authors who I'd given CSDs or PRODs and seeing that another New Page Patroller had started an AfD on one of the author's other articles.
 * Approaching AfD from that perspective - a 100% delete !vote record is almost a given rather than an oddity, a record I feel I should stand up for, rather than one for which I should apologise. Were I to go ahead with an RfA I guess this is one of those issues (like the two username changes in one year) that I'd have to deal with up-front. Cabayi (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 1/10 – Sorry but I see no real chances of passing RfA at this time considering how the current RfA climate (correctly) "punishes" sloppy speedy deletion work. I myself had to decline four different speedy taggings of yours within this month alone, including a extremely hasty (and thus BITEy) A2 tagging within one minute after the articles creation, a G4/A7/G11 for a company where only the product's article has been deleted previously, which claimed significance and which was not promotional in tone and another A7/G11 with claims of coverage in a book and no promotional language. And those are not the only recent mistakes, we also have: A7 for software, A7 for company with notable founders and multiple sources, A11 for ineligible item, A7 for band with claims of coverage in RS, A7/G11 for Times Top 100 designers without any promotional language, A7/G11 for an article with no text at all(!) within a minute after creation. Based on your speedy deletion work, I'm under the impression that you - despite your long tenure - misunderstand the basic rules of the policy, including "only clear-cut cases" and "don't tag immediately after creation unless really necessary"; you also seem to think G11 applies to promotional intent rather than language and that A7 requires claims of notability, not just significance or importance. I'm very sorry to say this but you seem to keep making such mistakes (see examples from 2015 and here) without a willingness to change your approach. The ability to follow the policies and guidelines, even if one disagrees with them, is essential for any admin though, as is the ability to reflect on one's mistakes and change one's editing. I'm also baffled by this AfD, considering WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:ATD. The same goes for Articles for deletion/Kara Donnellan: What policy-based reason could there have been even if she wasn't notable considering the possibilities of WP:ATD-R and WP:ATD-M? Additionally, you have a very high number of automated edits, mainly running AWB on your main account, which dilutes your real contribution count and makes it hard for !voters to review your contributions. You should really consider using an alternative account for these edits. That being said, I'm open to supporting a future RfA iff you demonstrate that you are willing and able to follow the speedy deletion policy, even when you disagree with its strict limits. Regards  So  Why  11:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2/10 - Mostly per Julian's comment above. Once you done correct CSD tagging, I be happy to support. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 11:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 5/10 – You are interested enough in Wikipedia to participate in meet ups so perhaps also a bit about yourself on your user page would be appropriate - at the moment it looks like a repository of notes for yourself, which while of course perfectly allowed, could probably be best stored on a user sub-page.
 * I’m aware of your dedication to NPP and I do not doubt the good faith in which you go about it. However, grandfathering the New Page Reviewer rights was intended to ensure continuity of NPP during the initial period when a team of experienced reviewers would be built up through normal applications art PERM, and we already knew that the selection process was not going to be perfect.
 * graciously pointed out with her discreet edit summary my perfectly innocent and totally understandable error in declining one of your CSDs, but at the thread about it here (I have unreviewed a page you curated)  your reaction is one that some voters might not see as conducive to adminship and possibly underlines ’s comments on your previous RfA some 8 years ago. 's comments above certainly strike a chord but I can’t say which way I think an RfA would go, and I don’t yet know which way I would vote myself.   Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , regrettably I think you could just as easily have picked up on 2 or 3 other encounters between us in the last 3-9 months which went awry one way or another. This one certainly went very wrong, very quickly. Thanks for the input. Cabayi (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I didn't want to rub it in - this page is supposed to be what we think your chances at RfA would be, and perhaps also highlight some issues that other voters might come up with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

ProgrammingGeek: April 27, 2017
Hey, I'm ProgrammingGeek and I'm looking to see if there is support for running for RfA. I think my stats are pretty good, mostly in AfC and anti-vandalism. CSD log here. I also vote in AfD. Any comments appreciated! Thanks.


 * 0/10, sorry. Your account was made in 2015 but since then you've only made 3.4k edits, and you haven't taken anything to GA as your highest edit count on an article is a measly 10. The 40% edits to mainspace statistic is good, though. You say you like AfD, and I'm assuming that you'd want to work there, but you've only voted on 37. Out of your low edit count, you've made only 233 to BLPs, which isn't very good, though people don't care as much about this as other statistics in recent times. One of the other biggest issues present is your lack of non-automated edits. You have a total of 87 non-automated edits. This is somewhat trivial and not a dealbreaker, but people look for over 98% edit summary count, from what I've seen at other people's RfAs, and you've got a 97%. I suggest you work on content creation and come back in a year or two, when you've got a lot more experience under your belt. --  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   13:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 0/10. Your attempt at GA reviewing earlier this month led to an instant pass for one enormous article and three others left abandoned. (I'm going to clean up those three now.) Someone who does not make sure they understand how an area of Wikipedia works before diving in and does not take a more active role in cleaning up afterward is not someone who should be given the mop. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 0/10 I would generally have to think very hard about supporting an RFA candidate with zero created articles, and even thinking about it would make me unusual at RFA. Lack of content creation has always been a deal-breaker for lots of RFA voters, and 70 non-automated, non-minor edits to article space is at least several hundred too few. The absolute best thing you can do to improve your chances at RFA is to create some articles, help get something to GA (or FA) (by contributing, not reviewing), or just demonstrate a lot of article content improvement. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水  14:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 0/10 per the many above points, as well as the likelihood that voters would take issue with this good-faith but abysmally ill-conceived proposed change to policy. This isn't to say you'll never be eligible for adminship; I would simply recommend putting any RfA aspirations on the backburner for some time and focus on improving both yourself and the project. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Guye: April 28, 2017
Hello. I am. I've edited Wikipedia since 2012. I am a Rollbacker and a Pending changes reviewer. I am active at Articles for creation, the New Pages Feed, Redirects for discussion, and other places. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 1/10 There are a couple of things that indicate that you should work on understanding policy a little better.  First, you have created a number of redirects that have been deleted.  Second, your AfD percentage is not great and does not indicate a deep grasp of policy yet.  There are other issues, which I'm sure other editors will raise, but I think more work is needed in understanding and demonstrating an understanding of policy. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1/10 Anyone who tags a software article as A7 or does not check the page history before requesting speedy deletion clearly has failed to read and/or understand an important policy. That alone is imho sufficient to fail any RfA without further review. Also, an edit summary usage of under 97% is a clear fail for any editor who wishes to become an admin. This all, combined with AFD nominations such as this one, lead me to agree with I am One of Many above that you really need to demonstrate a better understanding of policies and guidelines. Regards  So Why  09:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 1.9/10 - per 's analysis of CSD tagging and AFD participation. You can do some content work or promote some articles to GA or FA status. Just sayin'.     KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 12:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have promoted United States and Lecrae to WP:GA status.--Mr. Guye (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The FA was only an suggestion as you've already done that. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 15:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Even for those two articles you're not in the top contributors, according to the XTools analysis of them. Also, for both GA nominations, you barely fixed up any issues. For Lecrae I see the reviewers name with more "dones" than yours, and United States looks like a joint effort; your name appears a total of 4 times.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   01:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 0/10 Awful performance at AfD means I'd have no confidence at all in your judgment as an administrator. Harsh, maybe, but it's something you need to hear, and it's something you urgently need to work on. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you guys keep mentioning some sort of AfD record.--Mr. Guye (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mr. Guye, the problem with your AfD stats is that your match percentage is a bit low and your votes are pretty heavy delete, which some people may find problematic. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm talking about things like this: Articles for deletion/List of football stadiums in the Philippines. It's the type of nomination I'd expect to see from a brand-new editor, not one who has been here for years. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

*0/10 I can't believe this is a serious request. Yesterday he nominated the article on Cornwall for speedy deletion as vandalism. It was an accident. A pasty for for catching the page blanking. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1/10. As the majority of work done by active admins concerns interpreting and/or applying the various criteria for keeping or deleting articles, AfD is one area from which some fairly reliable metrics can be drawn. Of particular concern is the high number of your AfD noms that are speedily kept. And that's why we are all talking about your AfD score. You'll need to have made at least a year of editing with an AfD score %age leveling out in the high 80s or even better. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)