This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Grapple X (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)

Salimfadhley (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

Thanks in advance for your feedback. Most my activity on Wikipedia over the last few months has been related to the #wikipedia-en-help forum where I spend a lot of time interacting with new editors. A large proportion of this time is spent dealing with abusive and promotional editing.

• 3/10 - The first problem is that while I can see some evidence you understand bits of policy and what writing an encyclopedia is about, it's squirrelled away in hard to find places. In terms of content, one of your most edited articles is Frank Key, and the first edit I checked was this, to which my response is "What makes thedabbler.co.uk comply with WP:BLPSOURCES?" Elsewhere I see Draft:Geza Tarjanyi was declined at AfC for being an advertisement. Boilerplate AfDs (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brie Rogers Lowery, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roya TV, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Pigalle - all of which had a unanimous "keep" consensus) and nominating a draft space page at AfD don't help your cause, neither does being reprimanded by an admin for not understanding CSD policy. Overall, I think you will encounter serious problems at RfA, and have difficulty explaining yourself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• 3/10 - Your 7,000 edits have been spread extremely thinly over the last 14 years. There is debate going on in another place whether or not a candidate needs to demonstrate a need for the tools. In your case, I don't think a need is demonstrated, and that's the way the voting community will probably see it. If you care for Wikipedia sufficiently to want to be an admin, you may wish to do a refresher at the WP:NPP tutorial then dig in and help at the staggering backlog at WP:NPR (you were given the right in 2017), perhaps now is the time to start using it in earnest and at the same time get some experience with AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC).
• Hey, thanks for the feedback / reality check, @Ritchie333. I was actually quite surprised at the response to Draft:Geza Tarjanyi, because I thought my draft was anything but publicity-seeking. It was a draft about a depraved person who is best known for being a public nuisance! On reflection though, he probably isn't notable enough.
• @Kudpung the vast majority of my edits over the last few years have been AFC / NPP related, however in recent months
• I've mostly been reacting to stuff on #wikiedia-en-help. I think the lesson that I would pull from this is that on-wiki stuff counts for more when making this kinf of assessment. Thank you for your time. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right, only what you do on-Wiki can, and will be assessed. However, for a realistic chance of convincing the voters at RfA any time soon, you would need to do a lot more edits in the next 12 months or so, and above all, make some substantial contributions in adminny areas but avoiding the issues like the ones Ritchie333 pointed out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• 1/10 - You have less activity than the unwritten guidelines expect of adminabiles. My personal rule of thumb is "minimum of 100 edits in 12 of the past 18 months", and I count 6 months. Looking at your edit history, I do get a sense that you need more experience on Wikipedia. If you want a structured way to get more involved on Wikipedia in an administrative capacity, I recommend working more on WP:AFC or WP:NPP for at least 6 months before even considering RFA. Writing content is always recommended, as well. As far as IRC is concerned, you're probably better off right now being able to tell people "I'm not an admin and literally can't do this thing you want, even if it were a good idea". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback. Just curious, are you counting the numbers of recent months with > 100 edits in mainspace only or do draft-space edits count? Most of what I was doing onwiki was AFC. Salimfadhley (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm looking at the "count" link above - that includes all namespaces, but not deleted content. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Would you have any objections if I come back to you in six months with a view to getting more feedback? Salimfadhley (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think that is a very sensible thing to propose. BusterD (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 Any objections if I check back with you in six months or so?

Regarding those examples: The Frank Key article was something I last edited a very long time ago. The defect you pointed out was present in the version I last edited, and persists today. My concern is that in 2022 I'm going to be judged by foolish edits I made in 2012. Does that seem like a legitimate worry? Salimfadhley (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Salimfadhley, Sure, you can check back in six months. I'm not expecting 3 FAs written, but I won't object if you do! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that I will get any featured articles written since the bulk of my interest is anti-spam. I could probably have a lot of horrible articles deleted, would that be a suitable record?

And how should I deal with the misdeeds of the past? Let's just say there were edits I made that I now regret. What can and should be done to put that right, but hopefully without drawing too much of the wrong kind of attention my way? Salimfadhley (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

FOARP (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)

I've been editing Wiki on and off for fourteen years now, and more seriously for the last three years. I'm thinking of doing an RFA in the next six month or so (probably towards the end of the six months to be frank). I've done quite a bit of AFD work (though not so many closes) and a fair number of RM closes. I probably don't have enough edits right now but I'm getting there. Ditto article creation. I'd also like to get an FA under my belt as well. I don't think I have too many skeletons in my closet - all the ones I'm aware of are disclosed here.FOARP (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've seen you around the parish, of course. I think if you carry on as you are, in six months (probably towards the end of the six months) would be even better. Need for tools: good AfD stats, you read the room fine, but with nearly a third of your !votes being to keep, there's no danger of accusations of deletionism, etc. You've been editing vigorously for three years (soon to be three and a half years...?!) so tenure isn't a major problem. Likewise, edit count: over 9K edits, probably 10K by that time, will be fine. Just like wine. You've written plenty of articles; while a FA would square the circle, another GA or two would emphasise your content creation sufficiently. (But if you want to take a history article to FA, feel free to hit me on a project, I'm interested in exploring new areas.) The fact that you're asking advice now and willing to wait a few months suggests you have the patience, and nuanced approach, that we want to see in our mop wranglers.
  Confession: NOTGAZATEER is one of the most important essays we have on not having an article on every bloody lake in Nebraska, while WP:Gravedancing should be WP:PAG regarding our treatment of blocked editors. So I might be biased  :) ——Serial 20:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Pretty much exactly what SN54129 said. Just under 9,000 edits and about a year of regular service is probably just enough to convince most people to support; another six months of carrying on what you're doing should seal the deal. By all means get something to FA if you want, but do it because you want to write some of the best work on Wikipedia, not because of adminship. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Until late 2018 your editing was sporadic, but has picked up since then. Several editors have become admins with barely a year's editing, so that's what counts and with the excellent job on Harry Pollitt, your content work is established. Getting an FA would be quite a challenge and apart from occasional cranks among the voters, won't necessarily improve your chances. It would be nice but it's not a must. Your AfD stats are fine. You might wish to apply for WP:NPR and do some reviewing. You've probably got quite a good chance of passing RfA in 6 months. 04:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

RegistryKey (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · previous RfAs)

I have returned to Wikipedia, mainly undertaking my usual back-end items of AFC reviews and anti-vandalism, but would always like to see if I can do more.

• 0/10; This is not about your editing (which, frankly, I haven't reviewed). Your absence from the project for the last five years...sort of, and not really consistently active on the project at any time will preclude a successful run at RfA. People commenting on RfAs expect to see a much longer period of activity. This is wholly absent here, and I doubt any run at RfA would be successful without a year's worth of consistent editing on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• I concur with Hammersoft. There are zero metrics to judge you by, you would be considered a brand new user, so you would have to do a lot of work and demonstrate a need for the tools before you could be considered for adminship. I don't think you were doing yourself a favour with this edit five years ago. Indeed it could be seen as if it's the main reason you joined the project. Obviously you are older and wiser now but even this poll might count against a run for the mop because a prerequisite for an admin is that they should be able to read and understand basic instructions. That said, now that you are back, when you have some experience in a year or so, do consider helping out on some of the serious backlogs that don't need admin tools. That would put you in good stead for the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• First off, I would like to thank Hammersoft and Kudpung for taking the time to respond here. I know this is not my first go-around with this, as was stated. I'd like to think I have improved from before, even sticking to my little corner of Wikipedia, but at the same time I can see how asking can often lead to it being taken negatively, and results in "pushing the standard farther down the road" in an eternal loop. No offense meant towards either of you two editors, simply falls under the umbrella of the continual calls for RfA reform, e.g. WP:RFA2021. Doubtless this may even as well. I guess the main reason I would like to be considered someday for adminship is that the tasks I show an interest in myself are not only tasks that I have undertaken elsewhere off-wiki for several years, but also here it would seem tasks that do require admin abilities. I simply want to be helpful as best as I can. Kudpung you mentioned other projects that don't require tools, feel free to reach out on my talk page and offer some suggestions on how I can broaden my worth here at the project. Thanks! RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 22:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

I’ve toyed with the idea of running for admin to help out at AfD and to streamline my AFC work, and I thought I’d get some feedback on my chances. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well, you do have excellent AfD stats, so kudos on that! On a cursory glance, seems like you have a pretty good grasp of content creation and the policies and guidelines that go along with it, and your edit count is pretty much there. I notice that you don't have a promoted GA or FA to your name—from my understanding, this would normally be a large problem for mopseekers, but you would have a somewhat easier time of it given your unusually high percentage of contributions to the articlespace (two thirds of 21,000 edits, so around 14,000). Of course, I'm new to this area myself, so possibly take this with a grain of salt :) best of luck to you, cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Good AfD stats, and a good selection of content and project namespace. A lack of a GA will only gather 1-2 opposes, which can be refuted by uninvolved people easily, so I wouldn't worry about it. I've written over 150 GAs but I've never mandated it from any RfA nomination or made it a reason to oppose. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hi 'Wombat. Do you use Twinkle for CSD requests? Do you make many revdel or page mover requests as part of your AfC work - as it's named, I just want to get a look at your prior history in those areas. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear:, I only installed Twinkle very recently, and I haven't yet made any CSD requests using it. I'm afraid I don't really have any experience with makinf revdel or page mover requests. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Your content work is fine and not frighteningly negligible like some adminabili have, so I wouldn't worry about something so strong as GA, much less FA. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Hello Devonian Wombat. You seem to be on the right track. If you do go to RfA I suggest looking over the three appearances of your name on the admin boards. Also, you have some edit filter hits complaining about poor sources (self-published, deprecated or Youtube). It might be worth revisiting those articles to see (a) if there was an actual problem with sources, and if so (b) whether the sources have been improved since then. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Seen you around a lot, and have seen lots of good work. Regarding the instances EdJohnston brings up, the first shouldn't be a problem, anyone can be brought to EW board. The second makes me stand up and cheer for you, everyone makes mistakes, too few will abjectly apologise when it is pointed out to them. The third could cause problems. Holding out JPL as a positive influence in AfD discussions will probably engender several opposes from those who lean inclusionist, and even some from those who are centrist. If the topic is brought up, you'll need to address Hobit's question to some degree of satisfaction. That said, and though I disagree with your assessment of JPL's AfD quality (though I think he is a net-positive overall), I hope you run. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) This won't sink your RfA, but you might want to prepare for questions as to why you don't seem to use Twinkle. It's obviously not a requirement, but still pretty unusual for someone involved with the backend of the project not to have it installed, and crucially, some people will be miffed that there's no convenient PROD/XfD/CSD log for them to peruse. There is a recent precedent for someone without the tool sailing through without any problems, so this is just to make you generally aware that you don't have something that many people will routinely expect to find. AngryHarpy‍^talk 18:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'd offer you a nomination if you wished to run. There's clearly some things that can be improved, as per the above, but I think you'd have a good chance of passing an RfA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Some RfA voters look at content creation, others at AfD stats but I look for how the candidate has handled disputes with other editors. For that, I'd have to look more closely into your overall history on the project. But RfA candidates seem to underestimate how much pushback there is to admin actions so it helps to have a few examples of times your work has been criticized where you dealt with the criticism, whether fair or unfair, calmly and not defensively. Some candidates kind of ignore Question #3 and think the best answer is that they've NEVER had conflicts with other editors but it's best to have a few examples of where you did so voters can see that you responded well and appropriately. Being an admin means your decisions will be challenged and you need to be able to review your work and see when you should argue for your decisions and when you need to admit that you made a mistake. I guess my comment is more advice than a review of your abilities so take it however you'd like. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the complaint you brought to ANI would be a good example of you listening to critical feedback about your stance on an article and changing your position so it is more in line with policy as understood by other editors. You may feel like the situation doesn't paint you in the best light but it actually shows that you could take the criticism and learn from it which is important for an admin candidate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Liz is right about it being a good example of behaviour - RfA is actually somewhat more forgiving than than the common instinct is, so long as candidates are open about the fault. This won't be at all difficult for someone with your content record, but if noting it as an example at any point, make sure to also cover off the BLP aspect, not just the behaviour/accusation aspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And I agree with Nosebagbear. It's most important that you show you learn from mistakes not try to pretend that you never make any mistakes.

I think it's also important for candidates to remember that people can oppose for the most minor or idiosyncratic reasons. I've seen editors cast an Oppose vote just because there had been 0 opposes and they didn't want to see 100% approval for a candidate and that had nothing to do with the candidate's competency. Or an editor can oppose because they don't like your username or your signature. So, if you go forward, prepare yourself for the fact that you no matter how sterling your editing record, it's unlikely that you can please all of the voters. That's just how RfAs go. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The ANI thread in question shows you listening to feedback and accepting you were wrong. I'd use that as your stock answer to Q3; as Liz says, you can't please everybody at RfA, but it doesn't really matter if 20 people oppose you at RfA provided that 100 people support you. A pass is a pass is a pass. Ask Moneytrees. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Aaryan2704 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA) I would like to be administrator

• ...rating and optional brief comment... there are very less chances of becoming one i guess

Natureisablessing (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)

I request other experienced editors to share their opinions whether I should be made an admin or not.

I am a Wikipedian since 2021 and since them I am active her. Though in the start being a newbie I made some faults but overtime I have learned the policies and rules of Wikipedia. I make only constructive edits and I can easily distinguish constructive and non-constructive, disruptive edits. I like to edit articles, add new information, and fix typos, grammar and spellings. I am open to making myself more constructive and learning from my previous mistakes and try my best to take care of Wikipedia's rules and decorum i.e. be sure that the readers do not face any problem. I constantly try to make sure that articles are not misleading in any way or spread misinformation. Also I believe that articles' sanity should be maintained by which I mean that they are clear and not hard to understand.

Suggestions for improvement are more than welcome. Looking forward to an honest reviews and If anyone feels that I can improvise and should apply after improvising, their comments and views are welcome. Thank You

-Natureisablessing (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• 0/10: You do not meet what I would be looking for. You don't even have a year on Wikipedia. You have no DYKs or GAs. A cursory review of your edits show you mostly add unsourced information. The article you seem to focus your time on, Ziddi Dil Maane Na, is in severe need of correction. It is written as a fan would want to read it; it is not written comprehensively and for a general audience. You seldom use edit summaries and you admin score, which should be over a thousand, is only about 400. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• 0/10 per Chris Troutman. Thank you for your interest, but you do not meet the minimum standards of almost any regular participant at RfA and a request for the tools would be WP:SNOW closed. FWIW you may read what I look for here. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Curbon7 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

Hi! I’ve been editing since 2019, becoming very active in 2020; this edit should be my 36,000th. Due to my work at AfC and NPP and Recent Changes Patrolling, I’ve gotten a solid grasp of both content and conduct policies; I’m a frequent visitor to AIV and RfPP, and occasionally SPI. Regarding conduct, I’m also one of the ANI clerks; while this task is primarily remedial (i.e. closing the settled stuff), I’ve also closed contentious reports where no admin action was needed. In this, I think I’ve got a pretty good record in dispute resolution, and I have a thorough knowledge of both written policies and the unwritten things you learn as you go (such as the complexity of when is the best time to close a report).

As far as content goes besides AfC and NPP, I have 2 GAs under my belt, Nikki Fried and Marjorie Taylor Greene. I am exceptionally proud of both GAs, and I think they do a good job of demonstrating my skill as an editor, both explicitly and implicitly. I've also got experience at AfD as a nominator, participant, and closer. My primary field of content is 19th-century American politics, but as the GAs demonstrate, I foray into modern bios as well. My editing patterns were largely disrupted this past month; most of my time was spent taking care of around 15 articles relating to the Ukraine invasion (mainly clean-up and copyediting, but also content addition); however, I’m starting to get back into my usual groove. An admin recently suggested I look into mopping, and so I've decided to put myself into consideration.

n.b. I was automatically blocked in January 2021 because my account had been compromised (although I'm skeptical if it actually was), but thanks to a WMF employee, I was able to get a password reset and now use a very strong password.

I look forward to your honest assessment Curbon7 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hello friend. I'll let others do a more detailed review, but I do want to give one tip. I don't think the community will like this idea of an "ANI clerk". Non-admins posting a lot to ANI is generally not seen as a positive thing. So you may want to avoid highlighting this on your userpage, in your answers to RFA questions, etc. Hope that helps. The other stats I glanced at (edit count 30000, AFD stats 85%, 2 good articles) look good. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I agree with the above, as admins are asked to comment and take action on ANI and that might show some admin-relevant skills that you already have. If ANI is mentioned, I would highlight some specific discussions where you tried to apply policy and a neutral assessment. You have also mentioned other pre-admin tasks you are involved with, so mentioning the ANI clerking might not be necessary. If you determine that ANI would be a negative to your RfA, don't include it. Also, to address the Jan. 2021 block, I would recommend committing to WP:2FA when you become an admin, or perhaps applying for 2FA now. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I agree, ANI clerking is not a thing. I do not like seeing non-admin closures and you would do well to stop that activity. A very cursory examination of your contributions show that you meet my criteria. Your AfD history looks good. Your CSD log looks good. Getting MTG to GA is certainly an accomplishment considering the political vitriol and ongoing reporting because she's still an active politician. I have some questions: Please explain why you wrote William J. Meade and how the subject is notable. Records show you created Alexander Mamasidikov but the entry was G5'd; please explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like Curbon moved User:Vertinagin/sandbox to Draft:Reza Abbaszadeh (1) and Vertinagin then moved their user sandbox there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• There's something slightly odd about the Marjorie Taylor Greene GA1. According to the article stats, Curbon7 is only responsible for 6.2% of the page's authorship and 4.1% of its prose. Curiously, the editor who reviewed it is responsible by far for doing most of the work. Even Starshippaint, who was critical throughout the process, has added more. You made ~20 edits to the article during the review process; you might find some editors questioning the extent your contributions reflect its current status. One reason admins are expected to have demonstratable content creation is to show they understand core content policies, such as WP:V, and particularly ones with legal implications, such as WP:BLP. There is a lengthy discussion on that page between TheTechnician and StarshipPaint on the nature of a number of sources used and whether they meet RS. Unfortunately, you were not part of that discussion, so it is impossible to gauge your understanding of BLPSOURCES (except in we are forced to assume that you approve of it). In fact, your participation in that review is rather lightweight; for such a lengthy and important article, you only make ten comments, and the majority of those are insubstantial (thanks and the like).
  I also wonder whether the Meade article demonstrates the subject's notability; per WP:JUDGE, associate justices might not cut it. Again, editors might query your understanding of the notability guidelines; they also question whether a BLP should be based on only two sources: one a primary source, the other a wiki. You should certainly expect queries as to how the sourcing in this article allows it to pass BLPSOURCES and BASIC.
  As noted above, ANI clerking is not a thing, and indeed, has been pretty comprehensively rejected; if anything—to paraphrase Iridescent from that discussion—self-appointed busybodies are unlikely to find such activities conducive to a seamless RfA. And although you've been advised not to mention it, it#s probably too late for that, and you will almost certainly face questions regarding it.
  Having said all that, not quite does not mean never; I didn't see any GA-related issues with Nikki Fried—although I only looked at the stats page—and some of your other stats are reasonable. Best of luck with your future endeavors. SN54129 17:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: Not much answer for the reviewer half of Greene's GA—but I will say that from looking through Curbon7's contributions to that page to get it to GA, it didn't need major content addition or repair; it needed cruft-trimming and a slew of more minor repairs, which is major work in its own right that doesn't always show up clearly on the authorship pie chart. A page like Marjorie Taylor Greene, it's like jazz—it's the RS-backed up facts you don't use :) at least, that's my take on it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think, and no disrespect due or intended, Theleekycauldron, you've missed the point. No-one's doubting that "they didn't do much work because it didn't need much work" might wash; what would almost certainly get raised at RfA is, why be "exceptionally proud of" something that many might argue they weren't entitled to in the first place. As you know, questions of judgment are far more damaging at RfA than technics such as # of GAs/# of edits/ number of years' tenure, etc. which can easily be batted away by a good nomination. Just a hint of poor judgement, and *kaboom* it's, say goodnight to the folks, Gracie. Cheers, SN54129 19:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  i think that's a fair point, SN54129—more rock-solid GA credits there have been, and there's an optics problem in hyping shakier ones. On the plus side, we've probably got somewhere around six months until this particular RfA—so there's an opportunity in there for this candidate to bullet-proof their content record a bit more. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Candidate comment Answering the direct questions that were asked; regarding 2FA, I was just granted the global permission on meta and so I'll be setting up 2FA today. Regarding, William J. Meade, that was an AfC task; it had been sitting in draftspace for a while in very poor condition, so I fixed it up as best I could and moved it to main. Regarding it's notability, while it certainly fails WP:GNG, I'd personally think that it is a WP:NPOL pass as a statewide official; however, I can see where this would be a gray area as NPOL doesn't specify where the threshold for inclusion is as far as office-rank goes (i.e. is a state appeals court judge awarded the same inherent notability as a state supreme court judge), and I'd be open to nominating it at AfD to get community insight. I'd argue that both sources are ok; per WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY, the government source is only supporting statements of direct fact (in this case, offices held and the corresponding years), while discussion found WP:Ballotpedia is not a wiki and is on level 2 (no consensus). This article would pass the thresholds established in WP:BLP. To assuage potential concerns about my content creation, I will focus within these coming months on creating quality articles that demonstrate my understanding of content policy.

As far as the ANI thing goes, I genuinely meant it in good-faith. With my line of editing occasionally leading me to take cases to ANI (for example, the occasional LTA or disruption that can't be solved at AIV), I came to notice on multiple occasions that genuine reports, sometimes urgent ones, would go unanswered and would either be auto-archived without response or the delay would cause the issue pertained in the report to become even worse; one of my own valid reports was auto-archived without response. By closing settled cases, this would allow administrator eyes to focus on the unsettled ones by negating the WP:WALLOFTEXT issue. I didn't realize this would be received so poorly here, but now I can definitely understand how some might interpret this as being a busybody; I assure you that was not my intent, and that I only meant to improve the situation there. I can take a hint, so I will drop this task effective immediately. Thank you for your honesty. Curbon7 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Seein as I was mentioned somewhere up above, I'll briefly comment that if you think there's such a thing as "inherent notability", you've squarely misunderstood how Wikipedia works; it's a fundamental principle that notability in Wikipedia terms is entirely a function of coverage in reliable sources. There are some topics (towns, Oscar winners, elected members of national legislatures…) where we have "it's always reasonable to assume that the sources will exist" guidelines in place to avoid time being wasted deleting pages unnecessarily, but there's no such thing as automatic notability; in the hypothetical situation that someone couldn't demonstrate non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, it would be entirely within policy to delete Solar panel or Belgium; likewise, if a couple of books were published by reputable publishers that each included a chapter or so on my left big toe, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned Iridescent's left big toe is as 'notable' as Franco-Prussian War. ‑ Iridescent 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:ACADEMIC does not require non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and is an alternative to the GNG. 15 (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, SNGs such as WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NFILM are supplements to, not replacements of, the GNG, although for academia I think citations would suffice as coverage. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an opportunity to assess the potential candidate for RfA, not argue interpretations of notability guidelines. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I was explaining, not interpreting. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Echoing Kudpung for their views, in the spirit of getting back on track. SN54129 10:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I won't vote if you run now as I have given you advice on your potential, but I will say that if you succeed or not is likely to be based on your responses. Issues like your interest in so-called "ANI clerking" might be very positive (a very active editor with experience wanting to help clear backlogs) or very negative (someone trying to act as a pseudo-admin for authority purposes) depending on the wording of your responses (especially to the obligatory questions) and the strength of your other contributions (e.g. doubts above about your GA work do not bode well, for example). In any case, you'd be best off by giving more weight and talking more about AFC and NPP work, for example, than any drama cleaning. If you decide not to run or do so unsuccessfully and wish to help wiki deal w drama as a non-admin, I'd suggest volunteering at DRN. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Right now, 0/10. It would be an acrimonious, drama-filled RfA that might just land in the crats' discretionary range and they're unlikely to promote when there are valid concerns. You'll get a slew of opposes because you used the phrase "ANI clerk"; ANI is the second most edited page on the site and the last thing it needs is people fiddling at the edges or getting involved in issues they don't understand. You will also need a pretty convincing answer to Serial's question about your level of input to your GAs, and you'll need to demonstrate that you understand the notability guidelines, especially the interactions of SNGs with the GNG and and why that's a point of contention within the community. My advice would be to wait at least six months, maybe a year, and spend a lot of that time in the mainspace. AfD is good for seeing how notability is decided, FAC or GA reviewing is good for seeing what quality content looks like, recent changes or new page patrolling can provide valuable experience, and maybe participate in some RfAs to see what the community's expectations are and what sort of candidates do well and which do less well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• I was pinged but I can't see where I have commented (I'm supposed to be semi-retired). But anyway, HJ Mitchell wraps it up very nicely, while Chris troutman and Iridescent also concur with most commenters here. You would probably pass my criteria, your heart's in the right place and you appear to have most of the right qualities for adminship, but you've rather shot yourself in the foot with the ANI clerking thing. Some RfA voters might consider you, rightly or wrongly, to be a 'governance obsessive'. It's become a bit of a tradition for the peanut gallery to rule the roost at ANI and that's why most admins except for a few diehards, don't bother going near the place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• I wouldn't be discouraged by the comments above here. There's some great advice, and some less great advice, but even that serves as evidence of what people are likely to hone in on during your RfA. You've been provided some great information and I think (similarly to AC Santacruz) that responding in the right way to questions will lead to a successful RfA. ––FormalDude talk 23:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• First of all, thanks to all who participated; I really appreciate your honest feedback, and it will be taken to heart. It’ll be a while before I decide whether or not to make another foray, but this extra time will allow me to hone my skills and improve my portfolio. I’ve already started writing some new content, and I’ll be sure to increase my participation in AfDs and other areas to demonstrate my understanding of policies. Thanks for your encouragement. Curbon7 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• I suggested Curbon7 put themselves forward here, and likewise appreciate everyone's bluntness and candor. Excellent suggestions were made and "an acrimonious, drama-filled RfA" avoided at this time. Before they came here, I cautioned Curbon7 this process might be painful, but that commenters here hit the center of the dart board regularly. I thank all who participated for giving feedback which will surely improve the candidate's chances when they run. BusterD (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Z1720 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs)

I have been actively editing since 2020, focusing on Canadian biographies in the 19th century. I have nominated two featured articles: William Lyon Mackenzie (a Level 5 vital article) and Types Riot (in which I received the four award), and five good articles. At WP:URFA/2020 I review articles, co-write the URFA/2020 reports, and nominate articles for WP:TFA if they are deemed "Satisfactory". I also nominate and give feedback at FAR. I am particularly proud of my work at Chinua Achebe's FAR (where I learned a lot about an important African literary writer) and War of the Fifth Coalition (a collaborative effort by many outstanding editors). I also sporadically monitor edit requests for editors with COIs and I prepare preps for DYK.

My focus as an admin would be at DYK to promote preps to queues. There's a backlog and I think having more available admins will help ease the workload. (There are lots of other preppers who should also consider adminship, and I encourage RfA nominators to venture in there and encourage others to consider the mop.) I am also willing to help with WP:COIN if there's a backlog, though I would tread carefully as I have less experience in that realm. Lastly, I would also be willing to monitor WP:ERRORS for DYK and TFA concerns.

I read in the archives that some editors believe that ORCP can be detrimental to their RfA. However, I value feedback and if I became an admin I would want to know what actions I could work on improving. I've made plenty of mistakes, some of them recently, and I'm happy to unpack those experiences and discover what I can do differently next time. My biggest goal with this ORCP is to determine if adminship is something I should pursue in the short term (within the next six months) or if editors think I should continue improving my wiki-interactions and explore other areas to contribute. Thanks for your time and feedback. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• 13k edits, no blocks, and a solid content creator. I haven't done a super detailed check, but I think you would do well at RFA. I think content creators usually do well. What's not to like about people that write content? :) Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• 7.5/10 Almost too good to be true; good edits since 2007. We'll agree your content contributions are superb although I am quite disappointed to see the reviews which led to your four award. The system, made up of folks who refuse to check sources, failed you. You've done very little countervandalism but you've submitted a handful of notices to AIV. You've had very low activity levels until a couple years ago so I would have an explanation ready for that. I see no evidence of drama board activity; almost exemplary edit summary usage; 101 !votes at XfD with 86% is enough for me. My bigger question is why exactly you need tools. BlueMoonest has been running the DYK show for years and has never been an admin. How does "teh bit" apply to DYK? Do you only need page mover? I don't take the philosophy that you need to present a reason but I don't understand the reason you presented. That said, you seem to have always had a good temperament with a readiness to apologize for perceived sleights. With all your content work I see no reason the aggregate would refuse you. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Chris troutman: admins are required at DYK to move prep sets to queues (since admins need to sign off on anything that hits the main page) – I've seen Z1720's work at DYK, and I'm reasonably confident in their ability to undertake that task given their levelheaded judgement. We always need admins here at DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • For more context – non-admin prep builders at DYK close nominations and put hooks in the preparation areas, and then the admins will promote them to queues. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd support at rfa and would be willing to be a co-nominator, although you might find it better to get a "bigger name" editor for a nominator. Hog Farm _Talk 20:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• There's enough rationale for needing the tools. What Z1720 is interested in is exactly the areas where I am active and more helping hands would definitely be appreciated, especially Errors where timely responses are important. Schwede66 21:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• 8/10. Excellent candidate. The content creation will do you wonders. Chris troutman sums this up pretty well. However, what seals the deal for me is if you can show us that you can hold your own in all the major areas of the site. Some countervandalism, new page patrol/AFC, requested moves, and content creation in the next 3-5 months will be enough to show the aggregate that you know what you're doing. If you can do all these things well and within a recent time frame, I am sure !voters will trust your judgement. But hey, that's just my advice. I am sure you already have a good chance of passing. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• 8/10. Good record, a lot of content creation, no apparent problems. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• 8/10. Concurring with all the others here and based on my experience here and at 100s of RfA, I would say that barring a voter coming up with a long forgotten skeleton in your cupboard (it does happen) you have no reason to not give it a try. I would support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Kj cheetham (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

I'm considering potentially going for RfA next year, but am still a bit uncertain about how likely I'd be to succeed. I'm very active with WP:NPP (though I wouldn't be surprised if I get accused of drive-by tagging at times), WP:AFD, and WP:RMTR, but my concern is I'm not very good with content creation. I hope to create more short articles on notable women in the coming months, but doubt I'll get any to WP:GOOD or WP:FA status. I might be able to look at bringing an existing article up to Good though. I'm not really interested in blocking users (except perhaps significant vandals if I stumble across them, or helping at WP:UAA) or resolving issues at WP:ANI or other WP:DRAMA, but would find the toolkit useful for closing AfDs which end in "delete", perhaps the WP:CSD backlog, and adjusting page protections to aid moves. I'm sure I'd drift into other areas in time though. I've had a Wikipedia account for over 10 years, but only really been active in the last few, and I'd hope during that time I've become more familar with the various policies. I'm sure I've made many errors already, but hopefully nothing too serious! I'd also stay away from admin actions on sports articles, as not really my area of expertise.

• @Kj cheetham: I've seen you around at WP:RM/TR a fair bit, and your work there seems great in terms of assessing which are the obvious uncontroversial cases and giving well-thought-out queries for those that aren't obvious. I assume your work elsewhere is good too, and you have the necessary experience and lack of red flags to make it. However, I would urge you to follow through with your own suggestion above of working on an article (preferably one that's in a not too good state already) and getting it up to GA status. Solid content experience is something that is important to me, on the grounds that generating content is the core purpose of Wikipedia and we want our admins to understand life on the coal-face, even if it's not their main gig. Personally I usually consider having at least one GA as the minimum benchmark for support, and I think quite a few others do too. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • PS - if you do go for a GA, feel free to hit me up for advice. The best suggestion initially would be to find a topic that's already got a GA, and then identify something or someone that's similar to that, whose article is just a stub or start-class, then model the second article on the first. For example, you could look at Duncraig Castle (a GA which I wrote!) and then pick any of the others at Category:Scotland castle stubs to bring up to the same sort of standard. My "easy" choice is to go for association football matches, e.g. 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final. There are lots of tournament final articles like that (e.g. 2012 Africa Cup of Nations Final) which are in a pretty basic state now, and can be written relatively easily, almost exclusively with online sources. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Amakuru Thank you for your comments and guidance! I admit I personally have more interest in Scottish castles than association football matches, but will be sure to bear both in mind. I'm going to have to do some reading in either case. I struggled to expand my recently created biographical articles as although they met WP:NPROF, didn't have much non-primary coverage. Getting into more content writing is going to be a fun project for me over winter I think! -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• You have most of the ingredients I consider necessary to passing an RfA: tenure, edit-count, prolific contributions to NPP, good CSD and AfD records. On the last point, I would caution against artificially increasing your AfD match rate. Since your match rate is very high, I looked through some of your recent !votes and noticed what I would describe as borderline drive-by participations (e.g. here, here, and here). In general you tend to !vote late in the AfD process. I'd recommend that you !vote early and build well-argued, policy based rationales even if they cut across the grain of the discussion. I'd say that this is more important than the match percentage. When it comes to content, I would have a hard time supporting without GA or FA evidence. All in all, you're already a good candidate, but you'd do well to improve in the areas outlined here. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Modussiccandi Thank you for the comments. That's very good advice regarding AfD and something I need to bear in mind going forwards. I think I need to aim for a few GAs rather than a single one to be on the safe side too, which is hopefully realistic within the next 6 months or so. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Same thoughts as above. If you need help with prose/images on articles you plan on taking to GA feel free to ping me and I'll lend a hand :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  I concur with the others. You seem to be almost there in regards to my criteria, but I suggest you read User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content and get one or two GAs before applying. Feel free to ping me if you need some copy editing on your potential GAs! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ixtal, CollectiveSolidarity, thank you for the comments and offers of support - am sure I'll be in touch in the future! -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Concur with both the content encouragers and Modussiccandi. If you are noting AfD as a specific field of interest, then drive-by AfDs will be significantly frowned upon (and a 98.5% match rate will generally have people go looking). Whereas, both early !votes that are successful, but also/even well-reasoned !votes where you "lose" (don't match the outcome) will be of far more use. Especially for convincing the AfD regulars. In line with that, I've not spotted an issue with communication in the 10 I checked, although not a huge amount of communication of any form in AfD - however your communication on your talk page is fine, so no real worries there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Nosebagbear Thank you for the comments! I'm thankful only two main areas I need to work on are emerging from all these comments, neither of which are completely surprisingly to me, but it's good to make me more conscious of them. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• 8/10 @Kj cheetham: I've seen (and checked!) your work over at NPP and it's been great. I just assumed you were an admin since your patrols were good, your behavior has always been chill, and you work hard to keep this place going. You patroled over 500 articles last month AND still did other things. When I look at canidates I look to see if they're consistent and you are. Unless you start kicking kittens you would have my vote today. I think the only things I would look at is the AfD, you're a little too good (I know it's dumb) either you know this material like the back of your hand or you come in later after it's clear which way it's going to go. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Dr_vulpes Thank you for your comments! To be fair last month was the NPP backlog drive and so I worked extra hard to get above 500 to get the barnstar. :) (As an aside, congratulations for topping that leaderboard!) My personal target was 2000 a year though, which I seem to be doing ok with. What I didn't do this time was re-reviews, which I aim to do next time. I did them the time before at least. Can't believe I've now edited 733 AfD pages (I'd have guessed maybe half that!), though a chunk of those would have been just a comment without a !vote or closing them as keep. I am definitely biased by existing !votes, though I don't give them equal weighting in my mind and wouldn't !vote against what I thought was right. I will be trying to make more of an effort to !vote earlier though. (No promises about WP:KITTENS.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

GeoffreyT2000 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

While I have no GAs, I do have a few video game article creations (Nova-111, Poncho (video game), and The Town of Light) that at least show the evidence of being able to create articles with sources. Also, my CSD logs (going back to 2016) are mostly good, and I often close RMs, complete requests at WP:RM/TR, and monitor the oldest monthly subcategory (or -ies) (currently January 2010) of CAT:NN. My plan after becoming an administrator would be to close AfDs and delete expired prods for pages in monthly subcategories of CAT:NN (and delete the monthly subcategories when they finally become empty). Any comments are welcome.

• Not going to give a score yet, but in order to pass RfA when asking for the tools to close AfDs, your stats need to be better, with less than 75% matching consensus and (more importantly, in my view) a bunch of nominations started that closed as "keep". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not giving a number, yet, either. Could you explain why some 44% of articles you created have been deleted? I'm doubly confused because it seems one was a redirect Gallene Sciences Private Limited you created that got deleted after the target of the redirect was deleted by your nomination. From what I see so far your AfD stats are acceptable to me. You did a poor job of making an argument here though I get your point. You got robbed here as no one made a policy-based argument against and your rationale was fine. Fact is, Wikipedia is just a fan-service device, not a real encyclopedia. Your edit summary usage is commendable. I need answers to questions, please. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• I would find it highly unlikely for an editor to pass an RFA with only a 73% match rate in AfDs if they mention closing AfDs as delete as a desired area of activity. This doubt is strengthened by your ratio of keep to delete votes being only 3-100. With an overwhelming proportion of your content creation being lists and 44% of creations having been deleted, I feel that most voters would consider you too weak content-wise and too inaccurate AfD voting-wise to support. I would encourage you to take a number of your lists to FL, write a GA or two, and wait a year or so. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• There must be a reason why nobody is venturing to give a rating. Ratings are (supposed to be) based on how we think the community will vote, but I will have jto oin with Ritchie333 and the others. This has been one of the most difficult polls to asses ever since ORCP was first started. You are obviously not a hat collector and you have a reasonable tenure and edit count but those are just veneer which of course drive-by 'support' voters will go for. Expect some opposition though and address also the points made by Chris troutman but without making it look as if you are working towards adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Natg 19 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)

Curious about my chances. I am a longtime user who started actively contributing in 2013 or 2014. Have done some "admin-type" work at AfD and RM, but not done much in terms of content creation. I tend to focus on fixing disambiguation links, so that does become a majority of my edits. Natg 19 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• 4/10 You meet expectations for edit count, longevity, and activity levels but that's where it stops. You've quite a lot of semi-automated editing. Your efforts at Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on combat sports are good but couldn't you take that to GA? Your work on Davis and White is ok but I'm deeply concerned why you repeatedly removed a PROD from the article. In the last couple months you added unsourced information twice. Though you were given credit, this DYK isn't really yours. Looking through your contributions I just am not inspired to trust you with tools. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving comments and concerns. Joining this informal poll was just a curiosity of mine. I do admit that I would need to do more work with other admin-type tasks and more content work before getting the mop. I have not focused much on content creation, so I have not worked on bringing articles up to GA or FA standards, or with the DYK project. I do regret the repeated removal of the PROD, as it does fall close to edit warring. I was attempting to split out content from individual figure skaters into "paired" articles and had some conflicts with a user who was strongly against it. Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually don't see any issue with your edits at Davis and White and I don't expect it would be used against you at RfA. You initially removed a PROD (which you are obviously well within your rights to do) and when it was immediately re-added, it looks like you assumed good faith and tried to explain the PROD system to the editor, not knowing that they would disruptively re-add it two more times (for which they were formally warned by an administrator). I think you were entirely reasonable there. DanCherek (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• I see two main issues:

1. What do you need the tools for?
2. Content creation

Regarding the former, I personally don't agree with the focus on that issue. Quite often, sysops work in different areas than what they predicted. However, it is something that the !voters want to hear about. Your AfD stats aren't that crash hot, to be honest. And the page mover right could help with your work in the RM area; no adminship required for that. I suggest you think about an area that does require the tools and hang out there for at least half a year and make yourself useful. DYK always needs more admins, for example, and there's heaps where non-admins can help.

Regarding the latter, this is something that the community is very hot on. Definitely get a GA or two under your belt. Maybe go back to BLPs that you've created and de-stub them (e.g. Oliver Daemen); I'm suggesting BLPs because they are much more critical to get right than non-bios.

Your activity levels look great. There isn't much work required to get you ready; you just have to be deliberate. Schwede66 04:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I may work on some technical areas and work on boosting up my content creation skills. Natg 19 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• 6/10. I see quite a few warnings and speedy deletion nominations on your talk page. Although no one is perfect (I've made plenty mistakes in just a few months tenure), I'd like to see an admin candidate warning-free for at least three months before the bid. I don't care too much why the candidate needs the tools, but experience in at least two major areas of the site is the make it or break it for me. If you need any help making some GAs to polish your content record, please do ask me. I can help with peer-reviewing and copyediting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. For the speedy deletion nominations, this occurs primarily because I work with disambiguation, and one of the tools that I use seems to automatically create pages titled "xxxx (disambiguation)". And then if a dab page gets converted back into a redirect or other things occur, the pages do need to get deleted. I don't recall a regular content page that I've created that has gotten speedy deleted. Natg 19 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Anyway, there seems to be quite an amazing potential nominator knocking at your talk page right now, so my best advice is that you hear him out. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• 4/10 . I think Chris troutman has said it best so there's no need for me to elaborate on your chances except to say that if you had made a live run at RfA because you were 'curious about your chances', you would have probably been withdrawing by day 3. Fortunately you had the wisdom to come here first but OTOH if you had read the instructions and read all the advice pages, your self-evaluation would have told you all you need to know for now. Do come back here again for another check when you feel you have met all the conditions for adminship - this is a good place to start. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

The idea of running for adminship was first suggested to me by an editor in March this year. I am not sure how it'll go, but here I am, humbly requesting the community to assess my chances on a potential RfA.

So I joined Wikipedia over two years ago, and have been an active contributor since the last 18 months. I have primarily worked in three areas of the site: (1) Content creation and reviews (nominating and reviewing articles at FAC, FLC, and GAN) (2) DYK (mostly building prep sets for the main page) (3) Patrolling (which includes, though less, but some experience with WP:NPP and WP:AFC. I have created and worked on a few articles: 4 featured articles, 15 featured lists, and 15 GAs. These include "Daisy", Margaret Abbott, Richard Dawkins Award, Lunch atop a Skyscraper, etc, but mostly politics.

My main purpose to request adminship is to continue my work at DYK from building preps to promoting prep sets to queues (which only admins can do). I have been nominating and reviewing hooks, and building preps at DYK from about a year. I have promoted about 400 nominations, and nominated over 25 articles. Apart from DYK, my other "admin related" work has been patrolling recently created articles and pending submission for Articles for creation. Have also tagged these articles with CSD templates. So CSD could be another area where I can contribute a bit (only if required), but DYK would be my main focus.

Self analyzing a bit, I think I need more participation at AfD. But honestly, that is not the area I see myself becoming active in future. I'm also not sure if edit count is a big deal, as the number of my edits is not too high. As any other user, I have made many mistakes throughout my editing career, but I try to learn. All feedback is more than welcome! Thanks!

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Ixtal, it's finally happening! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice :) I won't comment due to being biased in favor of the editor, however. Hope you get good feedback. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• 7/10. I've seen you around. You appear to be good to go aside for some light AfD participation. I suggest that you participate in at least 50 more AfDs with good rationales to demonstrate experience with notability. But I think you already have a good chance right now. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Great to see you dipping your toes in. I reckon you are ready and would pass the way things stand. I suggest you look for nominators; having strong nominators is much preferable than a self-nomination. DYK by itself is a good enough rationale asking for the tools; everything else is a bonus. Schwede66 22:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• 7/10 Pretty much per CollectiveSolidarity. I think you could pass RfA now, but be prepared for some "Oppose - No edits to AIV / UAA / RFPP" and some subsequent badgering thereof, and some cross-examination of policy in the questions, pretty much per the recent successful self-nom of DatGuy. The more experience you gain, the less hassle RfA will be - it's really a question of how much the tools would help right now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• I've seen you around, I like your work that I've seen, I think you could pass today if you highlighted your experience at DYK. I see you've accumulated a lot of prep-building experience, and I do not recall any controversy over decisions you've made: so you have a clear-cut need for the tools, and the demonstrated ability to use them in that area. I would recommend against dabbling in AfD purely to bolster RFA chances; if it interests you, work there by all means, but !voters can be quite sensitive to stat-padding, even if that's not your intention. Per the others, I would expect some opposition based on lack of participation in the most common areas of admin activity, but I do not think that would be enough to sink you, and I'd similarly advise against dabbling. I note that a handful of your early creations were deleted; I see in those deletion discussions that you are forthright about your evolving understanding of WP:N, which is all to the good, but I'd be prepared to discuss it at RFA. Amulya Reddy reads to me as somewhat promotional: I would recommend revisiting that, and other early work, and I'm interested to see how you fix it up. Nobody reasonable expects early work to be perfect, but if it's not up to the mark when you run, it will bring you opposition. Pending a deep-dive into your contributions, I'd potentially be willing to nominate, given that you've worked in areas I'm familiar with, so if you're looking for nominators, feel free to drop me a note. I do not give numerical ratings here, so please do not read anything into the absence thereof. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• 7/10 for the same reasons as Ritchie333 and bearing in mind that this from me is not a personal estimate, but based on years of following how users vote at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I do not feel qualified to yet comment on whether you'd pass. However you are incredibly helpful at GA review, you've created multiple featured articles, an outstanding endeavour. So you demonstrate outstanding communication skills and the ability to judge article content. Meaning that if the tools help you out in some way, it can only be a net positive for the project and so if you do not pass...that would just be illogical. Even if you are primarily interested in DYK - I think it can add good value to Wikipedia. Also, while you may not be an AFD regular like me, so what? I have not created the level of content you have nor done 100 patrols - so clearly you have the skills to assess an articles quality and hence can evaluate CSD tags or close AFD's where there is a clear case for delete and grow as an admin as you see fit. Just my two cents, if they mean anything! MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• 4/10. I've been concerned about a number of your FAC reviews, am not sure you have a solid grasp of the importance of source-to-text integrity, and have sometimes wondered if Wikifriendships affect your reviews. When an editor presents at RFA based on being a content creator, they need to excel in that area. The FAC reviews, and FAs, I've seen give rise to concerns about diligence-- which give rise to concerns about maturity. While editors who have seen you around might not find reason to oppose, they might not find reason to support either. Perhaps in a few more years ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• 8/10. I have long been a supporter of this editor because of their sturdiness and reliability at DYK and because of the relative difficulty of the content space (20th century American politics) in which they tend to create and promote. I was urging the candidate to run next to theleekycauldron but the timing wasn't right. SandyGeorgia is correct that familiarity with another user may sometimes appear to color a review experience; it has colored mine occasionally and not always helpfully. In order to pass on the first attempt, it might be wise to take some time and soak in all this critique above. I disagree somewhat about the virtue of dabbling, but Vanamonde93 makes worthy allusion to the risks and dubious rewards involved in trying to fill out somebody else's arbitrary RFA checklist. Kavyansh.Singh seems a fine wikipedian and we'd be fortunate to have such a candidate. BusterD (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

ComplexRational (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · previous RfAs)

I've been around for a couple of years, and in light of some of the recent discussion at WT:RFA, am curious about my chances were I to run about 3–4 months from now. In terms of content creation, I've contributed to one FA (Island of stability) and several other GAs and DYKs, the latter spanning several different topic areas. Additionally, I've done a handful of content reviews (GANs and FACs) and some copyediting. Most of my behind-the-scenes work is in recent changes patrol and new page patrol/CSD, with occasional activity in other venues. Were I to be an admin, I'd focus primarily on the same workflow with WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, and WP:REVDEL. While my activity oscillates depending on RL commitments (hence my relatively low counts for much of the period between early 2021 and mid-2022), I try to maintain a minimum level of activity, respond promptly to pings, and finish reviews that I started. In any case, I'm certain that I still have room for growth as an editor, and am always open to feedback and discussion. Thanks in advance for your time and comments. ^Complex/_Rational 21:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• You appear to have a strong background in the areas you wish to work, and a decent amount of content experience. I like the amount of red in your CSD log. I don't think the edit-count fluctuation is an issue, it never drops to concerning levels. There are a few other adminny areas you've dabbled in but don't have a ton of experience; this is all to the good, so long as you make it clear where you'll work immediately, where you'll take it slow, and what venues you'll stay away from. After a cursory examination I haven't found any large conflicts in your history; assuming these don't exist, and you don't have skeletons in your closet, I see no reason not to go for it. I recommend searching for some experienced folks as nominators, if you don't have them already. I do not leave numerical ratings, please don't read anything into the absence of one. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  A quick follow-up: you mention revision deletion. Does this refer to copyright revdel via NPP, or something else? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: Thanks for your detailed feedback. Yes, pretty much all of my experience so far with revdel is for copyvios I found during NPP. I'd take care to review the finer points before examining other types of cases. ^Complex/_Rational 01:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Makes sense, thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• 10/10; no questions asked, great editor, great experience, great content contributor, great collaborator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  But you didn't mention how often you simply roll up your sleeves and pitch in to help other editors with their FAs :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia: I'm happy to help whenever I have the time and a rudimentary understanding of the subject :) ^Complex/_Rational 01:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Your character will shine at RFA, and RFA is about trust, so don't get too hung up on what you know or don't; just answer questions honestly at RFA about what you do or don't know, and you'll be fine. You can be trusted not to use the tools you aren't familiar with, and to the best of my knowledge from working with you across several very tough FACs, you are always knowledgeable, thoughtful, kind and considerate. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

True Pagan Warrior (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

I keep seeing discussions about the falling number of administrators, and while I do not have the time to take that role on now, I anticipate that may change in the coming months. Thanks in advance for any feedback provided. (Please note that I did have an unsuccessful RfA 10-12 years ago under my prior name, otherlleft.

• 3/10 Your most edited article, List of abbreviations in oil and gas exploration and production doesn't seem to be anything other than capitalising letters. Your AfD stats have a bunch of nominations you started that closed as "keep", such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Whitney (2nd nomination) which had your nomination of "fails GNG". Then there's Franciscus van Voorst tot Voorst which you PRODded with "fails WP:ATHLETE", despite asserting he finished fourth in a major Olympic event. On your talk page, I see somebody criticising you for changing a quotation, which is against best practice in the MOS and you replied in a sarcastic manner telling them to assume good faith (despite them appearing to do so). Any of those are reason enough for opposing an RfA, combined together I think will make things very difficult. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! ~TPW 17:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Since you've not indicated in what areas you would want to work as an admit, I have just looked through some of the general areas where !voters want to see evidence of experience and clue. In addition to Ritchie's valid comments, I'd note the following: you have a fair amount of edits, but you editing pattern is not sustained enough to ward off tenure-based opposition. You do have a CSD-log, but it has only three entries. Your prod-log shows numerous blue links. It appears you haven't written any Good or Featured Articles. All of these are perennial issues at RfA, which would make it very hard for you to pass an RfA. What is more, the vagueness of your poll request makes me think you may not have read WP:RFAADVICE or the sign at the top of this page saying "[t]his page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors". Modussiccandi (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! I read WP:RFAADVICE and this page quite carefully. Neither suggested additional information that I should include in this poll to ward off your assumption. With no other current polls, I didn't have much to go on. ~TPW 18:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  For interest, a lot of past polls can be found in the archives in the upper-right of this page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's appreciated, thank you. I didn't have the sense that I should do the level of research into this poll that one should into the RFA process itself, but now I do. ~TPW 14:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Pretty much as per Ritchie333 and Modussiccandi. The guide at RFAADVICE was written very carefully and based on the research of hundreds of failed and successful RfA. RFAADVICE also contains a huge bibliography for further research, and was designed in such a way that anyone reading it would be able to do a fairly accurate self-analysis of their chances of passing at RfA without generally needing to go through this poll here, although some do. The pool of voters has mutated significantly since the guide was written but the principle and bar to success remain very much the same. Irrespective of the time since you registered, the community will be looking mostly at your performance over the last 24 months which is still too low and inconsistent. The chances of passing RfA any time soon are minimal. Maybe in a year or two. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. As I indicated, I may have more time in the future, and if that occurs I will take your feedback seriously. ~TPW 15:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

I don't have any particular intention to become an admin, but in case I do try to in future, I'm curious as to what my chances are. If I did become an admin, I'd intend to continue working at CfD. There's been a few problems with how long it takes to implement closures (not that I'm complaining about the incredibly helpful admins at WT:CFDW who have implemented my closures), and I think this might help.

I realise I have no experience with article creation, and I currently have no intention of pursuing that (though who knows what work I'll do in the future).

I've written this fairly hastily, so it may contain mistakes or omit information. Sorry! — Qwerfjkltalk 22:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl, I don't mean to sound harsh, but the first sentence on this page runs as follows: This optional polling page is for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges (RfA) in the near future and wish to receive feedback on their chances of succeeding in their request. If you have no particular intention to become an admin, you are not in the right place. I'm not meaning to give you a hard time, but you need to make a choice: if you are thinking about running for RfA in the next few months, then say so; if not, then please don't ask people to spend time doing the necessary legwork to form an opinion about your chances of running now. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, let me drastically rephrase that first sentence: I am considering running in about six months.
I honestly have no idea why I wrote that, and clearly wasn't thinking straight. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I won't give a rating, but I will echo what others have said: there are many within the community who routinely oppose editors without substantial experience in content generation; success at RfA is not impossible without that experience, but it's a lot more difficult, and it usually requires exceptional skill/experience in specific behind the scenes areas. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• sometimes I think if we should close down the ORCP, and restart Wikipedia:Editor review. Actual admin candidates never use ORCP. There was one candidate who posted at ORCP, and everyone else was "remove your entry, you actually have a chance at RfA", then why on earth we have ORCP? —usernamekiran (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think you're right about this. Look at the most recent archive - there is one poll there for an editor who went on to pass at RfA, and I see several other polls about editors who I think are well-prepared and would stand a good chance. It's true that there is a high chaff to wheat ratio, but to say that 'actual admin candidates never use OCRP' is clearly untrue. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• 0/10 You lost me at "I realise I have no experience with article creation...". If you're not going to treat us with respect, why post here? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @Chris troutman, I intend no disrespect, I just don't believe that (admin) maintenance requires creating an article/GA/FA. Clearly, I am in the minority. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  And you lost me at "I've written this fairly hastily, so it may contain mistakes or omit information." If you want to know why I think all admin candidates should have significant content experience, read this, and for homework, look at how much drama and time wasting was caused by admins without content experience pulling civility blocks on longstanding editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333, interesting reading. I'm typically very conservative in my actions i.e. I tend towards inaction over a possibly wrong action, despite WP:BEBOLD etc. (not that I don't make mistakes, either despite or because of this). In fact, yesterday, I considered not posting this section, and waiting until tomorrow (today). Perhaps that would have been better. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• I think the previous commenters have been far too BITEy, but I must agree that admitting to "hav[ing] no intention of pursuing [content creation]" will be a red flag given that your most-edited article is Deaths of United States federal judges in active service at a measly 40 edits. I strongly recommend that you get a GA to rebuff the (reasonable) critics in that department. I'd also shore up your CSD and PROD logs if you're going to be banking on closes, especially without some content to back it up. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @John M Wolfson, actually, I wouldn't count that article. I edited it while it was in draftspace to try and import the data from Wikidata, and the fact that it's my highest edit article is because it took a while to figure how to do this. My actual top article would probably be Tourism in Bolivia, from when I first joined. Whilst I said that I didn't intend to pursue article creation, I might think about doing that some time. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• There have been a few successful candidates for adminship this year and last year who had little content creation experience. However, they made up for this by either heavily participating in a niche area where tools are needed (such as WP:CCI or technical areas), or by having very strong deletion/curation-related experience. At the core of it, you have to show that you care about building a community encyclopedia, and you have to demonstrate this to hundreds of editors who may not know you. Take time to ensure you are accurate and clear instead of impulsively pressing the publish button like you did here, and create a few high-quality articles on topics you're interested in. Curbon7 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  As an addendum, do note that you should not just do something to tick a box for RfA goodie points; i.e., don't create an article just to pad an RfA run. This quickly fails the smell test and will easily convince some people that you don't care. Curbon7 (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)