Wiae (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)

It was suggested that I try ORCP. My main interest is dealing with text copyright, especially via CopyPatrol. I would use the administrative toolkit to complete copyright revision deletion requests and to work through G12s. In the spirit of disclosure, here are some things to consider about me:

• My account is over ten years old but I have only been active for about two. My earlier contributions were not good; I had a habit of littering talk pages with well-intentioned but irrelevant content, and I don't think I understood Wikipedia very well. I edited under the (terribly childish) username "wikiisawesome" before requesting a rename last year.
• I have written some small articles, but do not have any Good or Featured Articles or Did you knows.

I take feedback seriously, so please be critical in your assessment. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• 6/10 - XFD stats are fine, but there's minimal participation which is no problem at all. The automated edits are going to raise questions of Huggle usage which you've mostly used the tool. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 02:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Your copyright work is excellent, and your AfD stats are really good, although, as KGirlTrucker mentioned, you have minimal participation in those areas. I do think that your old contribs are a potential problem, but everything should be good with that. Your lack of content may come up, but I don't see it as a problem. Overall, you should do pretty well. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Yawn. Uncontroversial. feminist 03:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Looked through a bunch of talk page archives, and you look like a great candidate. Your AfC and AfD contributions are great as well! Enterprisey (talk!) 05:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - With the recent climate at RfA appearing to be more encouraging, you may wel pass. If the work you do on a certain page which you meticulously maintain is representative, then you have the dedication to thankless tasks adminship requires. Thai said, and just in passing, as there's been a flurry of activity there, you may just wish to check on those 500-edit wonders and see if they haven't simply been making insignificant edits to reach that magic threshold. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 (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)

What am I doing on this page? Well, every now and then, people have asked me if I want to be a 'crat. So this is an "Optional RfB candidate poll".

To be honest, I think there are more worthy admins to take on the bureaucrat role, but none of them seem interested. I do talk a lot at RfAs and have put several successful candidates forward, and I occasionally chat on WP:BN, dropping my 2c in. On the other hand, I've never gone anywhere near bots. I know enough Python to write one using Pywikibot if I had the time and inclination, so I might have the aptitude to vet bot owners, but I've got no experience in that area, and the bar to passing RfB is very high. And I have been known to tell the odd admin to fuck off (albeit in slightly nicer terms, but only just - and it really is only admins or very experienced editors, never newbies). What do other people think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is way too soon. You've been an admin less than two years. I believe bureaucrats and functionaries at this time should be seasoned admins. Moreover, in my view you tend to be an outlier admin, with, how shall I say, "fresh" and subjective opinions that often tend to differ from the norm, and you have also made your share of cowboy unblocks. And I have observed that you also have a feud going on with another admin (Fram). For all of those reasons, I don't think this is a great idea and I wouldn't support. I do however think you are a great and refreshing addition to the admin corps. Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

While both of your main points of criticism are true, I don't think I've done that many unblocks that have obvious opposition (or possibly I have and just not noticed), and I think getting on with Fram is worthwhile for the good of the project, and have generally attempted to cool down disputes by emphasising their positive contributions to the encyclopedia. (example) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I dunno that you'll really get the best advice here anyway. If you're lucky, only experienced editors (e.g. SoftL. above) and other admins will weigh in- those who understand the role and responsibility of the crat minutely- particularly that which is unwritten. I'd say this page has too much of a peanut gallery for the subtle examination you are looking for. Ooh-err missus!!! Good luck though! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The other options I had were a) ignore Bigpoliticsfan's message or b) decline politely, but I thought "there's no smoke without fire" and when random editors leave unsolicited "have you thought about RfB?" messages on your talk page, perhaps it does indicate some sort of opinion, so it doesn't hurt to sound it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Advice: stay human, stay admin (at most), keep your time for improving the encyclopedia. With as much respect as humanly possible to our current 'crats, there's little impact from them on Wikipedia these days, while writing Good Articles, Featured Topics etc is by far a greater, better and more lasting impact. You do not want to become an emotionless robocrat. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• 1/10 - I know that's harsh but it's not a review of you personally, I know you know that better than most and that is my excuse for being so blunt. It's just that RfA is batshit crazy right now and you were a source of some controversy on the most recent one. People will show up from that to oppose, and the bar for RfB is much higher. As far as your chances down the road, I don't think I've ever participated in an RfB so I don't really have an idea of what my considerations would be on evaluating one. Bureaucrats' main visible responsibility is evaluating consensus, especially at RfA, and I suppose a good measure of that is Snottywong's RfA Vote Counter tool, which has you at 83.3%. Is that good? I don't really know. I have to agree with Softlavender that on the gut-feeling front I seem to see you getting into the middle of controversies more often than some other admins, but again I'm not sure if that reflects a willingness to jump constructively into tough discussions (good for a 'crat) or an aptitude for questioning community norms (not good for a 'crat). I guess my answer is I don't know. I like that you're thinking about it, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oh, I think you can pass this. As far as I'm concerned, you need to things to be a crat--technical knowledge of boring stuff, and you're probably boring enough to know technical stuff (!!!! nothing but love, Ritchie !!!!), and judgment in establishing consensus--which crats do as a team anyway. I think you got judgment. I'd support. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• No chance - you're a damn fine editor, a thoroughly decent admin (touch controversial, some occasionally odd opinions) and as a result, there's not a snowball in Hell's chance you would get over the threshold and pass an RfB. The things which make you a brilliant editor and rouge-ish admin are the things which would scupper an RfB, fortunately or unfortunately. TRM probably nails it too. Nick (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You are correct, Nick: TRM does nail it. BTW, I wonder whether we need crats at this time. What's funny is that every time I see a crat chat (I admit I don't follow it religiously) I see those old-timers coming out of the woodwork, names I'd never heard before. That's great, of course, but it makes me wonder whether they have enough people to handle what needs to be handled. And does cratship have an expiration date? Drmies (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No; job for life :) just like admins. Except, of couse, Crats by their nature are even less likely to do something recall-able/arbcom-able. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless your initials are TRM...! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

We need more bureaucrats precisely because the names are people you've never heard before, Drmies. In order to assess community consensus, crats need to be at least somewhat in touch with community values and norms. That requires modern activity. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem to me that you have enough gravitas to be a bureaucrat. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ooh, I love salmon. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'm with just about everyone else: one needs to be wholly unremarkable and dull as dishwater to hurdle the absurdly high bar we've set for RfB, and you're just too remarkable. You're opinionated and you aren't afraid to get your hands dirty, and those are certainly positive traits... except at RfB. Try to remember all the people you've ticked off as an admin. Now consider that for every detractor you know about, there are probably nine more you've forgotten, and they'd all love the chance to stick it to you. Besides, I really don't think you'd fit in with the 'crats - you've made more mainspace edits this afternoon than half of them have made in the last 5 years combined. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Julian Colton that you may not be boring enough to get the very high support rate that's expected for 'cratship. No reason not to try, though; Drmies may be right. I'd support you. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC).
• You go first, and I'll learn from your mistakes. --Aardvark Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• While I agree that RfA is batshit crazy, and that RfB sets the bar higher, it's also true, that for reasons not so easy to understand, that RfB remains a more genteel realm. I'm not certain that admin activity is even necessary to RfB. Like Cwmhiraeth says, it is more a matter of dignitas and gravitas, and you have that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 - Not really predictable with the lack of recent RfBs. Worth a try if you don't mind failing. feminist 05:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• There's only 22 bureaucrats on here and I'm assuming that's because not everyone is boring enough to become one! (No disrespect to the bureaucrats), In short we like you just the way you are and RFB would probably suck the life out of you anyway!, Meh I wouldn't bother personally. –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Bureaucrats are are a kind of éminence grise though they are hardly infuential. Certainly generally self-effacing, and most of our current 'crats have been around for a very long time but with relatively low edit counts compared to those of 'working' admins. Although I cross swords with them occasionally, I have a huge respect for our 'crats but they are a bit slow when it means coming online for an RfA 'crat chat. Ritchie is too active, too young (under 50), too many edits (over 50,000), too much sense of humour (which only we Brits and my favourite klomp-wearer can understand) and not boring enough. I have this warped illusion (which I know not to be true) that compares 'crats to retired senior civil servants spending their twilight years lounging in overstuffed armchairs in St James clubs waiting for something to happen. Would make an excellent 'crat in about 10 years time though ;) But no reason not to try - I'd support. Of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10: Here's the peanut gallery (I much prefer 'cat herd' so from herein I shall refer to myself in the feline vernacular). This conversation sounds as if we are considering a Supreme Court Justice nomination. If Drmies and Bishonen and Kudpung are pledging support, I am going to stand on that side of the schoolyard team. Ritchie333, my favourite admin and winner already of the best OptionalRfB candidate poll entertainment-wise, throw your hat in the ring. Moreover, you do have trustworthiness and clue. ( I would end with a meow and a paw-pat, but we must remember a whiff of gravitas). All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• 2/10 (I was asked by Ritchie333 to comment here). Too many of your actions and commengts give the impression (rightly or wrongly) of favoritism, of taking the interests of some editors too much at heart, even as an admin. A bureaucrat should be seen as impartial and level-headed, and I don't beliefe you fit that description sufficiently (mind you, while I see myself as impartial, I don't think I have the levelheadedness or level of support needed to become a bureaucrat ever either, so this opinion is not intended as an "I'm better than you" in any way). Fram (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:AN#Block review of Mlpearc. This will inevitably come up in any RfB you would attempt in the next twelve months, and would seriously diminish your chances of being promoted. Fram (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • So Fram you think there was abosolutely nothing wrong with how Mlpearc interacted with newcomers on that and other pages such as Talk:Georgina_Downs#Description_as_an_.22environmental_activist.22, or how people to talk to newcomers in general? And it wasn't unanimous. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
      • You're right, me stating that the block of Mlpearc was (nearly) universally deemed incorrect means that I "think there was abosolutely nothing wrong with how Mlpearc interacted with newcomers on that and other pages such as Talk:Georgina_Downs#Description_as_an_.22environmental_activist.22, or how people to talk to newcomers in general?". That's exactly what I said. Pointing out that a block was overturned and that almost anyone involved agreed that it was a poor block is a support for the bad treatment newcomers get on enwiki. I also never stopped beating my wife, in case you would like to ask that as well. Fram (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Change to 0/10, I have my doubts whether they are fit to remain an admin, never mind be a bureaucrat. Too many problematic admin actions (and problems in dealing with them afterwards) in just one week time now. Fram (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Extremely unpredictable, but a support and 0-7/10, eventually resulting in a 2.8/10. J947^(c) 06:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Pvmoutside (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've been an editor since 2006, and I've been spending most of my time in Wikiproject Birds and lately some in Wikiproject Fishes. My efforts have been to keep taxonomy pages up to date, although I have done some reverting of vandalism, and other edits that are incorrect (see Goldfish for a recent update. The reason for my request is so I can have the ability to delete redirects if a species page is locked if the page needs to be moved (see a recent edit I've done on Pomarine jaeger). With that and other edits, I would request another admin for the delete and move, and all have granted my requests. By becoming an admin, I would no longer need to bother them. Any controversial changes have been always discussed prior to my changes. I have a current request to admin Casliber for 14 fish species page moves that could be done by myself, so Casliber could be involved with something else Cas could be more interested in doing. If granted adminship, I would be happy to help with other tasks such as blocking and unblocking user accounts and IP addresses from editing, editing fully protected pages, protecting and unprotecting pages from editing, and deleting and undeleting pages...........Pvmoutside (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• 9/10 - Moves and requested moves are great, and you have shown that you are ready to learn. Really, since you are applying for adminship mostly for the page moving ability, I don't see much controversy. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• 9/10 - yep, delete tool is often needed in these situations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to point out, Pvmoutside, that although the need for tools is clearly demonstrated by page moving, that bit you tagged on there- 'If granted adminship, I would be happy to help with other tasks'etc- would immediately require you to show experience and knowledge in those 'adminy' areas too. As RileyBugz says, page moving doesn't attract much controversy; but the other, more high-profile, activities most certainly do. So I wouldn't guarantee a lack of controversy if you bundle them up. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, regarding page moving doesn't attract much controversy, you might want to familiarize yourself a bit with the troubled history of the bird project, which sometimes gives the impression of doing nothing but argue about page moves. This 450-megabyte RFC-from-hell would probably be a good place to start. ‑ Iridescent 22:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh :) point. Thank goodness WP:BIRDCON isn't representative of page moving as a whole. Although I agree that contentious page moving is always a problem, creating more work than it solves. But, still, I think my point, perhaps poorly expressed, that the high profile areas where tools are used- admin boards, etc- require more experience in those areas than page moving alone can provide. That was one hell of a close, though... — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, thank god we actually did something, we agreed to use IOC taxonomy recently: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 69#Proposal. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• 8/10 - I think can trust you with the delete button mostly for page moving. But, low XFD stats give me an 8/10 but you'll succeed anyway. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 06:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• 9/10 A diligent and trustworthy contributor, no hesitation in supporting here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 I'd probably support myself, as you've said exactly what you want the tools for, you've collaborated with people successfully, appear to be civil to everyone, and I can't see any evidence you would rush off to delete the main page or indef Jimbo Wales. However, RfA being what it is, means you'll probably get a few people complaining about the lack of AfD / CSD experience, as many people think AfD is the "meat and potatoes" of adminship that everyone should know. However, I don't think it will be enough to prevent a pass. So I think you should give it a ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 as per Ritchie333, and as I said in another poll above: 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thagana peters (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)

Thagana peters (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• 0/10 - less than six months activity, mostly over the last few weeks, no evidence of needing any of the tools, or any experience in related areas. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 Failure to follow instructions. You commented out your own request! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 Per WP:NOTNOW. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood (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'm going to try this again, probably too soon, because I feel myself increasingly frustrated when I see backlogs at places like RFPP and AIV, which I feel like I could just as easily take care of. I'm less interested in rating as I am in admins I personally trust willing to nom, or alternatively, admins I trust willing to oppose. TimothyJosephWood 01:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:Primefac and User:Dlohcierekim as admins who have recently been in agreement with me, and User:Masem, User:Ritchie333, and User:SoWhy as those who haven't. TimothyJosephWood 01:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not placing a rating here. Your recent statement on your talk page ("In hindsight, it seems likely that NPP is pretty corrosive of AGF. I've been hitting it pretty hard, and this may be a good indication that I need to find some other project to work on for a while") may give pause to editors here and at the Rfa. It's perhaps better to wait for some more time before asking a review here or going to the Rfa. Thanks. Lourdes 01:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Drawing this discussion back to an evaluation of what we think the candidate's chances are rather than a poll for nominators, I would reiterate the comments by Montanabw and EdJohnston in the previous poll 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. The fact that that barely two months have elapsed since the previous poll possibly indicates an over eagerness, even impatience, to become an admin. An increasing number of voters review these polls nowadays and the risk at this stage is that this very poll may count negatively in a future RfA. Nevertheless, as I said before, an RfA could go either way and I'm not sure which way I would vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Your previous filing at WP:ORCP was in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 7#Timothyjosephwood: March 25, 2017. Do you have any contributions since then that might change the thinking of the participants in the last poll? EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I felt a bit like I botched the thing by not really understanding how ORCP was supposed to work, i.e., not really supposed to be largely a two way conversation. And overall, I think it ended up being more of an evaluation of my last 50 edits (e.g., I was currently involved in a discussion at ANI) rather than an overall evaluation, also with a lot of the supports being easily discounted as being from folks I'm well acquainted with, and not necessarily representative of the community. So I figured I'd try again, leave it open, and largely leave it alone to see if things went any deeper. Maybe the'll be no change in that regard, since a self-critical comment about AGF seems it may have turned into an "AGF problem".

As to A7 interpretation, there's currently a discussion ongoing at WT:CSD, so maybe that goes some distance toward demonstrating that it is some type of legitimate disagreement and not simply a misinterpretation.

But mostly the things that have changed, is multiple times only the last few days when I've had to sit and watch the backlog at AIV and RFPP get to the point where we needed an AN/ANI post (so much so that I've started preemptively requesting), and... those are some of the least nuanced places on the project and I could have fairly easily cleared them myself. If those were somehow unbundled I would apply for the unbundled bits (see also this discussion that went no where for reasons we could get into), but unfortunately they're not.

I don't particularly care that much about "being an admin", but I have found myself increasingly frustrated from lack of button in obvious cases where I feel that the most that was needed was any reasonable person with time, attention, and permission. TimothyJosephWood 10:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• 4/10 per my previous statement 2 months ago: '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.' My views have changed now and ~6 months from now would probably be better. But as a editor who regularly looks at NPP, AGF should definitely be upgraded, including in the templates. Definite support from me! :) J947^(c) 05:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: your opening invitation states: I'm less interested in rating as I am in admins I personally trust willing to nom, or alternatively, admins I trust willing to oppose...realising I assume that many editors besides administrators will exercise their opinions in a 'real' RfA, I am disaffected already. Therefore I regret than I cannot give you a rating as a mere member of the cat herd. Nowhere does it say that respondents in an ORCP must be administrators. I look forward to your run for the roses. All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 11:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Since you apparently requested not to be rated, I will follow but voters at RfA (who will be non-admins rather you like it or not) may take the overzealousness to grab the mop as a negative. I would hit the reset button and wait six months before attempting an RfA or coming here for a third time. Going fast isn't the best approach to this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• 'Comment: My previous comments still stand. I suggest that maybe you gather all the unbundled rights that are now available (Page mover, etc.) plus work on doing non-admin closures on things (such as some articles at AfD, which can be closed as keep by non-admins) and create a track record that shows us you can handle such matters. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure on a rating on this ORCP but in line with the recent CSD focus from my RfA and subsequent RfA's, i'd take pause at your recent tagging of many articles under the standard 10 minute "grace period". I know this was a larger deal for many people voting on my RfA so I feel like this could also impact your chances with some people. -- Dane ^talk 18:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to comment on your mention of CSD tags, anything besides A7 and A3 are things that should be speedied as soon as possible. We don't want advertising or copyvios sitting around for 10 minutes. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I unwatchlisted this and let it set for a week, and well, I've got folks suggesting I get user rights I already have, and suggesting I use grace periods that don't exist in policy on articles that were copyright violations. Thanks but no thanks. TimothyJosephWood 00:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Timothy, sorry for how this turned out. While these comments need not represent those of the whole community, you should perhaps take heed at some of the good points raised, but without taking visible offense (I meant the "thanks, but no thanks"). Hope to see you around. Cheers. Lourdes 02:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Metro man 27 (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)

Hi I've been approached a couple of times about new RfA and I've finally decided to do it and see my chances.

• Question, Metro man 27, who has approached you? No-one on your talk page, at least. No offence to you or them- but with only a couple hundred edits to the thing, you'll have a hard time demonstrating to the people your understanding of the mechanics of the place, which is fundamental. Especially with ~fifteen months active tenure. Sorry! But hey- come back next year, with some solid editing (aaaand getting that usage of edit summaries up a bit!). Incidentally, I haven't looked at any incidents you may have been involved in, and I'm not saying there are any- but I haven't looked. Others will. Ciao! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• *0/10. This is a rating of your chances of passing RfA right now, not a comment on your value as an editor. With less than 500 edits, I can't think of any "tenured" editor who would support your RfA. Give us 18 months to show us you love this place. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 There's a warning when you open this page and I can only guess you didn't read it, or any of the other guidance on this page. I read it and I'm therefore trying to be constructive. Wikipedia only exists in text so you need to read, understand, and follow the guidance given. If you cannot do that you should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia, let alone be an administrator. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Vinuthnaah (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)

• 0/0: There is no chance that any brand new editor whose first edit is setting up this poll will survive at RfA. As the editing window says, User:Vinuthnaah, Please read Wikipedia:Not now before adding your name to this list. You would have saved a great deal of time if you had done so. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to be a candidate in the future because I have been doing AFDs lately and have some articles to clean up. Also would like to help other users with any issues in the near future. - BugMenn (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• 0/10. Less than 1000 edits, and it took you more than 3 edits to set this up, and it's still not correctly formatted. More experience is needed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad (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)

Figured I'd give it a shot. I primarily do work in anti-vandalism, specifically SPI/LTA work and working in AfC looking for copyvios and weeding out the non-encyclopedic entries. I also spend a lot of (probably too much) time helping in the Wikipedia help channel.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• 6/10 - Based on the chances of you passing compared to the latest RfA voting conditions. You've had a registered account for over a year, and have been actively editing for around eight months, which is a decent amount of time - most successful candidates have around 12 months of regular editing under their belt. Your extensive CSD log is mostly red, and your AfD stats are over 90% green which shows a keen understanding of our deletion policies. You've made over 500 reports to UAA, most of which have been actioned which demonstrate your knowledge of our username policies, and with over 400 reports to AIV you are a proven anti-vandalism patroller who has showed the correct use of rollback since it was granted. You lack any content creation, which will attract oppose votes, but I believe your contributions to AfC will help prove your commitment to the core aim of this project. You're a highly trusted editor with the Edit Filter Manager right, and show an uncanny ability in finding and reporting sock accounts to SPI. I think your chances overall of passing right now are uncertain, but with three months (boosting your active tenure to 11 months) of "tailored" editing you would be able to pass as you have a strong need for the tools -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• 2/10 While you are a good vandal fighter and making good contributions, I think you should wait 6 months to a year and do some content creation. The reason I have your chances of success relatively low is that many may question your judgement. For example, the top article, Arrondissement de Cologne, you edited is one in which you made 29 edits in about 6 minutes repeatedly reverting a vandal. Especially since the vandalism was rather minor, it is often best just to report it if the vandal won't give up and let an admin take care of it.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  @I am One of Many: FYI, Chrissymad did in fact report the vandal; she reported it here at 18:46 UTC. The IP was blocked at 18:51 ([1]). The vandal kept editing during that time period, in which case Chrissymad was fully justified in continuing to revert. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed. Sounds like you are just criticising Chrissymad for not being an admin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  The point is to provide a realistic probability of success. The probability of success is not, in this case, 0.5. 29 reverts of a vandal is excessive when all that is being reverted is "derb". There are far worse things vandals can insert, which can justify more reverts. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  But it appears that Chrissymad did report the vandal (see diff above). And reverting vandalism on a page - no matter how large, small, frequent, or infrequent - is the duty and the right action that every recent changes patroller knows to take. I don't see how reverting the "derb" vandalism was the wrong thing to do at all. Sure, it can seem futile and meaningless (especially knowing that the user is going to just keep adding it back), but it's nothing she did wrong. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  No where did I say that Chrissymad did anything technically wrong, but there is no need to revert instantly every revert of a vandal. A slower approach (waiting a while between reverts) could have easily resulted in just half a dozen reverts rather than cluttering the article history with dozens of reverts. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think Chrissymad did anything wrong either - blatant and obvious vandalism should be removed immediately and without hesitation, no matter how many times it's reverted. I think the point is rather it's not a particularly good advertisement for mainspace writing skills. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  A slower approach (waiting a while between reverts) could have easily resulted in just half a dozen reverts rather than cluttering the article history with dozens of reverts That has to be the most absurd thing I have read this month. Vandalism needs to be removed immediately. It's vandalism. We don't want our readers to catch a glimpse of blatantly obvious vandalism, do we? "Cluttering the page history" is not a problem that you should be blaming on vandal fighters (Not to mention it's a fairly benign problem compared to vandalism left unreverted). Content creation and vandal fighting are two different things, and while both are important, they should be treated differently. You may have a point frowning upon someone who takes fifty edits over the course of an hour to write a single paragraph (And in that case, suggesting that they use their userspace or a text file on their computer for drafts would not hurt), but when it comes to vandal fighting, the vandalism must go, regardless of how many edits it takes to get the vandal to stop. WP:RVAN says: If you see vandalism on a list of changes (such as your watchlist), then revert it immediately. There is no "wait for a little bit before reverting"; if it's blatantly obvious vandalism, it needs to go. "Waiting" does absolutely nothing except increasing the likelihood that a reader will see vandalism on the page. Finally, if you're concerned about edit count, I'm sure you're already aware that it doesn't really provide an accurate estimate of the experience of the candidate. Vandal fighters naturally have higher edit counts than someone who focuses primarily on content creation; edit count is just a number that doesn't discriminate against the type of edit that was made. Plus, I could edit war with myself in the sandbox and easily rack up a thousand edits with some effort; I certainly hope nobody would support my RFA for "being a prolific editor" if that happened. My 1K meaningless edits should not be given more importance than 29 reverts of a vandal; those 29 edits were done in the interest of protecting the encyclopedia, the same way one meaningful content creation edit (or even just one edit fixing a typo) are done for the benefit of the encyclopedia. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Next on the agenda: Making people wait 10 minutes to apply a G10 tag. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

LOL I'll assume you're joking, but for the record - G10 tags can (and should) be applied immediately once an attack page is discovered ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I see we don't have a lot of people here who have that much experience with IP vandals. It may come as a surprise to some, but some vandals simply want to introduce as many reverts into an article as they can--that is their strategy of vandalism. When you encounter one, it is certainly possible to make 100 reverts or more in an article, but that is playing into the vandal's strategy. It shows good judgement to know when you have encountered one and I provided and example in my original post.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a gross misinterpretation of WP:DENY and WP:RBI. It's "Revert, Block, Ignore" after all. Reverting is a necessary consequence that we have to deal with; we can't just stop reverting vandalism the same way firefighters can't just stop fighting fires. If the vandal wants to fill up the page history with reverts, then don't forget the Block and the Ignore part as well. Chrissymad reverted the vandal, it was reported and blocked, and she went about her own way; if Chrissymad was an admin, then that block part would've happened much sooner and there wouldn't have been so many reverts on the article (Which I still fail to see how that's of such a serious concern for you. Plus, you mentioned something about Chrissymad's judgement being questioned; would you really have done anything differently other than blocking the "derp" vandal?). The thing we aren't doing right now is the ignore part, and I still can't believe you actually brought this thing from December 2016 back up. It's July 2017. Let's follow the last letter of RBI and end this absurd discussion (Not to mention that we are straying away from this ORCP about Chrissymad). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, it certainly has nothing to do with what I said. I take it that the point of the RfA candidate poll is to provide the potential candidate with their chances of success and to point out areas of improvement. There are only a handful of people who provide comments here they consistently overrate potential candidates' chances. I understand now why so few participate here.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"I have no idea" is the only accurate thing you've added in all of your comments. We are here to build and maintain an accurate and up to date encyclopedia, part of that work is unfortunately patrolling to find and promptly remove vandalism, and to then ensure it is kept removed, even if it means repeatedly having to revert such vandalism (hence why vandalism reversion is explicitly exempted from the 3RR policy). Nick (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• 5/10 - per There'sNoTime: Content creation is somewhat not important, but mostly you done good work to satisfy my RFA criteria. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 Fails my criteria. It's way too early for an RfA, especially with no significant article contributions to your name. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 Too much templating and not enough thinking of who writes the encyclopedia. Your conversations with Adam9007 in particular have crossed the line from fair comment into bullying, in my opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 - Personally, I think your anti-vandal work is taking you down the right path but I also think too many editors will want you to wait and gain more experience. You definitely edit in areas admins are supposed to have knowledge of. Just keep at it for another year, maybe create a little content, and you'll have a lot more editors rating you 8/10.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 - Although Labs is down today and there are a lot of things I can't check, others above have been fairly thorough and I've checked what I could. I concur that the voting community will probably oppose on the lack of content work. I am also concerned at the sheer amount of maintenance work and the fact that you aquired ever single minor user right in the space of 6 months. I'm not saying that you dd not demonstrate sufficient need or experience for them, but on the whole, that and your work could lead to the impression that your primary goal is to become an admin - which of course is not a good reason for joining Wikipedia. Its not obligatory, but I would expect prospective admins to say a bit about themselves on their user page. I would suggest you balance your work with some solid content over at least the next 6 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Kudpung This is the only comment I intend to respond to but my userpage used to have a bit of detail about me however that resulted in real life stalking and harassment (and as such, has been reported to WMF) from an LTA and I have no intention of ever doing that again and if it kills my chances at RfA, so be it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

    You can't win Chrissy. I put ample information on my user page, and Kudpung made a big point of saying that he couldn't be bothered reading it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

    I think what Kudpung's getting at is your userpage could contain things like articles worked on, or ones you want to work on, GAs, DYKs, articles rescued from deletion - basically just stuff you do as a Wikipedia editor. (I noticed User:Chrissymad/Working on is a placeholder for this, so I assume this something you mean to do eventually). I don't care if your userpage has no personal information; indeed I might regard it as a positive as it shows me your focus is on writing an encyclopedia, not a social network. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Summary: likely a 'crat chat I hate ORCP and think it is actually more broken than RfA in some ways, and as such do my best to avoid it, but I'll weigh in here because I've seen you around enough: I think you'd get to a 'crat chat. You'll have plenty of support from some because you are definitely a highly visible editor and you do good work in many areas. You don't pull any punches, which means that you'll have made enough people mad at some point that they'll come out of the woodwork to oppose. A 'crat chat would be difficult to predict after the GoldenRing one: xeno's argument there seems to be that anything above 65 should merit promotion unless there is a clear reason against such a consensus (and I'm sure I'm paraphrasing it wrong, but that's the general feel I got from it.) Based on that, since I think you can get to a 'crat chat, I'd give you a 50/50 chance. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Summary. Excellent record of backroom work. Concentrate 6 months on content. Be aware of the nasty side of WP as an admin. If you ok with that would back in 6 months - Your strengths are in the 'classic' areas of back room janitorial work. A strong record of anti-vandalism work, an excellent instinct for AfD, indicating good understanding of the related policies, a good grasp of the nuances of username policies and a good sock detective. Paradoxically, these very strengths and I assume, the areas you wish to follow, will, as an admin, place you in a position where stressful situations will happen, which will inevitably include harassment and other potentially unpleasant situations. Being an admin takes courage and a thick skin. It is unpleasant, but a reality. I am concerned, based on your response to User:Kudpung, that these pressures may cause you to be distressed or in any way traumatised. If this be the case, I would advise you to continue the excellent work you are presently doing. If you do decide to go for it, I would advise more interaction with content workers and more engagement in article improvement. About six months of that would be fine. However, I am fearful that the stresses that an admin goes through may be injurious to you. Irondome (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Irondome I'm reading your comment over and over, and I'm sorry, but I don't see your point here regarding a lack of thick skin. What would you expect someone to do when they get threatened IRL? Keep up personal data? It's her choice, and personally, I think a good one, in her case. Regardless, I don't see any evidence of her not being incredibly resilient. She could of left WP at that point, but she stuck around. Since when is putting up personal data a requirement for RfA anywho? Sorry, I don't mean to get overly emotional, I guess I'm just trying to interpret what your saying as something other than sexism, feel free to elaborate. Btw, I'm not accusing you of being a sexist, I open to the argument that it's simply my interpretation.Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Irondome makes some valid observations, Chrissymad. If as an admin you intend to work in the very areas that interest you so much, you will invite a huge amount of flak, and some of it very, very unpleasant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I was not actually consciously aware of the candidate's gender to be honest. I was talking about and to a human being. You appear to be missing the point I was making. That having the mop can be emotionally crushing, and certain strengths are needed. Some of the best admins here are female so do not please play some gender card. It is your interpretation merely. That's fine and let's just forget that now. But let us get to the main point. Being an admin involves you putting your head above the foxhole, and it attracts fire. That can be shit whatever gender you ascribe to. Just reality. Irondome (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 Giving you better than 50-50. Would rate higher, but inclined to agree with Drewmutt. If you're interested in burnishing your content creation portfolio, I am always willing to help. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Andrew, it would be good if you could remember that this venue is for providing a fairly objective opinion on what we feel a prospective candidates chances are. You are playing into the very reasons TonyBallioni doesn't like this forum. With only 7 months editing under your belt I don't think you have any idea what being an admin entails. Please don't take people's comments out of context. If you're are looking for somewhere to express your emotions, please go somewhere else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Kudpung Firstly, I want you to know that I deeply respect you as both an admin and an editor. I also want everyone to know that I deeply appreciate everyone's participation in a much overlooked part of Wikipedia. Perhaps I didn't explain it as well as I could, but I'm simply trying to find out what specific action this editor did to shine doubt on their ability to not be able to handle it. Not trying to battle here. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 purely based on the lack of support above it would have to be 6/10. Personally, I think you do a wonderful job keeping Wikipedia clean, which is clearly evidenced by your CSD logs and results at AfD. I also think that you can keep a cool head need be, since from your ~30k edits, you clearly understand what is required of an admin. I respect the comments above that you may need to do more content creation work, but in reality as an admin you would probably be more focused on preventing/fixing vandalism. Don't think it's 'too early' but getting content creation under your belt would satisfy the majority. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 07:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10--As many have already remarked,I concur that the community will probably oppose on the lack of content work.But I may be prudentual to add that your back-room jobs(that we typically vest in an admin!) look solid and perfect to the finest detail!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 As I have previously indicated, I believe you would make a fine admin one day, despite our numerous differences over the application of the speedy deletion policy. However, since those disagreements exist and are based on valid concerns, I don't think there is a real chance that a RfA at this point will succeed. Out of ten of your taggings I personally declined for example, only three were deleted (one as G12) and some, like Liinita, demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding deletion policy, especially WP:ATD. While the CSD log contains a lot of red links, those not deleted (and some deleted) still demonstrate a too-lax approach to speedy deletion which will likely sink any RfA (such as this tagging within minutes of creation while the article was clearly still in creation and already contained sufficient indicators of significance with two notable key people). Also, while I know "inclusionism" or "deletionism" are not sufficient reasons for supporting or opposing at RfA, I'm kind of wary about any candidate who has apparently never once !voted to keep an article at AFD. I don't think lack of content creation is sufficient to derail any RfA for a candidate who is strong in other areas, so a changed approach to deletion is imho sufficient to increase your chances enough to pass. Regards SoWhy 09:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The stunning absence of keep-votes surprises me.But a 96.5% vote-result match is prob. good enough.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such a result can easily be achieved by just !voting in AfDs with crystal-clear outcomes. I can be right 100% of the time if my !vote is the 10th pile-on "delete" comment but that does not really mean much, does it? Regards SoWhy 09:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

On that, 62% of those deletes were nominations. — fortunavelut luna 10:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 7.3/10 - You are certainly going to get some opposes for lack of content creation, but I doubt that that would sink your RfA. Although, your RfA is probably going to turn into hell on Earth, so take that one into consideration. Also, you might get one or two opposes based on a lack of experience. Maybe wait, say, 4 months or so and you could probably be successful. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• I'll decline to give a number because I haven't looked in depth, but the lack of content creation is about 15-20 opposes right there. Any other weakness would then sink the RfA. Content creation isn't that hard. I found it enjoyable. If you'd like some ideas on what to create/expand, I'm happy to help. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Train2104 (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)

Thought I might try this, given that I've been doing lots of administrative-type work lately, and I've been here several years. I work primarily outside of mainspace, and if I became an admin I would do the same. This would be primarily file maintenance/FFD, TFD, MFD, and some CSD work. I'll admit that my AFD stats aren't too good, but that's not a place I aim to venture for a while. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• 4/10 - Based on the chances of you passing compared to the latest RfA voting conditions. Your CSD log is pretty red, which is great (but there are a couple of bad nominations in there), and your participation at *FD looks good. No blocks in your seven year tenure, however I note you took some time away from Wikipedia between 2014-2016, only really being "here" for the last five months which will negatively affect your chances. Your article creation and improvement looks decent, and is likely to win you some votes. Your overall attitude is civil and collected (you dealt with this very well) and you show the level of clue expected of an administrator. My score may seem low for such a glowing review, and is almost entirely due to the recent hiatus - we've seen that RfA voters like the idea of an editor putting in the time and using their new buttons. I think giving it another five months or so would put you in a much stronger position to pass. Best of luck! -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• 4.8/10 - XFD stats are okay, and your PROD and CSD log is half-blue (mainly the files you've tagged for deletion and looking at your talk page and archives with CSD decline notices). Over the next 1.5 months, it will be an 6/10 if you improve your chances of passing. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 - to satisfy today's community of RfA voters I think you're going to have to show a full 12 months of unbroken editing. Perhaps not in the 1,000s every month, but certainly in an even balance of both maintenance and content in mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 per above - The long time away will probably sink the RFA and if I'm being completely honest I too proabbly would oppose per it, Ofcourse you've done some great work here and your CSD & AFD work look fine but overall the hiatus is the issue at the moment - Ofcourse we don't want you here 24/7 365 days a year but you do need to be here for quite some time without any long hiatuses. –Davey2010^Talk 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Not having edited with the intention of becoming an administrator, I recognize that I probably lack some of the edit counts, etc., that are typical for RfA candidates. I have been recently approached both on-wiki and off-wiki with the suggestion that I should consider adminship and am therefore posting here for feedback. I have no GA or FA or DYK's but I have created nine articles, mostly on esoteric topics such as US Supreme Court opinions. I have no blocks in my history. I have a long gap in my edit history when I stopped editing with this account and did copyedit and typo corrections as an IP user, but I have no idea at this point what these IP addresses would have been due to my ISP assigning dynamic IP's. I have never used the IP at the time I used this account. I work mostly on semi-protected edit requests, RfC's (see log), AfD's, assisting new users, and some anti-vandal activity and administrative status would allow extension of these activities. I know there will be reflexive opposes for some of these reasons but I am asking what the assembled opinion would be for my chances despite these. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• RfC participation is good. They demonstrate understanding of policy, the nuances involved in article editing, the importance of establishing consensus (and understanding that), and, perhaps most importantly- and what far too few current adminstrators (let alone editors) have- diplomacy. — fortunavelut luna 17:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 - I see very little activity dating back to 2013 with this account; mostly inactive from 2007-13 and 2014-17 as you edited anonymously. Overall work is fine as expected. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Your RfC participation looks good too. While the content creation is underwhelming, the temperament is there. If you can draft some eloquent answers to possible questions, I can see some comparison with this editor. If this was in the past, I would likely vote neutral due to lack of experience in other namespace like template, but this is just personal preference and can be easily addressed. Good luck! Alex Shih^Talk 05:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• I will not provide a rating as someone who has suggested adminship and is considering nomination, but seeing the new admin score for this user makes me stand by my consideration at this point. Still, I will let the other responders decide whether pursuing the RfA is appropriate. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 - at the current edit count. Voters will immediately pick on the 857 mainspace contributions. Any success at RfA will depend on reaching the general criteria expected by the regular mainstream voters. That's why it's absolutely essential to read the instructions at the top of this page and follow the links before starting a poll here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 - Kudpung has hit the nail on the head here - In the whole 10 years of having your account you've not even reached 600 a month, Most editors here range from 1k to 2k per month - Although you don't need to be on here 24/7 you do need to be highly active, That aside you've edited more WP namespaces (AN/ANI) than you have articles with user talkpages being 2nd, In short as Kudpung says mainspace contributions is a major factor when it comes to RFA so in short and to be blunt if you chose to run RFA it would sink quicker than you can blink, My best advice is edit articles more and get stuck in with the various admin-tasks. –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

am very smart and have knowledge in the domain of history,geography and cars

• No chance, sorry. Not only do you only have seventeen edits to mainspace, you did not even file this correctly, which while not being anything to be ashamed of, does indicate an insufficient understanding of basic wiki processes to qualify for adminship. Give it a couple of years a few thousand edits, eh? And in the meantime, read the myriad of self-help and advice pages linked to at the top of this page. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 11:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• ...rating and optional brief comment...

Hello, I have had the experience of having several admins approach me an ask if I was interested in RfA. I was unsure for awhile, but I'm going to subject myself to the process and see where it goes. If nothing else, I will have earned some constructive criticism! My major areas of work are women's biographies, organizations and works and also Texas history/geography in a more broad sense. I've been recently more active creating and cleaning up articles about my home town, El Paso. My content creation, expansion and article rescue can be seen on my user page. I am also very interested in participating in AfD and have done new page patrol and AfC work. I'm also known as a clean up person for articles that are difficult to source. I have been told that I am often level-headed when involved in conflict and I always work hard to improve and correct mistakes where I a may have not been as tactful as I should have been. Looking forward to your feedback and thanks for reading! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• What would you use the admin tools for? As far as I can tell (brief look), your record is superb; however, what would you do as an administrator that you aren't doing now? Personally I would support any editor I feel that I can trust, regardless of whether there is a "need" for the tools, but I think others feel differently? Malinaccier (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Malinaccier I would like to be able to be more active with tools that other administrators use through the WikiProject Women in Red. It would take some of the workload off of those admins if another person could help them with these duties. I've been advised that I am good at conflict resolution, so I would be happy to assist in that area as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• 8.5/10 I think you would do well, but it is useful to answer the "need" question, though no one "needs" the mop, in my opinion -- the community needs qualified admins! The toolset is granted to those who the community decides have the ability and the skills to give back to the community via the admin function -- there are so many things besides blocking vandals for which one needs tools; closing discussions that only admins can close is a big one, a lot of protected pages can only be edited by admins, and so on. But if anyone is qualified, you are. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• 9/10 I believe your record at Afd is more than outstanding. You're the first and only person I've seen at Afd who has such a gigantic focus on saving articles. With 377 Keep !votes against 22 Delete !votes, and with an 85.4% success ratio (without considering no consensus results), I presume your involvement in Afds as an administrator will be considerable – and will be welcomed by the community. Lourdes 00:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this user's contributions and track record seems great, and they would probably pass as a Netpositive. That being said, I'd like to point out that keeping articles at AfD isn't something that requires administrator tools. This high of a keep record indicates that the user avoids discussions where the likely outcome is 'Delete', This is not an issue in and of itself, as it indicates a keen eye for articles which need to be saved from AfD (which is very important). However, non-admins can close 'keep' result AfDs, and Admin tools are only needed to close 'delete' results. The lack of participation in 'delete' result AfDs does not give me confidence that the user needs the tools to close AfD discussions. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 00:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I should recommend a quick look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Esther. Three delete !votes in the first week; re-listed by Jo (who I believe is absolutely impressive in his assessment at Afds), the first Keep !vote by Megalibrarygirl, with significant effort in adding sources to the article; and the article is kept finally by Kudpung. This, I should mention, exemplifies her orientation at Afds. Well, as James would say, the critical difference between a field job and a desk job is to know when not to pull the trigger... Lourdes 00:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, her record at AfD shows great judgement, and examples like this will help dissuade people from assuming she just votes on 'easy' keeps. My point was not to say that she does not have sufficient experience at AfD, but rather that some might say that she does not need the tools at AfD (You don't need the tools to "keep" and a lack of "need" was already a concern raised by Montanabw and Malinaccier). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• 9/10 You look like an excellent candidate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 - At first sight she looks like an absolute shoe-in for adminship. I couldn't find much in the way of adminy things to measure so I took a look at AfD. I ended up spending over an hour analysing what I found there and that's why I'm late to the party. The accuracy is low. For an admin I expect it to be at least 80% if not higher. And this is why: All the AfD are about women or women focussed topics and Megalibrarygirl systematically votes 'keep' on almost all of them. Now I'm not a misogynist - quite to the contrary, actually - but I think any RfA voters coming up with the same evidence (and they will) will make a meal of it. We need female admins, we need articles on female topics, but not to the extent of what could possibly be construed as tendentious editing. Therefore I cannot be confident that the RfA community will trust Megalibrarygirl to adjudicate perfectly neutrally on blocks, bans, RfCs, AfD closures, etc, concerning lady editors and articles about women. I would like to see some input here from @Smallbones, Diannaa, Atsme, BrownHairedGirl, Voceditenore, and Anne Delong:. How I would vote myself, I don't know yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• 9/10 only because it's impossible to get 100%, but just to be on the safe side, I'll go with a win/place/show, with most of the money on the win. I have inadvertently worked with Megalibrarygirl on a couple of AfDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Brumby !vote total 11d-9k and the closer ruled it delete, and again on Elizabeth Esther. Both times, it was a pleasure to watch her work. I found her to be fair, knowledgeable, measured in her responses, and well, I will certainly support her with no reservations whatsoever. She knows the drill. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• ?/10 You state that you had the experience of having several admins approach me an ask if I was interested in RfA. Can you give diffs? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC).
  • Xxanthippe I've found three discussions: User talk:Megalibrarygirl/Archives/2017/March#RfA, User talk:Megalibrarygirl#Been looking at your contribution record, logs, etc. and User talk:Megalibrarygirl#Article rescue, with a side order of adminship. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this info. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC).
• 9/10 Your AfD record is absolutely amazing. Most of your votes are keep and yet you have over a 70% accuracy rate. That is to be admired once one realizes how difficult it is to save articles that have been nominated for deletion. For what it's worth, I think Kudpung กุดผึ้ง's analysis, while well-intended, is a bit off. The very fact that you can save over 70% of women oriented topics speaks to a bias in their nomination, so we need people to counter that bias. Strong nomination statements that address this issue should be able to handle any issues raised in an RfA. Keep up the good work. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• ?/10 Kudpung pinged me re the AfD record. So I'll comment on that first. I don't have a problem with the heavy concentration on AfDs which are almost entirely related to women's biographies. Having examined a few of the discussions, Megalibrarygirl doesn't simply parrot "keep" or use inappropriate arguments for keeping which I have seen from several editors in this area (e.g. OTHERSTUFF or characterising those opining "delete" as sexist). She actively works to save the articles and argues solely on the basis of the subject passing the notability criteria. Highly commendable. Obviously, there will sometimes be disagreements even amongst experienced editors as to what constitutes "significant coverage". Personally, I would never have !voted "keep" in this AfD, but she did, as did several others. A 70% accuracy rate isn't spectacular, but not at all unusual for editors with a bent to inclusion. However, I have no idea how that would play out in an actual RfA. The main reason I'm giving "?/10" is that there is virtually zero participation in areas where I'd expect an admin to have experience with some of the problems facing Wikipedia (e.g. paid/COI editing, socking, incivility, POV-pushing, education projects gone haywire, copyvio, etc.). Not only does this make it difficult to judge how she'd react in these situations and to the editors involved, but it may also persuade a considerable number of discussants at an RfA, that she lacks sufficient experience. It's hard to predict the reaction, but admin tools are quite powerful. You can block and unblock editors, close contentious RfCs, speedy delete articles, protect pages, etc. It isn't just about making relatively non-controversial closures at AfDs and moving pages around. It's unclear how much work she has done at AfC, for example. Perhaps she could expand on that here. She is currently on the list of "inactive" participants" at WikiProject Articles for creation, and has never participated in the discussions on the project's talk page or at the AfC Help Desk. Experience of communicating with and handling well-meaning but often utterly clueless new editors, as well as those with rather more nefarious goals, is invaluable for an admin. The Conflict of interest Noticeboard, the AfC Help Desk, The Teahouse, and the Education Noticeboard are real eye-openers and just a few of the places that would provide that necessary experience. Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10 - You'll do fine at RFA, but looking at your XFD stats are quite great. It's not however you plan use the tools for, just an observation if another RFA is opened now. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 Please go for it as you already have good solid experience and, the longer you wait, the more risk of getting mixed up in some conflict that might be held against you. As further preparation, you might step up your new page review work to buff up your credentials in that area and show you're not a hat-collector. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Andrew Davidson, KGirlTrucker81, Voceditenore, Kudpung, Xxanthippe, Dodger67, Hawkeye7, Insertcleverphrasehere, Malinaccier, Montanabw, and Lourdes: I just want to thank everyone who took the time to comment and rate me. I've gained a lot of constructive criticism. The feedback I've received here indicates to me that I really should put in some more time in areas like the Teahouse and new article patrol. I hope to do an RfA in the future, but first will work on myself as an editor and gain experience outside of what I normally work with. Thank you very much for your honesty and guidance. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Music1201 (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)

Hello Wikipedians! I would like to see what chance I would have at passing an RfA within the next few months. I am well aquatinted with numerous maintenance areas of Wikipedia (page moves, deletions, protections, username policy, vandalism.) As of the posting of this poll, 36.7% of the edits i've made have been made to the Wikipedia namespace. Additionally, I have been an active OTRS volunteer for over a year. Thank you for taking the time to review my contributions. — Music1201 ^talk 21:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• 0/10 You obviously can't follow directions. While we're on the subject, you created 8 articles. Two of them were deleted. Another four are disamig pages and the remaining two are stubs. Your AfD !vote with consensus is above 80% but that's all of 15 !votes. Of the four articles you PROD'd, two are still blue. You tried to speedy this and was rejected not even two weeks ago. I don't get the impression you're serious about RfA. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 per Chris as well as per my comments on the prev poll, Your CSD log is okay..ish, Your AFD log is absolutely useless (you've not participated in AFD at all this year!), Although you've participated at AIV & UFAA that's been rather sparse, I get a strong suspicion this is nothing more than hat-collecting,

Anyway in short you've completely ignored each and every comment at the prev poll and as such your RFA would sink very quick and if i were to money on it I'd say it would fail quicker this year than what it would've done last year, I again would strongly suggest you stop thinking about RFA for a good few years and concentrate on editing productively. –Davey2010^Talk 21:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! I decided to take again the ORCP to estimate my chances of passing an RfA anytime soon. I know that I have been inactive for a while, since some health and personal issues kept me away, but these are resolved so I intend to stick arround. So, If my RfA was successful, the areas I would work are CSD, AIV, UAA, RFPP, RM, RM/T(areas in which I already have experience) and also some AfD closures, move review and WP:PERM. Feel free to express any concerns or ask any questions here. After all, it is just an ORCP, so, by doing this, everyone wins.

• 4/10 - Earlier this year you were warned twice about over-zealous tagging, such as this, and that's going to bite. You have apologised for bad speedies and resolved to do better, and from your logs, that seems to be happening. I spot-checked your AfD stats and I see a lot of "voting with the herd" which many !voters won't spot as an issue, but it's good when going to an RfA to have an AfD where you really hit the Heymann standard and improved it. You haven't done much content work (Labs is currently down so I can't easily check), which is going to be a black mark against you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• 4.5/10 - The CSD tagging will get you one or two opposers, but that shouldn't be a problem. You have been here for just barely under a year, which will hurt you a bit. The final thing is your content creation, which isn't good at all. If you can get a FA star or something like that (maybe work on some birds with me? You could do the status section on the black-necked grebe, and do some other things) and wait 3 months or so, then you should pass easily. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• I don't recognize your name from any project space contributions, and I watch a wide variety of conversations. That isn't to say that you don't have them, but that you probably won't have many people in the RfA crowd who recognize you which means that you'll have less wiggle room because of people recognizing your name and the opposes will probably have more weight with other !voters. Ignore any scores people give you here and focus on the critiques as a way to improve as an editor. Wait until multiple people start approaching and offering to nominate you about becoming an admin before considering a run. When they do, wait until you feel ready and then file the RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Kostas. Two main barriers to adminship for you: 1) Experience. I like to look for six months of experience going into an RFA and I expect that others would like to see even more. There is nothing you can or should do about this but wait. Personally I would wait until somebody offers to nominate you, which will probably happen around that time anyway. 2) Content creation. Even if you have not produced good or featured articles, people like to see some good content editing. Another alternative is DYK. These are fun to write. Reviewing DYKs is also really valuable and would be good content experience as well. Finally, I don't think that one or two mistakes at CSD are all that bad—in any case you made these in your first few active months. Just keep on doing the good work you have been doing and you should be fine on that front. More experience=better editing! Malinaccier (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• There's something wrong if you're here again after only 3 months and 9 days. I don't even think another year would have been enough to prepare yourself for adminship. Please read the instructions at the top of the page, follow the links and, when you've read the pages, follow the links in them too. It's the least amount of time you ought to be investing to find out what RfA is all about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: thank you for your input. Regarding your advice, I have already read all these pages and essays, including WP:NOTNOW (but also WP:NOTNOTNOW and I am quite confident that during my time here I have understood what RfA and adminship is all about. Anyways, thank you for your comment, since it gives me an images of what some!voters might believe and what impression I might make. --Kostas20142 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 (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 last ran for adminship over three years ago and was unsuccessful. I think I’m now ready to try again and I would appreciate what the regular editors here think my chances are. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• 3/10 - Your AfD stats are all over the place; I can accept that things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicorn food are just you disagreeing with everyone, but you've only matched consensus once since April, and that was a "me too" vote on the end of a debate. Your CSD log looks okay, but it's fairly minimal in terms of activity for the past year. What is going to absolutely sink your RfA is that on the others, particularly the last one, you were accused of hat-collecting. If you go into RfA with such little proven activity in core maintenance areas all admins should know (unless they are very experienced in other areas), then you haven't really done anything to dissuade the community over the idea that you want adminship as a "badge" or some sort of status symbol. (Type my username into the ANI search and you'll discover that it isn't!) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• 2.5/10 - Your block log is concerning among previous failed RFAs. XFD stats are poor at this time. Overall logs are fine, but need more improvement and experience is needed. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 20:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• 1/10 as per Ritchie333 and KGirlTrucker81 - The AFD stats are IMHO poor, You don't really participate in any admin areas (AFD, RFD, AIV, UFAA etc etc), The editing is rather sparse and IMHO is more or less leaning on the inactivity side of things, The other issue I have is that you've tried RFA 3 times already and have failed so the whole "3rd time lucky" has long gone, Last but not least and I know it was brought up at the last RFA but I still believe this is hat collecting ofcourse I may well be wrong but I honestly think it is, If I'm being blatently honest I don't think adminship is for you so my best advice would be to stick to editing as you have been, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Forgot to add but the block log wouldn't be a concern for most - You were last blocked in 2012 and so I don't think it's really fair to hold something that happened 5-6 years ago against you. –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• 4/10 You fail my criteria. Let's just ignore your block log for now. Why have you nominated yourself for adminship thrice? Why have you created 188 articles, 120 of which have been deleted? The last article you created is a soft redirect towards Wiktionary. Why? I'll give you a pass on your AfD record. It's about as bad as mine, which isn't good enough. I took a look and agree with some of your positions so being out of consensus is fine with me, but the aggregate at RfA is likely going to have a problem with it. You're otherwise a good contributor; you've gotten a few GAs and DYKs and some nice barnstars. Just keep editing and wait for the cabal to call you. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Possibly as high as 5/10 with a trusted, respected nominator, and a thoughtful explanation of the Afd stats. 1/10 as a self-nom, given the history. -- Begoon 03:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• 3/10 You've done some really good work, but the problem is that it is inconsistent. Some of your content creation is outstanding. But as noted above almost 2/3 of the articles you have created have been deleted. Your AfD stats are going to draw fire and there isn't a lot of adminny stuff you have worked on outside of that. I absolutely hate the question which I believe demonstrates a flawed understanding of adminship and our need for more. But it pops up at almost every RfA... "what do you need the tools for?" If there is an obvious answer in your case I don't see it. IMO your block log is outside the statute of limitations, but others may not agree. I don't like to discourage people who obviously want to help out but the purpose of this is to give editors thinking about RfA a realistic appraisal of their chances. In your situation I believe they are poor. If you self nominate, I think they are non-existent. Thank you for your contributions to the project and your desire to help. But I don't think this is a good idea at the present time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This thing of 2/3 articles deleted seems to be coming from where I have created a redirect and another user has then turned it into an article. The tool is very misleading because it makes it look like I have created many more articles than I actually have. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) 17:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Why, then, did you create 120 redirects? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have created many redirects over my seven years editing, a lot of which were answering requests at WP:AFC/R. Sometimes people later make them into articles. Anybody wishing to look at my actual content-writing would be better to use User:Rcsprinter123/Creations. Rcsprinter¹²³ (sermonise) 20:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• As others have said, you've done some good work but you've done some silly things in the past as well. I think you need at least another couple of years of consistent good work and demonstrating sound judgement before an RfA would be likely to success. If we're being cynical, you might have had a better chance had you abandoned this account and made a fresh start with a new one, but there's too much water under the bridge now. My only other piece of advice would be to ask yourself why you want to be an admin. If you just want to climb the greasy pole, it's really not worth the effort and it won't make you happy; only do it if you find that your day-to-day activities lead you in that direction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10: per Chris troutman. Many users may oppose on the basis that you have made so many articles and the majority have been deleted. THe block log may also be an issue. DrStrauss talk 10:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10: The block log of your account is my main concern, most RfAs require a clean block log or being block free for at least 12 months, that block history may hinder your chances of adminship, also many articles you have either edited or created have been deleted this isn't going to help your chances. Best of luck. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 01:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm reasonably sure that May 2012 is more than 12 months ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)