Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 10

---

Some Gadget Geek (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 have over 10000 edits across all the MediaWiki sites, including over 8000 on the English Wikipedia and another 3500 on the Simple English Wikipedia. I have experience in a wide variety of fields, in particular monitoring and reviewing pages as well as fighting vandalism. My ultimate goal is to gain admin rights to be able to perform actions that I am otherwise limited to by making requests, for example, page protections, deletions, and user blocking, which I am extremely familiar with. Please tell me how much farther I need to step up my game before I am ready to level up.

• 1/10 Ok, so quick feedback "before I am ready to level up" makes it seem like you are treating wikipedia like a
  WP:HATCOLLECTing - which is an instant put off. Combined with underwhelming AfD stats and only 500 edits in the past 6 months, and that's a recipe for 1/10. Galobtter (pingó mió
  ) 15:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• ...As will be the ~50% automated edits, no doubt. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• In the past 24 hours, I've apologised to two separate people because I was wrong. That's something all admins need to be able to do, and you can't judge it from edit counts. I can ferret it out from some stats - usually I go straight to an AfD that closed a different way from your !vote and see what the conversation looked like. However the first one I looked at here closed as "The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented". I do not think you have a chance of passing RfA for the next 2-3 years minimum, and even then you will be asked questions about how you have changed from now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes,
  WP:MMORPG is an accurate and possibly the only response. This nomination may be an interesting read for you, as there are many similarities. If you are really serious about how to "step up" your "game", you need to completely re-think your approach to this project. After all, it is an encyclopedia. Alex Shih (talk
  ) 16:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sro23 (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)

As recently as a few months ago, I would have never thought I'd end up here. I'd been asked to give rfa a shot a few times in the past, and I would refuse every time. I thought clearly I was the opposite of admin material, I had such little faith in myself. Around the time I became a clerk for SPI, I had a change of heart. I feel so much more confident and better about myself. My goal is to try for sometime in the near future (next few months). Please be critical, it won't hurt my feelings and it's important I'm aware of any major issues about myself I may be overlooking. I've already been told the biggest areas I could improve on are communication skills (obviously potential administrators should be able to communicate properly) and content creation. I've started a few articles, definitely nothing spectacular, no GA's, DYK's, etc, but at the very least it's something.

• 9/10 is my estimate of your chances at RfA. Please note that according to the ORCP recommendations, this does not constitute an in-depth assessment, nor is it an indication of how I would vote. Please read
  WP:RFAADVICE if you have not already done so. Feel free to contact me if you consider going ahead. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 01:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• I think you would be a great candidate. I'd like to see some more substantial article work, though, before you run for an RfA. Improving an article to GA would be a good start. Just my two cents. ceranthor 02:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• I think your excellent record of anti-vandalism and SPI clerking would carry you through any possible content-related objections. Plus, you'd probably have your choice of co-nominators. Maybe you should hit up someone who's been a checkuser longer than me, but I'd certainly be willing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• About time Sro showed up here, definitely someone who could make excellent use of the tools. Home Lander (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Some are obviously going to take issue with the lack of content creation, but I think you are very likely to pass regardless on the back of the anti-vandalism and SPI work. not every admin needs to be involved in content creation, though it is good to have been through the process of creating new articles at the very least. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• 9/10 - I believe I was one of the people who encouraged you to face the gauntlet. I cannot thank you enough for your diligence in dealing with the Hamish Ross and CrazyAces sockpuppets that harassed me awhile back. I agree. some less than observant editors are inevitably going decide on the lack of content creation alone. However, you have been productive in your own niche. Anyone would be foolish to deny you access to tools you--more than any candidate in recent memory--could put to good use.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I really appreciate your kind words. Sro23 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Per the above. Sro don't even need ORCP, you could stand tomorrow. Good luck! On edit you might be right about communication— it occurs to me that your nom here is the longest thing I've seen you write. Also or also occurs to me that of there's anything particular you're interested in, we could collaborate on a article. That be sure to get you a green button where you need one. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 08:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm an animal lover! Recently I'm more and more interested in animal rights, animal abuse and related scandals. How does that sound? :) Sro23 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Further I think comparison with Oshwah2 is a
  good communication with other editors [and] a calm and thoughtful approach." >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates}
  13:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, basically per everyone here so far. When someone is exceptionally good in one area like you are with the SPI, it's almost unnecessary to be multi-dimensional. The only concern I have is that once you take on adminship, more attention and scrutiny will be drawn toward you. Sometimes having these additional tools will make you over confident, and you will be more vulnerable to make mistakes, and these mistakes are more likely to be magnified. But since you have the support from many editors/administrators alike, the sooner you run the earlier you will acquire the confidence needed in the long term. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• 6/10 The closest parallel I can think of is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2. If you stood for RfA tomorrow, I’d probably abstain altogether or vote neutral - all I see in your mainspace contributions is “revert”, “revert”, “revert” which suggests you’re likely to be the sort of person who’ll get dragged to ANI a lot over questionable blocks. I suspect other voters would give you a hard time over this, too. In my experience, people who spend too much time at SPI get very short tempered, aggressive and ultimately retire (see Elockid and Mike V). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I see you have come across Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP and he has tried your patience, for which you have my sympathies. As an admin, you will see a lot more people like this, who will poke you aggressively and when you snap will drag you off to ANI before you can say "Jack Robinson". Dennis Brown said it best here, I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I am not familiar with your work, but what little I know suggests you have a strong need for the tools at SPI. However, your lack of content work, to me, suggests that a lot could hinge on what you wish to do with the tools, and how well you express this. With your record, if you make it clear you intend to stick to SPI, you may be okay; if you say you want to work at AfD, you're probably sunk. More generally, there's a certain discomfort around here (which I share) over "career admins", if you will; folks who clearly have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, but who do nothing but maintenance work, and who (as a result) may make mis-steps when content issues intrude into admin tasks. For this reason, I'd strongly suggest you get some further content writing experience under your belt; not as a token "I have a GA" but to show that you understand what is required to write content. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't intend to work at AFD. It's not something I've ever cared much for or been very good at. The thing about taking an article to GA is it would very much feel like hat-collecting to me. When I start or significantly expand upon an article, I have to have some sort of interest in the subject otherwise it just becomes tedious and joyless. I have almost zero interest in bringing an article to GA, because I wouldn't be doing it for me, I would be doing for the naysayers just to prove that I can take something to GA status. Sro23 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Sro23: I understand what you mean, but my point is not that you need a little green icon on your userpage; my point is you need to write something and have it critiqued by someone else. If you're uninterested in GAN, try DYK or something; especially if there are topics you're interested in that do not have articles on them at the moment. Or if you really don't want to participate in either process, just write a few things really well. Vanamonde (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Contributing good content to the encyclopedia should never regarded as "hat collecting" and I'd be amazed if anyone took that view at your RfA.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm okay with someone else critiquing my writing, but neither DYK nor Good Articles appeal to me. Any alternatives to those? Sro23 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You could just try creating a personal project. For example, I've got User:Ritchie333/Genesis on the go, and while the aim there is to get a shedload of GAs and an FL, that's just my goals, which don't have to be yours. You could aim for getting some set of articles to C class, or making sure they're all sourced, or reasonably complete. There are plenty of articles around here that are in a very sorry state that badly need some TLC, so hopefully there's a niche for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I rather like the suggestion of starting up a personal project (not just for this candidate poll) - and the example you provided is actually pretty cool. Airbornemihir (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of a personal project a lot. I can see myself taking article(s) to GA status solely for the purpose of an upcoming rfa, then never working in that area again, which I don't want to happen. However, something I am genuinely interested in is unsourced BLP's. There's clearly a backlog, so everyone wins. How does this sound: every week, I pick an unreferenced/poorly referenced BLP and expand upon it, add sources, tidy, etc. Log each article I helped improve in a user subpage for others to critique/judge my work. Sro23 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. Based on my personal experience, it helps to have some 'connection' with the topic, be it that they are from the area where you live, or engage in stuff that you are interested in. There's certainly no shortage of bio stubs out there. Schwede66 03:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

+1. Bio stubs like John Emery Harriman (from random article) really should be improved. And they are definitely not the only ones to work on. J947 ^(c), at 05:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@

Women in Red WikiProject. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk

) 22:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• 7.2/10 per Ritchie, and Vanamonde. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• 6.5/10 - I'd be delighted to have you as an admin, but it is likely you'll encounter resistance because of content work, or lack thereof. You've created 3 decent start-class articles. If you could demonstrate that you've brought at least 5 articles to C level, that would go a long way, or bring something to GA. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• You'd likely pass tomorrow if you ran. I'd put you around k6ka/Ad Orientem (both of whom I get along very well with, and who each passed in the high 70s). I'd encourage you to do RfA soon and not to try to spend the next few months fixing the weaknesses in your candidacy identified here: it would be transparent to most people in an RfA why you did it, and you are one of the few users that focuses on vandalism who I have never gotten frustrated with for being overzealous to block (which l think is what Ritchie333 was hinting at in his comparison). My number one question for any admin candidate is temperament, and that is because of the block button. I think you'd use it wisely, so I'd support. I'd also note that RfA is not a high score table, despite what ORCP sometimes makes it out to be. I'm very confident you would pass, but in the lower ranges of an RfA, but above a 'crat chat. If I had to give you a percentage for the likelihood of passing RfA, it'd be between 80-90%. ​. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• 6/10 I really, really don't like admin candidates with no content experience. Writing an encyclopaedia is what the exercise is about. The environment is very complex, with a huge corpus of policies, procedures and essays. I want to see someone with an ability to learn. SPI work? Meh. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, you are one of the most prolific writers on the project and long may you continue to be so, but you do have a tendency to troll RfAs because you have been treated quite unfairly in your own career as an admin, and lash out at others because of it. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. While I admit I'm not exactly jumping up and down and shouting "hell yes I'll nominate Sro23", I do recognise he's got a lot of support and consequently I think he'll get a narrow pass (which is what I was referring to about Oshwah 2 where the percentage of support was on the kife-edge of 'crat discussion). And while I might criticise some SPI work, if you asked me to handle the OrangeMoody sockfarm case, I would probably slink into a corner and cry. The practice does have its uses. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

By 6/10 I mean the odds of passing rather than my best guess at the probable score. Those sort of odds are not ideal, and anyone thinking about it would do well to consider what could be done to improve them. I agree with your assessment, but being on the knife-edge of bureaucrat discretion is a place where I've been, and it's not somewhere you want to be. I've been critical of SPI too, but that's not an argument against skilled practitioners - very much the opposite - but to convince me I'd like to see some Bot coding. Especially from an editor who's only been around for two years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this will be just above a 'crat chat (but I think it will be closer to k6ka than Oshwah 2). TonyBallioni (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah probably slightly above k6ka at around 80% is my guess from my year-and-a-bit of following RfAs. So 6.5/10 from me. J947 ^(c), at 05:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• For a "non-content contributor" RFA have a look at mine: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NeilN. I get poked at from time to time for this (one of the participants here knows what I'm talking about) but I have over 7,000 blocks and not once that I can recall has the community said "bad/questionable" block. Your editing needs to show you put thought into your actions, understand community expectations (and some of these are unwritten), and can defend your judgments calmly and rationally, being open to changing your mind. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• User:Sro23, it would be good to have you as an admin since your work as an SPI clerk could be even more effective using the admin tools. There is the usual objection that people tend to make about lack of content contributions. This can sometimes be overlooked, but it would still be helpful to see some examples of your negotiation skills. It is not easy to come up with these merely by scanning your contributions, since so many of your changes (even on user talk pages) are vandal reversions. Maybe you could link to some extended conversations you have taken part in, or even AfDs where you had to explain your reasoning. Your judgments in AfDs look very 'mainstream', which is good, but it doesn't tell us much how you would cope with sharp conflicts or unusual situations. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• 7/10 - I personally don't care much if someone hasn't done a lot of content creation, but many editors do. feminist (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• 7.5/10 As an SPI clerk, you have a genuine need for the tools, and no problems regarding clue or incivility. As pointed out above, you may be the target due to the lack of substantive content creation work. Apparently I should note the likelyhood of you passing an RfA, which I have done above, but now to the personal side: I would support. !dave 20:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Personally I think if you ran tomorrow you'd easily pass, Content creation would probably pop up but not every admin here's touched an article so I wouldn't worry about it, Go for it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think I have much to add here. I just wanted to say that I would support you if you ran! Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'd rate your chances fairly high, and you'd get my vote. I appreciate the lack of enthusiasm for green icons - personally I've accidentally managed one DYK in all my time here. While I don't agree that 'audited content' is important, this type of RfA comment essentially represents several important things: an appreciation of what good content actually is (ie to distinguish an edit war from POV pushing and vandalism), the struggles and frustration of writing articles, the ability to work with others to reach consensus, the ability to be constructive instead of just reverting and banning, and more. So I'd suggest that, without compromising yourself, your nomination or some other part of your RfA gives examples of how you can intelligently and constructively react to edits by others, and in particular not to get in the way of other editors. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• You'd certainly have my !vote, although I can't help but echo the content creation concerns of others (sorry). GAB^gab 02:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jarmusic2 (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) don't know if im doing this right, but here goes. My Name Is James Pressey, I want to be considered for administratorship.

• 0/10 Go and waste somebody else’s time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yeeas: I might not be so blunt as Ritchie333, but should point out that although there's no minimum activity requrement for adminship, candidates of ten-years' tenure are kind of expected to have edited sometime in the last seven years... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Yourmistake (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)

• 0/10 You do not even have enough edits to transclude your own RfA onto the main RfA page. I won't use the same words as
  WP:RFAADVICE, Yourmistake? talk to !dave
  09:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• This nomination appears to be because Yourmistake's article, Maamaankam (2018 film) was deleted at AfD, and endorsed at deletion review. I think the deletion was within the bounds of policy, but I can see how Yourmistake might have got confused as to why. If you want a copy of the text that you've lost, I can email it to you. (But don't immediately recreate the article or it will be deleted again - wait until the film's released). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I did consider the possibility of confusion, but there's the context to make it higher up in probability. talk to !dave 10:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Cwmhiraeth (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 undertook a poll here twelve months ago, following it up two months later by a self-nominated RfA. This was unsuccessful, chiefly because of the issues I had with another editor. Since then I have avoided further conflict with that (or any other) editor. I am still much involved in DYK and would like to be able to move prep sets into queues and provide the administrator attention that is not always available at short notice. In the last six months I have been doing new page patrolling. This has given me a better understanding of deletion policy and I have nominated a number of articles for speedy deletion and to AfD. I have become interested in detecting copyright violations, removing them and requesting rev-dels. This is an area of Wikipedia that I would like to participate in more fully if my RfA is successful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Your AfD stats are fine and you appear to talk a good argument. Your CSDs have the odd misfire, and as you don't have a log I'll need to dig deeper into your contributions to find out how good they are, but I don't believe I would uncover any major issues. I don't do much copyvio work, and we need more admins that do. Diannaa is the recognised "go to" expert for copyvio spotting, so maybe we should ask their view. For DYK accuracy, I have still seen your name come up a few times when a hook has been pulled or queried (principally by The Rambling Man), though the frequency of that has dropped. This arbcom case is not going to disappear from everyone's memory, but it is now 18 months old I personally wouldn't hold it against you anymore, though I'm unsure as to how many would. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot of blue in the deletion tag log Seeing many instances where cleanup rather than deletion was done/needed Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

e.g [1] and [2], [3], [4] Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A number of entries in that log are false positives where the article was deleted and recreated, but yeah that's way too many declined speedies. I don't fancy your chances at RfA with those results. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I was checking each article not just looking at the number of bluelinks; there were also many G12 was declined in favour of removing the copyvio.Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm still learning, and I'm becoming bolder in removing copyvios and chopping out great chunks of spam from articles written by what appear to be undisclosed paid editors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Good good :) I think you'd need to show ~3 months of quality CSD tagging for the crowd at RfA. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) Without checking the contributions in more detail, I think some more time to pass since RFA#1 and the previous OCRP / ArbCom requests will probably be required. The request Ritchie points to might have been 18 months ago, but this comment was less than a year ago and it cited the previous case request, so I'd say, the clock started from there. I recommend you approach one or two editors with RFA-experience you trust and ask them to vet and nominate you in, say, 5-6 months from now. Regards SoWhy 17:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• You'd have my vote, but I'd advise against it at the moment...the previous one is too fresh. Otherwise, I'd echo some of what the others say. Find a nominator (I'd be willing in principle, but I'm involved in too much of the same work to do much good, I think), make it clear that the primary need is at DYK and that you're still learning/will take it very slow with deletion, and you might be okay. If errors in DYK prep sets tick up again, you may have issues there, too. Vanamonde (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• 3/10 is what I'd ballpark it at, unfortunately. While some declines in speedies are expected considering how many you've nominated, the decline rate is >10% which will cause a lot of opposes, likely enough to sink it. I'm not sure how I'd !vote though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Basically the above. I will admit, did some digging on you the other day after coming across your copyvio work, which is excellent. I definitely agree that AC, the previous ORCP, and immediate RfA are all too recent for folks, but I think it's clear you've been on a good path since then. I can't speak to the DYK issues, but with continued content creation and copyvio removal, some focus on CSDs, and some more time on the straight and narrow, I'd be happy to nom/support. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• ~2/10-Per SW and Gallobter.But, future prospects are quite good:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• 3/10 is the chance the community would probably give you because this is again too soon after the previous RfA that opened and closed before I got round to it, but I would have been on the Oppose side. While generally issues over 12 months old are not taken into consideration unless they are serious, there is a risk that some spoilsports would still oppose on the basis of them. To be absolutely safe, I would suggest at least another 6 months if not a year. We need plenty of admins but there's no immediate hurry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with pretty much all of the above. DYK would certainly benefit immensely from you being admin; you, Yoninah and BlueMoonset are pretty much what keeps the DYK project operating. But the fact that the timing is still not right at the moment (from all of the previous fallouts) just makes everything feels incredibly unfair, but I suppose it cannot be helped. Like Vanamonde93 said, if you can make a convincing statement about the primary need for the tools is to help out with promoting/checking queue at DYK (I think you would actually do better this way; you would spend less time at the mundane task of building prep sets and more time checking queues), and address the weakness concerns openly and directly, I think the right timing should come very soon. You will have my support regardless. Alex Shih (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• 2/10 purely based on the CSDs, Whilst I appreciate everyone makes mistakes however there are a lot of issues with your CSDing and although I supported your RFA the first time I'd unlikely support again so soon, That aside I'm not really seeing the need for the tools at the moment, As Kudpung says give it 6 months to a year, Try nailing the CSDs better and you might get the mop the second time round (although again I would advise you to come here before going to RFA). –Davey2010^Talk 14:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I originally thought that if an article was grossly promotional and contained substantial copyvios, and especially when it was created by an undisclosed paid editor, it would automatically qualify for speedy deletion. I find I was wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Nightfury (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)

Placing a poll here once again - after 18 months of more editing. I would like other editor's views re applying for administration privileges. I was contacted by someone saying I should apply approximately a year ago but I felt that then would've resulted in a closure of TOOSOON after the last poll. I have participated where I can at AfD, RfPP, ANI, SPI and AIV. Despite being "semi-retired", I believe there should be more 'lurking' administrators, as it were, to help continue on in an ad-hoc basis, for example instances of trolling, socking, 3RR etc.

• AfDs like this, this, this, this, this and this will cause problems at RfA. The real problem is looking back a year, you were making some poor choices at AfD, and although you've got better, voters tend to only look at the raw score of 57.4% and think "nope". I would recommend spending more time in the trenches at AfD for now (particularly with regards to rescuing articles there so they result in a "keep" consensus) and maybe think about taking Despicable Me 3 to GA at some point.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• I think your edit count of "only" 8,000 over eight years could be a problem. It's fine for me but
  WP:EDITCOUNTITIS has been increasing at RfA in my experience and there are some editors who put the cut-off at 20,000. That's probably still an outlier but I think you will get opposes on edit count alone.--Pawnkingthree (talk
  ) 15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not aimed at anyone but everyone who cares to read - can I just point out in my view placing restrictions (i.e. edit counts) against editors to make them fail an RfA (for example) is immoral. It is based on experience, not petty things like edit counts. Nightfury 15:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit-count is unfortunately relevant (a general comment not directed at Nightfury), as a high edit count may but may not indicate experience; but a low one never can. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Calling people who oppose your RfA "immoral" is a great way to fail the process.

π, ν

) 16:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Some would argue, very rude, but talk about accurate :D —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't say I would call anyone immoral, I said the process itself is... Nightfury 16:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Nightfury's assessment. This view is backed up by GoldenRing's RfA. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, Backed by Goldenring's RfA f you include some delicately nuanced answers to questions; not precisely the same thing. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• The main problem I see is the trickle of (largely unsuccessful) London Bus route AfDs (
  π, ν
  ) 16:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In fairness, only two of those were recorded as clear keeps. Nightfury 16:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the advice at
  WP:RFAADVICE has been thoroughly studied and understood. Plenty of users have become admins with 8,000 edits. However not only is the type and quality of the edits important but also the activity level needs to demonstrate a need for the tools and the 3,911 mainspace edits is going to be the stumbling block. Thus in my opinion, the community would probably decide that this is still somewhat too soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 08:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Not really anything to do with RfA, but today you added some content to Lynn Bowles (BLP) without adding a reliable source (I've added one) which can be used against you as a lack of understanding policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333}: In fairness I was using my phone at the time. I was well aware there were sources available which I planned to place tonight Nightfury 21:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can't really put it in to words but I guess the easiest way of saying it is I feel RFA is toosoon for you, A few of the AFDs linked above are fine and others not so much (such as the merges as they belong on the talkpage), Your edit count for me is poor and it could be seen as you're nearing on inactivity (I don't expect everyone to be here 24/7 but the majority of editors top over 1k a month, I'll also add not everyone takes edit count into consideration however we all have tickboxes if you like), The BLP thing above is another issue although that could be seen as "everyone makes mistakes), In short as I said I feel like an RFA would be TOOSOON and so personally I don't think there'd be much chance of your RFA passing. –Davey2010^Talk 21:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• I do not believe this would be a successful RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Time stamp. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cordless Larry (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 was asked a couple of times last year whether I would be interested in running to become an administrator. At the time, I was unsure, busy with OTRS duties having only recently signed up to help there, and said I would have to think about it. Almost a year has passed and I have not given the issue much more thought, but I am now actively considering whether I want to run and would appreciate others' thoughts to help me with this decision. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Good mix of content (including the FA Gateway Protection Programme) to maintenance work, AfDs show a bit of a blind spot for schools but otherwise alright, CSDs acceptable. I've seen you around at the Teahouse and on OTRS, and your communication style is good. I'd support you at RfA. Find a suitable nominator at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination at your earliest convenience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have a favorable impression of User:Cordless Larry's work. Just browsing the admin archives to see where he's been active, I came across Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Though this ANI thread took place in 2015, it shows him joining in a discussion trying to resolve a nasty dispute about Somalia. His suggestions there appear useful and diplomatic, and they show him keeping his head in a possibly high-stress environment. When time permits I will try to scan for more of his past activities, but everything I have looked at appears favorable. HIS CSDs, PRODs and AfD votes seem OK, and having brought an article to FA status will give the impression he can also create content. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• The gaps in 2012, 2013, and 2014 will almost certainly be brought up by serial opposers, but the editing haas been solid since with a good committment to content. An RfA would probably pass, and after some more in-depth research, I would probably support it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kudpung: I'd like to point out that there are opposers at RfA, and then there are serial opposers: they are not synonymous and it is / may be extremely unfair to those with good faith criticisms to compare them with the Andrew Davidsons of the world. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 05:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 I made no comparisions and I did not mention Andrew Davidson - you did. Read again what I said and please don't cast bad faith aspersions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually,

assume had faith (which includes accusations of casting aspersions when none such occurred). Goodbye. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates}

06:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: A misunderstanding clearly, apologies for misrepresenting you: I thought you were suggesting that all opposers were serial opposers, which you clearly were not. Have a good week, —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 06:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I’m confident this RfA would pass with no trouble. I’d be overjoyed to support. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Tony, and Kud. The RfA should pass without any trouble. But as Kudpung mentioned above, there are people who would object anything. The gap in editing will attract some of them. But anybody who has their head in the right place should be able to understand it is not a problem. In my opinion it is a lot better than an admin (from the past) who "semi retired" within a few weeks (days?) after gaining the flag. I have a very strong hunch that wouldnt be the case here. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• I tend to go by the edit count and usually I would say "You've only reached 1k twice in the past 10 years and that your edit count leaves a lot to be desired for" .... however .... I feel that your FA work and your GA work make up for that as does your AFD and CSD work, Your block log certainly goes in your favour and all in all despite the ec criticism I would happily support. –Davey2010^Talk 18:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if it's entirely obvious but I was trying to say your edit count isn't the be all and end all of Wikipedia and you do alot of things here (IE AFD, CSD, FA/GA work etc etc). –Davey2010^Talk 18:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey2010. Just to clarify, my edit count has been above 1000 in all years apart from those mentioned above, when I was barely active. I'm wondering if you were looking at the wrong statistics? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think that your chances of success are very good, Cordless Larry. I will be happy to support you based on your excellent work at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Please ping me when you run: I wish to support. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• I have only the most positive impression of you and your works; calm, impartial and knowledgeable. Please do consider running soon. Alex Shih (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes please. You are a hard worker on OTRS, practically our most active agent, and I have no qualms about your temperament or anything of the sort. talk to !dave 12:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Stands a strong chance at RfA. Another editor who one regularly encounters and assumes is already an admin. Active all day, every day it seems. Huge contribution (over 2,900 to the
  Teahouse) plus many other key fora over the years, and good past content creation record (showing a healthy drop after 2016 off as more maintenance tasks take over one's editing life!) A hiatus in editing some four years ago seems unimportant compared to recent years' activity. Anyone who brings their own batteries should do fine (maybe just steer away from school articles for a while longer). Nick Moyes (talk
  ) 14:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'm highly confident this would pass. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Nick Moyes (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)

Last year

) 13:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• My initial impression of you is very favorable. I don't recall having seen you around, but given that our content interests don't overlap much, that's a good thing; it shows you're drama-free. I looked through your articles, and some of them are short but that's about all that's wrong with them. I also spot-checked AfD, and found nothing upsetting in those discussions where your !vote went against the eventual consensus. One piece of advice; if you don't want to work in a particular area as an admin, don't bother getting experience there before running. Nobody No reasonable person expects you to do everything as an admin. I had no experience at AFC, FFD, RFD, UAA, and several other venues; and none of my opposers cited this as a reason. You just need to be clear about what you will use the mop for, and demonstrate that you have the know-how for those things. I don't like numerical ratings, but I'm quite sure that if you ran tomorrow, you'd pass; unless there's skeleton's in the cupboard that I've missed...Vanamonde (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• On the point about not having to want to do everything or have experience of everything, it's worth taking a look at my RfA. I never once performed a non-admin close of an AfD, for example, and I made it clear that this was not an area of admin activity that I was particularly looking to be involved it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment IIRC, it was discussed in Cordless Larry's RfA that the Teahouse is producing a lot of good RfA candidates recently. The top-level statistics look good, and I don't see any red flags in the most recent 1000 edits. You will get a few opposes due to "too deletionist/hasty with CSD" or "not focused enough on content creation", but nothing serious. I don't think NACs are at all helpful for an RfA, and don't think you should worry about that. I will support if the regulars at the Teahouse support you.
  π, ν
  ) 21:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• I would encourage Nick to explore adminship. A glance at his user page at User:Nick Moyes and perusal of his GLAM efforts will probably convince people about his content work. For an example where he shows good judgment in a complex admin-related topic, see a recent ANI thread about a COI issue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Nick, you have been very helpful at the Teahouse in recent months and on the rare occasions that you make a mistake, you readily admit it. I consider that a great attribute for an administrator, and I encourage you to put your name forward when you believe that you are ready. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia. Regards from California. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• As I said somewhere recently, the main problem Nick has for RfA right now is three recent declined A7s : Neil Atkinson, Jayson Keeling and Gemma Romanyà i Valls. Once that's in the past and he's got clear and obvious evidence of understanding what A7 is about, he'll be ready. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• It was a pleasure reviewing all your flawless creations - for once I had some interesting and truly encyclopedic articles to read. I took a look at those CSD, and close examination of the sources (yes, I can read and speak Catalan fairly fluently too) shows that except for one article they weren't really too far off the mark - one of the creators has a history of producing sub-optimal pages. We all have blue links in our CSD logs and these would certainly not deter me from supporting an RfA. However, our
  WP:RFAADVICE, give it another 3 - 6 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 12:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• The problem with the taggings Ritchie mentions is not that they were made but that Nick does not have a lot of entries in his CSD log, so any mistakes stand out more prominently (a list which imho includes Ruprecht Langer, later deleted at AFD, who is the head of a German federal agency, which is a sufficient claim of importance). What I remember more was Eucalyptus (Avey Tare album), an album by a notable musician which was tagged as A7 last year but at that time Nick already had 7 years of experience. So despite its age, you might want to explain this tagging. That said, giving it another 3-6 months without such mistakes should be sufficient to appease most people. Regards SoWhy 13:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody went for "redirect" at

WP:JNN), the other was more concerned about its translation from de-wiki than notability or a redirect. And that was it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

14:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And relisted. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with several commenters above that spending some time at NPR to establish a longer CSD record/raise average accuracy (right now at 80%) should satisfy most at RfA; given we're really only talking about three errant A7s, I tend to think the sooner end of the abovementioned timeframes would be sufficient. AfC could sure use your help but I don't think it's necessary or even particularly helpful for RfA candidacy (could even be counterproductive right now, what with the project in flux and opinion divided on the proper threshold for accepting entries; makes it tough to be sure your contributions are in line with community norms.) Innisfree987 (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Time stamp for archive bot. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

---

IVORK (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)

Howdy all, was looking for some feedback in areas to improve / focus on in order to become an acceptable admin candidate. I feel I am a fair bit below what appears to be the standard applicant with some 12,000+ edits as opposed to the 30/40k norm, although I have noticed I'm slowly overtaking a handful of admins in the ranking by edits list. Additionally I mainly do Gnome edits more so than creating articles / adding content. If you're wanting to browse contributions, probably start here as I logged a good few AWB edits over the weekend, cheers — IVORK _Discuss 22:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• 2/10 – Opinions will vary, but I generally feel that while gmonish edits are also important, most RfA participants value experience creating articles / adding content a bit more. As a result, having only 879 non-automated edits to mainspace will be seen as a weak spot. Try finding a small article about a topic you're interested in and help develop it. Getting GA or FA status definitely helps, but it's not 100% necessary; you should have a measurable track record of adding a substantial amount of sourced content. Mz7 (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2/10 I somewhat agree with Mz7, although you don't really need GA/FA to pass. People just want to see you have a good grip on policies and guidelines in the most important areas and creating some recognized content helps. Potential other option is DYK, which has a lower threshold but also allows you to have content on the Main Page. Patrol new pages and next time you find a page about something, instead of tagging it for deletion, see if you cannot fix it up to DYK standards. I have done so a number of time before my first GA (which I wrote 14 years after registration and 10 years after my RFA). Additionally, I suggest you brush up on policies and guidelines and comment at some XFDs. !votes like this one where your only comment was what
  WP:CLN explicitly rules out as a deletion reason will not play well with people who want to see policy-knowledge. Neither will clear speedy deletion errors like the A7 taggings of a bishop of a notable church or an artist signed to a notable label or this obvious A10 error. Considering that you don't have a long track record in this area, these errors are more obvious and will likely sink any RFA (and not just from me opposing). Regards SoWhy
  07:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Mz7 and SoWhy have covered most of the general things I was going to mention, so I'll just add a query: do you have a sense of what you'd want to use the tools for? You may get more tailored suggestions that way (not all RfA candidates need to have identical qualifications--folks who've made clear they plan to focus on this or that typically (...famous last words) won't be examined quite so exactingly in areas they're expressly not planning to work); additionally, having a clear purpose for the tools inoculates against any impression of hat collecting, which is quite unpopular. And maybe most importantly, spelling out for yourself what use you'd have for the tools will help make sure you actually want the mop. Not everyone does! Innisfree987 (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• The low number of non automated edits is going to be the stumbling block. Just to put the record straight however, 30-40K is absolutely not the norm. Please read
  WP:RFAADVICE and the linked reading lists and check out the edit counts of successful candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 10:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• 4/10 I'm going to place your chances at passing a little higher, but still less than 50%. Higher because I looked at your talk page and see a collegial, helpful editor with
  WP:CLUE. Still less than 50% for the reasons listed above. 12k+ edits is enough to tell who you are (although I like to see an "active" phase longer than 14 months), and you don't need to go write 3 GAs from scratch, but some significant content work will be necessary unless you can show that you are filling an overlooked role where you need to tools in order to be effective at that role. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions}
  ) 13:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2/10 - I think the community would find issues with some of your CSD errors (as SoWhy stated above) and the number of automated edits that you do. I don't think the lack of content creation would be the "sinking point" for a potential RfA from you but content creation work never hurts to have. -- Dane ^talk 19:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• 4/10 I would like to support, but more edits to Articles for deletion pages would be much better.--Jusjih (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Mwenemucii (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) Hello community, I have been a Wikipedia contributor,especially on African informational pages, since August 2009.My home country is Kenya and I would like to request for admin rights.My intention is to add an extra pair of hands to the existing administrators,especially those dedicated to information contained in pages relating to Africa.The basis of the request is to enhance or add a degree of conformity to edits done mostly in relation to African information pages.The goal is to ensure that Wikipedia information about Africa and Africans closely approximates to the great spirit or philosophy of Wikipedia.

Thank you all. Mwenemucii (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, with less than 500 total edits, you don't have any chance of passing RFA at this time. If you want to become more involved in the project, I'd recommend joining WikiProjects (such as
  π, ν
  ) 23:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• 0/10 - Your account is pretty much dormant and your following statement "My intention is to add an extra pair of hands to the existing administrators,especially those dedicated to information contained in pages relating to Africa" (emphasis mine) is the final nail in the coffin for me. –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• 0/10 . With only 350 edits I'm afraid you won't be ready for adminship for a long time - perhaps years. Take a moment to read the pages you were linked to at the top of this page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

---

AlexGard1 (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 become a Admin on Wikipedia to support the community, and make sure everyone is following the rules. Copyright is important to me, and I highly value that readers are supplied with correct and fair information and media.

• 0/10. Welcome to Wikipedia AlexGard1. So far, you have only made four edits to Wikipedia, so you ought to have a read of why adminship is not for new users. Good luck in the future, and happy editing :) — sparklism ^hey! 13:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Hi
  WP:NOTYET will explain the position. Thanks for your interest though! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}
  13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Westj1211 (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 wold like to make Wikipedia better. It's a knowledgeable site full of articles on TV stations, etc. It's great to be an admin, especially myself.

• 0/10 - becoming an admin is generally viewed as requiring at least 10,000 edits, as well as general experience in several of the key areas like vandal patrol or articles for deletion. There's lots of ways to add to wikipedia to build your experience, I'd suggest getting 300 mainspace edits then having a look to see what might interest you. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Compassionate727 (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'll keep this brief. I'm generally aware of what things could be considered by other editors to be problems. I've read plenty of advice pages (and they basically all say the same things). But being the anxious perfectionist that I am, it is quite difficult for me to gauge by myself how much any of those things actually matters to various people, relative to various other things. Hence the poll. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A question that will certainly be asked is why you have a ~2 year gap of minimal activity before this April, and why you're back now. Also, if you are 16-18 (as your userpage suggests) some editors may hold your age against you, but not enough to sink an RFA. Apart from that, I'll defer to people who may remember you from your earlier editing for assessment of your RFA chances.

π, ν

) 03:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• 3/10. Your AfD profile will draw accusations of being a deletionist. Additionally, some of your last nominations (albeit in 2016) were closed as speedy keeps, people will also accuse you of not doing due diligence prior to nomination. The rest of your activity looks pretty good though I agree with
  power~enwiki that people will hold your youth against you. Personally, I would lean to support unless there is something that I have missed. Ifnord (talk
  ) 05:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• 2/10 speaking strictly about chances of passing RfA now. You seem like a valuable contributor which always counts for something! Red-cell deletion noms, mostly-deleted article creations, and only having been back regularly for four months make RfA chances pretty remote right now IMO, but I think if you stay active another 8-12 months and work on some of the highlighted areas, the age thing shouldn't be disqualifying. Diligence is a pretty good rejoinder to age concerns, for my money. All best, thanks for your work. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• 2/10 any time soon and within the next 12 months. If you have read
  this already as you claim, you will know that you are not ready for adminship yet. Although there are no official prerequisites for tenure or age, voters will expect a longer unbroken participation of probably at least 12 months, and although your age is not a barrier, it will be for some but they will find other reasons to oppose . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 06:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, this is, for the most part, the feedback I was expecting. One thing I'm surprised nobody has commented on is my CSD log. I had figured that my mainspace tagging was inaccurate enough that I would draw considerable ire (and this would, of course, combine with AfD to re-inforce the view of me as a deletionist). Nevertheless nobody noted this. I'm guessing this is because I have a massive amount of recent userspace deletions providing cover and nobody doing a quick scan for here noticed (i.e. this would be found and run with at an RfA). Verification that this interpretation is correct and/or other thoughts? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You just pre-empted me by a bit, I was concerned by the fact there was so much blue there. This is particularly a problem to fix as CSDs have become so much harder to do (in the sense there are fewer opportunities), and those that are possible are more contentious etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Compassionate727, I feel like you are one of these cases where ORCP is not really applicable, but an editor review would really help. If you are interested, I can write a detailed editor review for you. Alex Shih (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I had been looking to solicit feedback from multiple editors (and asking multiple editors for detailed reviews seemed to me a greater waste of time than an RfA poll), but since I haven't

a snowball's chance in hell of actually passing an RfA, this isn't exactly applicable either. I think that a single review would combine well with the brief inputs I received here and provide me with what I was looking for. So if you could write that review, Alex Shih, I'd be very grateful. I'll leave this poll open for a couple more hours if anybody else has anything they wish to add. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C

) 16:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Though I haven't done much of a study, I'll just note that, by coincidence I was looking at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports this morning and saw a number of sensible answers by User:Compassionate727. This led me to check whether you were actually an admin. It turns out that you were recently granted the edit-filter helper right. Will ping User:Home Lander since he's the admin who granted that since he was involved in that discussion. If you can do good work in that area it does suggest that, should you become an admin, you might have some potential for working on hard-core admin issues such as complex vandalism and sockpuppetry. Of course those abilities are not enough. To be satisfied about deletion issues and general judgment issues people would need to study your record. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As a minor of point of order EdJohnston, Home Lander is neither an admin nor edit filter manager; they are a fellow edit filter helper that endorsed the request by Compassionate727. But I agree with the rest of your comment; Sro23 is the most recent example on if you can excel in one area that are usually too complex for ordinary editors, every other area all of sudden doesn't weigh as much in comparison (still necessary, however). Alex Shih (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I must agree; I haven't been involved with many RfAs, but seeing the overwhelming support for Sro23 was refreshing. I believe that a more liberal interpretation of Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions#Doesn't_need_the_tools will benefit this place greatly. Home Lander (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of getting too off-topic, I want to comment that I thought it interesting participating for the first time in an RfA at Pbsouthwood's. I can't say with authority because I haven't participated in RfAs before that (although I have read a number of them), but it looked as though the community was arguing with itself how important a variety of experience is and decided that demonstrated competence and trustworthiness are significantly more important than "checking all the boxes", so to speak. I think the Signpost article calling declining adminship a crisis helped with that (even though, so far as I can tell, there isn't actually any crisis). I'm wondering if this is just a blip or if potential admins can expect to have it somewhat easier going forward. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, @U, Compassionate727, and Home Lander:, the Signpost article did not call declining adminship a crisis. The article was focused on the lack of interest for adminship and attempts to examine why this is. It will be quite some time before it reaches crisis proportions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It may not be a crisis yet, but it could easily become one, and who knows when, with how abruptly some disappear. And in this era of fake news, adequate management of sites like this has probably never been so important. Home Lander (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

And on that, admins specialised in certain fields are vastly more vulnerable to crisis and say a reasonable blip came along (3 active admins ceased) - overall that's nothing, but in a few areas (CSS, bots, high level copyvio) that would be a real nuisance Nosebagbear (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant at curtailing this perfectly productive conversation short, but in the interest of setting a good example (particularly for cases where the conversations aren't going so well), can it be moved to the talk page or another venue? isaacl (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing.
  WT:RfA is the venue for a general discussion. This poll has served ir purpose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  )

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jbhunley (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)

Several people have approached me about RfA and I would like to explore the idea further. I am not a content editor and I likely never will be. I have written a few small articles and started on a larger one both out of interest in the topic and to gain better insight into the process. I did get a better idea of where people who contribute content are coming from, how tough it can be to limit oneself to 'encyclopedic' material rather than running down an interesting rabbit hole and placing one's work out there for other's to comment on and change. I enjoy the back-end processes at Wikipedia and I believe I can contribute to them. I am pretty confident that my interpersonal skills are up to dealing with the stresses and conflict inherent in some of the more 'sensitive' areas and processes. Jbh ^Talk 17:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've seen you around the parish. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Your comments on the recent ANI thread re Dream Focus show you’d make a good admin. Find a nominator (waves) at your earliest convenience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• 8/10 - I think you would make a fine admin based on my observations of your contributions and demeanor, and I would vote unreservedly to promote. That said, there is the 2017 editing gap, modest article creation, and relatively low percentage of article edits that would probably give several users reason to oppose (unjustly, in my opinion). Fortunately, that is offset somewhat by your CSD experience and good AfD stats. My estimate is that the likelihood of passing is pretty high based on the current RfA environment. I hope you go for it, and wish you luck if you do.- MrX 🖋 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• 7/10 - Acting as someone who hasn't met you before I'd say the big draw is another experienced Admin in ANI, and so you should have plenty of tough situation/consensus building examples to draw from. The most recent sets of RfAs seem to be more willing to concede that limited content creation can be outweighed by expertise elsewhere. The reason I gave 7, not 8 or higher, is that there are three clubs most opposers will use - one is limited active months, personally I reckon if you carry on as-is for 2 more months that should be fine. Next up is the general anti-deletionist crowd (disclosure: I'm a centre-inclusionist) - roughly 90% of your last 200 are deletes/redirects, which as well as the unthinking mob, can concern those who think your judgements in the field might be less balanced. The third is related, which is that your AfD nom-success rate is about 83% which might cause problems. I should note I'm particularly impressed by how of those have been self-withdrawn from good arguments/citations from others. Most of the "found citations" withdrawals look like ones that were hard to find, and thus not the sign of poor
  WP:BEFORE checks. In effect, it might be wise to get your explanations out early. Nosebagbear (talk
  ) 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• You've got some fine folks looking to nominate, and I don't have too much beyond the above to add, except to say that I share Ritchie's and Alex' enthusiasm and think you'll be fine. You'll likely get asked about why you took a year off, and perhaps dinged for "only" being "active" for eight or nine months before an RfA, but that shouldn't be too bad. I think the overwhelming weight of time you've spent at ANI (and Jimbo's talk...) will get "too much activity at dramaboards, not enough content" more than it will help you. I imagine it might be a bumpy ride at times but you should get through. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• 9/10 - It's the classic cliche "I thought you were already an admin" .... You'd make a great admin no doubt about it. –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• I've seen you around, and appreciated your contributions to various noticeboards. As others have said, you may face opposition related to content creation and the number of edits you've made to drama boards, but barring any skeletons in the closet, I think you'd pass. Go for it. Vanamonde (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• I was disappointed that you immediately semi-retired rather than take up the position at NPR for which the community expressed a lot of confidence in your ability. Your work on the development of NPR and ACTRIAL contributed significantly to the successful implementaion of those projects, but may be already forgotten by the community at large. Not only is most of the RfA voting community a transient pool of users, especially since Dec 2015, but even the experienced regulars at RfA can be a fickle crowd and there may well be some comments based on your recent hiatus of almost a year. To be absolutely sure, you would need to complete a full 12 months substantial editing which would bring you to January next year. You'd certainly have my vote even if you ran sooner. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Kudpung: I still feel bad about that. I fence with big, heavy swords and injured/re-injured myself a few times.The last was pretty serious and really took the wind out of my sails. I'm still doing PT but I have been able to concentrate much better over the last several months and am generally back to where I was at the beginning of last year.

  That said, I completely understand why people would worry about the editing gap. All I can really say is I have no plans to drop off the face of the Earth but I do sometimes push my training a bit harder than is wise which can put me out of commission for a few weeks now and then – I'm pretty heavily motivated to avoid that happening though Jbh ^Talk 18:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please run. Based on interactions alone, Jbhunley is the kind of editor that are capable of reducing the hostility in the most heated exchange by simply demonstrating clue-fulness, impartiality and most of all, just making sense. Like Ritchie333 said, you would make a good administrator, if a not a model one, by being intelligent and kind. I'll be drafting a statement although I would understand if I lose the bid to Ritchie. Alex Shih (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I don't mind doing a co-nomination! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

RfA !voters (or at least the regulars who have been around) like a respected, reasonably high-profile nom. Two would be a bonus. Not all noms are created equally..

talk

) 14:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor diversion Propose immediate topic ban from ORCP for

User:Irondome until this is attended to summarily. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

18:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Alex Shih: I would appreciate that very much! Jbh ^Talk 18:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1/10 - Jbhunley is not what we need as an admin. In place of searching up entire history I can mention one of the recent incident[5] where he was completely uncivil[6] and misrepresenting others statement. He would be replying the comment of other editor without properly reading it first[7] and he would lend support to a disruptive editor, and even though the matter was already on ANI, he first canvassed an admin and then when he saw he saw no prompt response he went to canvass through talk page.[8] I think that this is a battleground mentality and only makes the situation far worse than it already is and all this was being done to defend disruption. Admin's work is to deal with the disruption than encourage it, and ultimately admin's work is not to add more fuel to fire. Rzvas (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  Many people including Jbhunley would say I can not understand anything about civility, but I do not see anything uncivil in the citation you label as uncivil. I guess if you want to make a battleground mentality case (I have no opinion on the merits of this case) these arguments would not be sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) @Jbhunley: Feel free to ignore this doubtless-well meaning but fundamentally misconstrued criticism. @Rzvas: there was absolutely no malice or incivility in the post you quoted whatsoever, merely a well-reasoned deconstruction of another user's comment—which ironically is the kind of careful but incisive commentary we actually want from our administrators (and so rarely seem to get; but that's another story!). —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:SNOW within the first 24 hours". Do you honestly think that'll happen. It might happen with yours, since you haven't even made 10 edits to one mainspace article, have signed up to the "Counter Vandalism Academy Unit" (which I, rather maliciously, have described as "University for people who can't write articles") and only 6 AfDs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

17:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ritchie333: 1/10 can have more than one interpretation, though point is still same. Jbhunley has created only 7 articles, 2 of which were deleted and none of these existing article were larger than a mere stub. That is very low for someone who has that many edits on Wiki.
• SerialNumber54129, Ymblanter: Just adding that I had carefully read the ANI since I was involved with the concerning article.[9] Pointing correct quotation cited by the editor as "deceptive quoting" is uncivil and it effectively distracted from the issue in hand. I have shown that Jbhunley replied a comment which he had already replied once after other editor had made the response to initial comment of Jbhunley, which shows that Jbhunley avoids reading entire comment before he replies them. Thread shows that Jbhunley attempted to have
  the last word
  while ignoring the issue in question. I see there's no justification for the forum shopping he did there.
• Except this incident, his demands to desysop Future Perfect at Sunrise[10] were also not making any sense since FPAS had already self-reverted his admin action. Even on WP:ARC, Jbhunley was attempting to have
  the last word. He was bludgeoning the ARC that he was often asked to cut his comments.[11][12] While disagreements happen, but JBH is not good at expressing it and as shown by his own reaction to the correct decision of Arbcom that it was: "Total waste of time. Unwatching before I get blocked for expressing my opinion of this travesty".[13] Do we need more? Frequently asking FPAS to be desysoped over a trivial incident and disagreeing with the outcome in such a way speaks enough. Rzvas (talk
  ) 18:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

1/10, Rzvas, is not an assessment of how you think the community will vote. It's your own biased opinion. I can assure you that Jbhunley has more than a fair a good chance of passing RfA, but an even better one if he waits until he has made up for lost time during his absence. Please read the instructions before commenting at ORCP again, and above all, please try to understand what incivility is and what it is not, and consider waiting until you have more experience before worrying yourself about things like RfA or other administrative areas. On most other Wikipedias you would need at least 500 mainspace edits to qualify for voting on RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

RfA is better termed as a community discussion that requires input of community. I am not sure about "other wikipedias" since we are discussing the matter of English Wikipedia. Rzvas (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Everyone, I think Jbhunley has enough feedback regarding this rating and is able to decide how to weight it. I suggest no further discussion is needed. isaacl (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you all for the input. Jbh ^Talk 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Mr. Guye (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) This is my second ORCP; the last one was years ago. I'm applying because today I read

)  03:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• 3/10. From your post, I cannot really guess what you are interested in but some red flags popped up during a short review, so I'm not too confident at your chances, e.g. this G11 less than three weeks ago that lead to a SNOW keep at
  WP:ATD. Add to this the fact that you use edit summaries only inconsistently (which for me is a reason itself to abstain from supporting in most cases) and your gap in contributions in the last months, especially in May, and any RFA at this time will likely fail. Regards SoWhy
  07:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @SoWhy: For the record, my computer broke and so I contributed less frequently. I now have a new computer, so I became more active. I understand the concern with the editing gap, and I just want to explain that. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• 2/10. 75% edit summary use is going to turn off a lot of people. Article creation and active writing is a must for many voters, though recently it may be lessening if candidates show some expertise in a project; I don't see that with you, except for your commendable anti-vandalism work. I think it would heavily depend on the crafting of the RfA, why do you need the mop? Ifnord (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• 2/10 - CSD log and PROD log looks fine however I'm concerned by your AFD !votes in that in terms of your !votes matching up to the outcome that's only 58% (compared to mine which is 86%), As you're not a content creator I would expect more in terms of AFD, As for closing them you've only closed 23 in the time you've been here,

The editing gap could be another issue although that's been explained above,

To be honest I'm not really seeing a reason why you'd need the tools ... In my eyes you only want to be an admin because there's a lack of interest in becoming an admin... not because you want too if that makes sense.

IMHO if you ran for RFA I don't think it would be successful. –Davey2010^Talk 12:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• 2/10 - The low use of edit summaries, the gaps in editing, and the low AfD (which was mentioned in your previous ORCP) will be the main issues. SoWhy has summarised the rest which I don't need to repeat. BTW, your previous ORCP was not 'years' ago, it was only 14 months ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Timestamp. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Narutolovehinata5 (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 on Wikipedia for 10 years now, and at various times I've considered running for adminship. I've even once been asked to start an RfA, but I declined at the time, saying that I was satisfied with being a non-sysop. Over the years I've done various things, mostly new page patrolling and vandalism reversion, though these days I've mostly been doing DYK-related work. Over the past three years or so, I've also done quite a bit of content contribution, and some of the articles I've worked on have been promoted to GA status and/or featured at DYK. I'm not actually considering starting an RfA anytime soon, this poll would mostly be for feedback on my prospects for adminship. As for why I'd wish to be an admin, it would be for two reasons: to help out with the CSD deletion backlogs, and also to help out with the preps and queues on DYK.

00:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• 8.5/10 9/10 - @Narutolovehinata5: You look like an excellent candidate, great on content creation, DYKs, ongoing activity and all the usuals. The only reason your score isn't higher is currently pending on my probable incompetence - you want to focus on CSD backlog, which is excellent, but I can't find your CSD log. Could you post me a direct link? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not perfect, but maybe this link kind of fits the bill?

csdnew

09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Then I do have a piece of advice I can give - since you are using twinkle to create your CSDs, you can tick a twinkle preference to have it record your CSD and PROD logs. Since the former makes it possible to tell whether your CSDs were accepted it's much more useful as a tool. I wouldn't normally say it was vital, but if you're going to give CSD admin handling as your first "reason to have the mop" thing, it needs to be really easy to see you're good with them. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Per the details provided below, while my advice for ease remains, that's an excellent ratio, and so more than good enough for a 9/10 - I think you'd make an excellent admin, and have no reason to not pass your RfA once you have a pair of good noms. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• 9/10 - Using
  find a nominator to write you a "smack the ball out of the park" RfA, get somebody else to co-nom, then you should be able to pass without too much hassle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  14:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  Didn't do a full check yet but in my log of declines, I found Multihousing Professional magazine, an A7 for a magazine from 6 months ago, something someone with 10 years experience should know better (I might be somewhat bitter because of their misleading comment in the AFD that followed). Regards SoWhy 15:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think at the time, I wasn't aware that A7 didn't apply to magazines, and the main reason I nominated it under A7 was because I wasn't sure if G11 applied. Not sure why I wasn't able to reply at the time, either I was too busy or I forgot about the nomination. In any case, I apologize for that.

csdnew

15:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Also spotted Cad-Capture Group, A7 declined, unanimous consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cad-Capture Group. Although you said "While there does appear to be some hits in reliable sources" which is generally not an A7; though nobody at the AfD even suggested a redirect, so what do I know? Doesn't really change the big picture of an excellent accuracy rate at CSD - in a nutshell, I cannot see any speedy that was declined and is still a live article in mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Based on interactions in DYK alone, I have a feeling that you would be one of these uncontroversial candidates that are not exactly outspoken nor outstandingly spectacular in any area, but are consistently competent enough in addition to being amicable to work with. We can use another administrator that works more and talk less, and DYK project would definitely benefit from additional admin help. Let me know when you are thinking about running, I will be more than willing to write a co-nomination statement. Alex Shih (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• 10/10 - Literally the perfect candidate, Keeps their head down and gets on with it - Edit count's great, AFD's great, DYK's great .... everything's just great!, If you ran for RFA I'd 110% support. –Davey2010^Talk 16:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• 10/10. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• 10/10 How funny, you must have heard my thoughts! I was just getting ready to contact you about RfA, after encountering you at a couple of subject matter articles DYK discussions and being impressed with your knowledge of policy, your calm demeanor, and your common sense. If you haven't already lined up nominators, I would be glad to oblige. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• 9/10 - because nothing can be certain. I would offer to nominate but I see you have some excellent offers already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• 11/10 no doubts. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Supportive note: Given what's gone on with Jbh despite the vote of confidence above, I'll recommend that if you plan on running, have an answer ready for your regular multiple mistakes with the rollback button (e.g. [15][16][17]...). You could consider User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback.js in the meanwhile. Warmly, Lourdes 00:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  I can potentially see some people having issues with this, but at that point we're just splitting hairs if these edits are going to be used as justification to oppose an RfA. Editors are people, not gods. We all make mistakes such as these. The fact that Narutolovehinata5 seems to recognize when a mistake is made, and acts accordingly, is actually something that I would love to see in a potential admin. Either way, I'm in agreement with you that there's a good chance this would pass.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 23:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  Lourdes has pointed exactly the kind of thing that the less serious voters at RfA will jump on. See how in the current RfA, all the pile-ons are centred on one event only. Sadly, RfA is still a most unpleasant place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  I hear you! Someone needs to write a Wikipedia Essay on how we shouldn't make perfect the enemy of good.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 00:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Enterprisey (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) Just wondering what people think, and looking for advice on areas in which to improve. Since last time (under the name APerson), I've done more technical work, especially on gadgets (AFCH and navigation popups) and scripts. I've also done additional article & AfD work. Regarding the alt account (a cause of failure of the last RfA), I regret using the account, understand that the RfA vote was against policy, and hope that we can leave it behind after four years. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• What admin work would you intend to do? A lack of mainspace activity will be a concern; your last 250 edits go back to October 2017, and over half of those were semi-automated with YABBR. 12 AfD votes in the past year won't really count as "AfD work", either. If there's a specific technical need for being an admin, you may have a shot.
  π, ν
  ) 03:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  I would do a lot of work on gadgets, especially (the above-mentioned) AfC helper script and navigation popups. The former is currently stored in my userspace, which is not very secure (for a gadget used by about 6.1K editors), so MusikAnimal proposed that I put it in the MediaWiki namespace instead. If/when that happens, I would normally be making a large amount of edit requests, as the maintainer of the script; the bit would help with that. Other gadgets I might contribute to once I become familiar with their codebases include Twinkle and HotCat. Additionally, I would work on admin user scripts, and as a bot operator since 2014, I would work on adminbots if needed.

  On the non-technical side of things, I would contribute to XfD (mostly AfD/TfD) and, to a lesser degree, AIV. (I don't plan to run for at least another six months at this point, so lack of experience there may not be too much of an issue.) Regarding areas I haven't mentioned so far (RFPP, SPI, UAA, CSD, etc), I would be very willing to help out if needed and I'll take the time to learn how to contribute to those areas. pinging @

  Power~enwiki, Vanamonde93, and Davey2010 Enterprisey (talk!

  ) 16:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would wait at least until the end of the month, but I'd give you 7/10 then. I generally agree with Vanamonde's analysis otherwise.

π, ν

) 03:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• 7/10 – You are one of our most valuable and well-respected technical contributors! When editors go to check your AfD stats, they will be using a tool which you yourself wrote (that's surreal to me). You're intimately familiar with AfC procedures from having developed the helper script that all AfC reviewers used. Your reply-link tool is a really creative script that I see having potential to improve the user experience of new editors. Your length of tenure here is also appropriate. I have no doubt that getting the administrative toolset would inspire you to create new tools that would help with administrative work, and for that reason, I would support if you ran. With that being said, it is true that your AfD stats are on the low side, as well as your overall activity on Wikipedia in general. You've created a demonstrable amount of content, however, and I think you can show that the reasons which your previous RfA failed no longer apply. Find good nominator(s) and give RfA voters a clearer idea of the kind of admin work you plan on doing. Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Before I evaluate you chances, I'd like to hear more about what you would use the tools for: your technical contributions are excellent as far as I am aware, but they don't speak directly to a need for the admin toolset. Also, a significant concern last time surrounded the alternative account, but the problems with that incident were not restricted to the fact that you created a dodgy alternative account; it was that your primary account may not have been entirely secure. This is an issue you will have to address. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Enterprisey: If you want to do all of those things, I think you'll have a hard time. Low overall activity aside, your activity with CSD, AFD, and PROD is very sparse, and while I'm unable to access your edits to AIV, there can't be more than 27 of them (per xtools) which isn't much at all. Now this could go two ways. If you're primarily interested in the technical side of things and are looking at the other areas just to build a stronger candidacy, my advice is: don't. Run as soon as you have maintained a decent activity level for a few months, make it clear where your strengths are, and make it clear that you're not going to mess around with anything else. If you are keen on AIV and deletion for their own sakes, then you're going to need a good bit more experience in those areas; probably six months at minimum, a good bit longer with your current activity levels. And regardless of when you run, you will have to reassure the community about account security. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  Regarding the security of my primary account, I have 2FA enabled (we could get a shell person to confirm, I guess) and absolute confidence that my password and email are very secure. The reasons my primary account may not have been secure four years ago are not a problem anymore. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  If you say that upfront in any RFA, that should be quite sufficient to address any reasonable security concerns. Also, with respect to activity, Mz7 suggests below that a lot of your contributions are off-wiki; if this is indeed the case, it would certainly make an RFA more likely to pass. Vanamonde (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Enterprisey: It is hard to imagine anyone doubting that you enabled 2FA via the (oathauth-enable) your adminship on test.wiki gives you following this recommandation from a crat back in January. Fair winds, Sam Sailor 18:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Enterprisey: One further comment; I'm seeing a notice of a UTRS block appeal on your talk page. As I cannot find blocks in your block log, this baffles me, and an explanation could avoid some confusion at your RFA. Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• 5.5/10 - (Only my estimate of you passing at this very moment!). Firstly, an honour to meet the user who made the AfD and AfC tools, I use them excessively. So straight up your general competence will be accepted, especially with your other content work. However, Vanamonde is spot on - you need to give your reason for needing admin tools, and be excellent in that field. Your overall tenure is fine, but your short-term activity is lacking, as is recent AfD activity. While I would be strong support at this second, I would advise: 4 months more activity (well, 3 and a bit) with over 400 edits per month, with a good chunk of that on AfDs. I would suggest directly stating (or a nom doing so) the alt account bit right at the start, 4 years you'd hope should be long enough. Nosebagbear (talk)
• 3.5/10 : That's the chance I think the community would give you right now. You've hardly edited since September 2016. Voters will want to see some current commitment to Wikipedia and one that demonstrates a need for the tools. You have some catching up to do. Remember that all the newbies who vote on RfA nowadays don't give a hoot for what you've done in the past, and those who do remember, will love to drag up old dirt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• 2/10 - Your Prod and CSD logs are very low, Your participation at AFD (and XFD as a whole) hasn't been all that frequent and then there's the low editing activity here, The million dollar question at RFA would be "Why do you want the tools?" and quite honestly I'm not seeing any sort of reason why you do .... –Davey2010^Talk 12:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• 6/10 mainly as I'm not sure how the community will react to the prior incident, even if to me it's quite clear what happened and why four years later it's no longer relevant. More generally, I think Vandamonde's got the right advice. If you're focused on the area where you have great bona fides (scripts, bots, etc.), I wouldn't mess with that. Of course some may oppose on the grounds there's nothing stopping you from venturing into other areas, but to me your record makes clear what has your genuine interest, high level of competence, and absence of any real cause for concern. If you've really become newly interested in the other things, I would recommending spending quite a long time establishing a record in them--4-6 months doesn't actually seem long enough, I think it'd probably need to be more like 8-12. And, that just seems silly, given your tenure. If you're going to go for it, go ahead and do it for what you're already good at, and either it'll work or it won't. Prob worth coming up with some succinct explanatory statement about the alt account, tho; doesn't need to make any (further) invasion your privacy, just a couple sentences clear enough that no one feels they have to drag an explanation out or go digging//reading between the lines.

And hey: can I get 2FA too please?! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: Yes, you can. Sam Sailor 18:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• 2/10. I would support you in a heartbeat but, as Kudpung brought up, people love old dirt. [18], a recent RfA, shows a lot of diffs that are two years old. I suspect that you would have to clean start and then spend a year with participation in all spheres and no negative interactions if you really wanted the burden of mop ownership. Ifnord (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree completely with the claim that a clean start is required. Enterprisey has clearly adjusted his behavior, and there is absolutely no reason to suspect that the same mistake will be repeated. Consider also the fact that the last RfA was not exactly a SNOW situation... he was supported by 61 editors, some of whom are really well-respected at RfA today. I don't disagree that Enterprisey's overall activity is on the low side (this is likely due to the fact that most of his most valuable technical contributions are done off-wiki), but if he can increase that on-wiki participation in the months preceding an RfA run, and if he has a strong nomination statement written by well-respected nominators (particularly ones that opposed his last run), I see him passing with this account. I feel that ORCP has the tendency to be a bit too pessimistic at times, and this is one instance where we might be inadvertently turning away someone who would be a net positive. Mz7 (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Mz7, it's my guess that Ifnord didn't actually mean 'clean start' in the sense of WP:Clean start. That could take years to get to adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)