Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 11

• *Difficult: not bad stats, but I've got a nasty feeling they would be forgotten if your previous account became public knowledge. As we've seen in at least one relatively recent RfA, the community has a long memory when it wants, and—what can only be described as a vicious streak. Also, that's a helluva high automated edit count; might want to put away the tools for a bit? Mind you, plenty of mainspace edits, and clearly not all automated, as you've created a fair few pages. But the thing is, the areas you've indicated that you're active in don't necessitate the tools (except antivandalism, but that's sometimes seen as a bit of an easy option): so immediately the question will be, what's actually your need? ~70% AfD match; that might strike some commentators as necessarily low, although tbh there's also those who won't, and, if you explicitly say you don't want to work in that area, will ignore it. Having said that—and tied in with the question of need—you haven't said where you will work. That's fundamental. I don't really do numerical scores here, but I'd say give it a while, establish yourself under this account, gain some gravitas, and especially become useful in other areas. Maybe try for a GA or two  :) it certainly wouldn't do any harm! Good luck, ——SerialNumber54129 15:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  My need is to block vandals especially from Huggle where I noticed there's a shortage of admins (Oshwah and K6ka seem to be the only admin hugglers). Gaining the tools may be useful for me in performing basic administrative tasks (i.e. deleting, blocking, protecting) that I'm so ready and eager to do, as doing the tasks myself instead of reporting/requesting at administrative venues may be timesaving and convenient.

  hundreds

  08:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Right. Thanks for the email, by the way!​ ——SerialNumber54129 08:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

    Sure and the second one was a joke.

    hundreds

    08:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• 0/10 - This could be an issue, Whilst CLEANSTARTS are valid and accepted you may be asked what your previous username was, I'm going to give my opinions based on this account only,
  

You've only been here since March of this year so tenure is an issue for me, Your PROD overall looks okay however your AFD is poor in that you've only got 70% because you've been the nom if that makes sense,

Also worth noting you don't need to be an admin to deal with vandalism, new page reviewing and AFC,

In short I feel this is TOOSOON. –Davey2010^Talk 15:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to note I hadn't realised their usernames were on their userpage, So I guess there wont be questions inregards to what the names are but insteasd why the different accounts..... –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yo Davey2010, heh!—note belOw i said "most previous accounts"  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah you did sorry :), –Davey2010^Talk 19:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• 0/10 While I can appreciate the honesty in declaring that you have used a clean start, I would need to know what happened under your previous account that led to that decision before I could make any type of informed decision. I would be more than willing to accept receiving this knowledge via email, if you would prefer to not bring up old issues on-Wiki. I am also a little apprehensive about granting administrative tools to those under the age of 18. Simply put, it's a trust concern - I don't feel that minors, in most instances, have the necessary life experience to be able to properly step into disputes and address them neutrally and with a calm head. Now, that being said, I am more than happy to keep an eye on your contributions for awhile and keep an open mind about considering you as an exception to that general rule, but it would take some work on your part for that to happen. Strikerforce^Talk 16:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Strikerforce: To be fair, they're not hiding anything; most previous accounts are on their userpage. ——SerialNumber54129 16:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The two previous usernames for this account are listed on the "about" page; the claim that this is a clean-start would mean there are other accounts that this person has operated.

π, ν

) 16:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: but I've got a nasty feeling they would be forgotten if your previous account became public knowledge raises questions for me as to whether or not there were problems with the candidate's previous account(s) that would at least need to be looked at for comparison of progress as an editor. I wouldn't hold those issues - if there were any - against the candidate, thus supporting the whole idea of a "clean start", but I would like to see growth as an editor, especially given my reservations about granting admin privileges to a minor. Strikerforce^Talk 16:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

​ I don't why you keep indentdentdenting; the candidate is here to answer all the questions you want (that they want!). ——SerialNumber54129 17:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Most editors who've interacted with me already know of my previous account but to link it and declare publicly would defeat the purpose of a clean start which is why I am reluctant to do (although it's already linked in my logs).

  hundreds

  08:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• 2/10 Stats look decent, concerned about tenure and the fact that the user deleted the part about a clean start after some negative comments about it.
  King
  17:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• 0/10. Your account is ~180 days old. Even for me, who still believes it's no big deal, the expectation is at least a year. Your choice of username is also unusual. Some people join as a lark before they get really into the project and have something they just quickly made up. You've spent time going through a clean start and that's what you chose? Ifnord (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Please no. Even though this is supposed to be a casual poll, you should still have the courtesy to write a short statement to summarise what you would like people to comment on. If you would like to consider adminship, change your username back to something less silly, do more content work, expand your areas (especially to those that requires you to write something thoughtful so that people can assess your "temperament" or maturity), and finally stop feuding or claiming harassment (looks like that hasn't happened recently, which is good). If you can do all of that, I don't think it will be that difficult. Alex Shih (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not normally that bothered about tenure, and I'm more open than most to supporting Clean Start candidates with an undisclosed former account. But when you combine a fairly short tenure with this being a Cleanstart, well I have issues, and so will many others. For all we know you could have had a block expire hours before you started this account. If you want to run at RFA without disclosing one or more former accounts then I would expect a statement such as "I have never been blocked under any account" or "I have an undisclosed former account, but all the accounts I have edited with in the last three years are on this list on my userpage. Cool username by the way. ϢereSpielChequers 23:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• 1/10 I largely agree with what has been written above except for the part about your username which I could care less about. Bottom line you need to wait at least a year and if your still interested you will need to make a full disclosure of your previous accounts and any issues you may have had. I doubt anyone would nominate you at the moment and if you self nominated my guess is your RfA would end up being SNOWed under. None of this is insurmountable though. Time plus a solid record under your current account plus full and honest disclosure about any past issues might well get you there. But not right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• I don't plan to run for adminship until at least mid-2020 or later. This is just to see if clean start accounts are welcomed to do so, with or without disclosing previous account(s). Personally I feel I'm more qualified for adminship than many of the existing admins (this statement will backfire on me in a few years but I don't mind!) Thank you all for commenting, I think it should be closed now.
  hundreds
  09:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

IntoThinAir (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 have a long history here, almost all of which was not under my current username. My original username (when I created this account in 2013) was Jinkinson, which was changed to Everymorning in 2014 and to my current username this past July. Though the above template (user-orcp) says "no prior RFA", this only applies to my current username: I have two (unsuccessful) RFAs, one under each of my old usernames (first one, second one). With regard to paid editing, I have done it a few times and I have disclosed it on the article's talk page each time, as well as on my own userpage. I have considered potentially running for adminship intermittently over the about 3.5 years since my last unsuccessful attempt and I wanted to know to what extent the community now regards me as trustworthy w/regard to adminship. My last two ORCP entries were in 2016 (one in Archive 2 and the other in Archive 6) and I am interested in (and bracing myself for) an update. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Very low chances due to paid editing. I haven't looked at your other contributions, but the extent to which many users regard paid editing and adminship to be totally incompatible is well known and widespread; I don't think you would have any chance of passing. Moreover, the paid editing is
  WP:PAY #3. Editors who engage in COI editing are in effect ignoring this advice, which is a bad mark against their judgement (something that was a concern during your last RfA). I personally would not support for this reason. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here}
  ) 15:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• I think ICPH speaks for me on these matters. ——SerialNumber54129 16:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Hate to pile on here but ICPH and SN speak for me too - Paid editing is allowed but as ICPH says it's highly discouraged and it's something I generally disagree with, If you can be paid to write an article you can easily be paid to delete one. –Davey2010^Talk 16:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Davey2010: - that is a significant insult and unjustified. Someone has complied with PaidCOI requirements does not give any indications they would then break the rules to the tune of deleting an article for payment. I don't disagree that, without a year of no paid work, !voters won't go for it, but that statement was well beyond that. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I stand by each and every word of my opinion - I don't trust anyone who partakes in paid editing, Ofcourse I'm not saying IntoThinAir would ever take pay to delete an article and I apologise if I gave that impression - The point I was (perhaps badly) trying to make was that if anyone can take pay to write an article then theoretically anyone could take pay to delete one but as I said I wasn't trying to insinuate IntoThinAir would so I apologise if I gave that impression, –Davey2010^Talk 18:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• The difference, Davey2010, is that paid editing is regulated and allowed even though most volunteer editors disapprove of it. Using administrator's tools for pay is not allowed and would result in a desysop if discovered. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes I'm aware of the difference, I've struck that statement, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 18:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• 2/10 Paid editing is hugely controversial and I think would be an instant deal breaker at RfA. Sorry but this is where you go to get blunt (sometimes brutally so) advice about your odds of passing RfA. If you want to be an admin you will need to renounce paid editing and probably wait at least a year. This is something that casts a long shadow, fairly or not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• 1/10 I consider it highly unlikely that the RfA regulars would support giving the mop to a paid editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If you really want to be an admin one day and wish to be considered on the basis of your other non-paid contributions than on the paid ones, you've lost the chance with this account. I don't even know if a new start with clean disclosure to arbcom might be the way to go for a future adminship attempt (in other words, you'd probably be still required to reveal at the RfA about your past accounts). You can email me if you need further advice. Lourdes 15:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This is, to some extent, a response to both active candidate polls - an editor is not obliged to disclose a clean start, even at
  RfA, notwithstanding the advice at clean start. For an example of an editor who succeeded at RfA despite a significant amount of community suspicion about their history with other accounts, see WP:requests for adminship/Amortias. Amortias opted to disclose his alternate account to the arbitration committee, but, again, that isn't strictly necessary. Airbornemihir (talk
  ) 04:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• And here I was thinking that paid editing was fine so long as it was done in keeping with Wikipedia rules for doing so! How naive of me! But I am genuinely surprised that any form of paid editing (at least recently) is considered bad, even if it was not in violation of Wikipedia policy and even if I would completely stop doing it if I became an admin (which I definitely would). IntoThinAir (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's heavily to do with the fact that paid work is always considered with a sense of "biased until proven reliable", and that at an RfA that would be associated with the editor. It doesn't require any of this bonkers clean start and redoing suggested above, but I imagine that a 9 month pause (enough to be able to demonstrate a clear cessation) would be needed.

The feedback you've received is that paid editing is not "fine", but merely tolerated, albeit begrudgingly (or "Very strongly discouraged", per

WP:PAID) By engaging in paid editing you have shown that you have not assessed the consensus on paid editing correctly. Assessing consensus is the crux of adminship for many participants in an RfA. Hence your low score, I suppose. --Vexations (talk

) 21:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• It would also be reasonable to IntoThinAir to provide some feedback on his other aspects, since if we all think he'd have to wait then the least we can do is suggest what the time should also include. I'll have a go if you give me a minute. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Negatives first: the block is so far back as to be irrelevant. Autopatrolled was removed for a copyvio case, but the rapid return via a PERM request would seem to indicate the experts on rights had no significant concern. AfD work is distinctly lacking, which given your edit count, presumably indicates a deliberate decision. Given that people in RfA always pick on any cause in RfA it might be worth picking up 50 or so over the next few months.

Good stuff next: Edit count, CSD log, article work all seems of very high quality. Mainspace and manual edit rates are high (not that I care, but others seem to).

I personally would be happy to !vote Support for you right now, the paid editing is minimal, extremely clear and of sufficient quality. However, I still think the hostility towards paid editing is worth waiting a decent length of time, however - it would appear you haven't undertaken any paid editing since March. That would make 9 months around Christmas, and so the delay wouldn't be too serious. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have to point something out about the block in question: I was blocked once in 2014 by Bishonen at my own request, for 24 hours. I requested that block because I thought Wikipedia was interfering with my ability to complete my college assignments. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That just makes it even less of an issue

• I think your chances are very low, and as others have suggested, it's due to the paid editing (albeit properly disclosed). I personally see paid editing as totally incompatible with adminship, and I know a lot of others feel the same. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Concurring with others. Paid editing of any kind (except WIR) although currently tolerated by certain rules, is not generally approved of by the community. My special concern is that it is exploiting for gain the work of 1000s of editors who contribute content and maintain the corpus for free, and have built Wkipedia into the important resource that it is today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying I don't understand why it's viewed so negatively, what I find odd is that it's being viewed as (very) significantly worse than so many things that we are officially against. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

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

I have been thinking about wanting to go for admin rights for a while. Mainly because it will allow me to close

• 4/10. I have to admit that I have not heard of you, which might be because you only really became active in October 2017, which might turn away a number of editors who expect tenures of 2 years or more. The focus on Portals might also be problematic for some editors since you have little other admin-related activities, no speedy/xFD participation to speak of and only few reports to AIV and basically no participation on other project related areas. Hence, I'd expect a number of "no need" opposes as well. I can't see any indication of featured content work (DYK/GA/FA etc.), so you will also get "not enough content creation" opposes. Seeing your portal-related activity, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood is most comparable, with the caveat that Pbsouthwood was also a recognized content creator which you are not. Nothing I said should disqualify you but I think in sum it probably will. Regards SoWhy 18:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am going to be taking a part in

WP:GA and have nominated Morpeth, Northumberland for GA status. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions}

21:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll do a full review if time permits, but major issues with Morpeth as I see it immediately are a) lots of unsourced content (particularly landmarks and notable people) b) no attention has been paid to the layout of images, which need sorting out c) the lead is too short d) I'm not sure the history section meets the "broad in coverage" part of the criteria, plus the narrative jumps all over the place. Sure, put a GA in your arsenal, but the quality of the encyclopedia comes first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• 3/10. This may sound harsh, so please don't take it personally; overall, I think you're an excellent editor - I'm just pointing out what the community is going to find and scrutinize. As far as content creation goes, you've only created 3 mainspace pages,
  "per nom" or "per above." Your vandalism fighting looks great, as does your CSD log and RM closing, and marking 7,000 pages for deletion is quite remarkable; but I believe the community would want to see better experience in the areas pointed out above. Please let me know if you have any further questions.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?}
  19:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will try to add more reasoning when participating in

WP:GA and improving the article further through the process. I will be on the lookout for further articles to create. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions}

21:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• 0/10 - You signed up in 2015 however you only started editing roughly in December 2017 before taking a break and coming back in February this year, Your AFD stats are low, Your CSD log is okay but as a whole due to your tenure and lack of XFD participation I believe you have absolutely no chance at passing an RFA at this present time, I would kindly suggest retrying in a few years. –Davey2010^Talk 21:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am not intending to go for admin rights for a while and this has only been reaffirmed by comments made by the others above. I will be participating in

WP:AFD and XFD discussions more. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions}

21:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Without sounding harsh this page does state "This optional polling page is for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges (RfA) in the near future and wish to receive feedback on their chances of succeeding in their request." so if you have or had no plans of starting an RFA then this poll is rather a waste of everyones time, it would be no different to me starting a poll to be a steward even tho I have no desire to be one..... –Davey2010^Talk 13:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

And your latest user box, Dreamy Jazz, may not have quite the effect you are presumably hoping it well  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 13:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Sorry, I'll clarify. I was wanting to go for admin rights, but was sceptical that I would pass an RfA. Through this poll it has given facts to my suspicions and so I won't go for RfA (as you suggested) for at least a year. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to close this poll. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Cymru.lass (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)

Curious to see how I'd do. I'm on the fence about running soon since I'm recently re-active after a long period of semi-activity, but I have been with the 'pedia for about a decade now. I focus on a few different things here on the project, including vandalism reversion (so I'd be interested in

• 2/10 - Don't be disheartened by the rating though, as instructed this is my estimate of you passing at this time and the chances for that are slim simply because of the "long period of semi-activity" you mention. You were basically not active between 2017-02 and 2018-07, so many people will likely treat you as any other who just started three months ago. Your last major activity was in 2013, five years ago. All the good you are doing will not outweigh this simple problem. Also, while lack of content creation alone has not led to any RFA failure as far as I can remember, it will make it harder for you to convince anyone that your low (recent) edit count should be ignored (since all the areas you mention usually generate high numbers of edits). Last but not least your editing history shows a pattern of high editing phases that are followed by long stretches of inactivity, which will lead to some opposes based on the assumption that you won't stick around anyway. My advice: Get active again and demonstrate that you are here to stay, contribute in the ideas you are interested in, maybe write an article or two (or just fix one you find until it is DYK-worthy) and check back in 9-12 months. Regards SoWhy 21:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• 1/10 - mostly I'm very in line with the above - wiki has changed enough to warrant an extended period to satisfy most RfA voters. Beyond activity, once you're up to speed you need to significantly improve your AfD scores - your !votes show a deletionist tendency but the real killer is the number of those that have been rejected, including recently. AfD is used as such a big judgement point of notability (and is particularly key if not taking a content creation route) that your % needs to be much higher. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Hi, and thanks for your interest in adminship, I'm not giving a rating because they usually over simplify things and especially so in your sort of case. But if you'd like me to nominate you, read my criteria and drop me an email with a draft of your answers to the first three questions. You need to show that you have written referenced content - a DYK or some article rescues will suffice, not for a unanimous score but you only need consensus. As for time, you easily exceed the tenure requirements in some respects, but people will want to feel you are up to speed since your return. ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Cymru.lass: (Not trying to get you off this page! But) come back in six months, having made ~ten edits a day in the same vein as you have been and then come back here for a very different response  :) think that's possible? ——SerialNumber54129 17:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Serial Number 54129, WereSpielChequers, and SoWhy: thank you all for taking the time to go through my contribs and give me an assessment of where I'm at! You've each given me something to think about and focus on as I keep contributing around here. Cheers, cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  Oops, and @Nosebagbear:, forgot to ping you in the above. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Not going to rate you but your edit count is rather on the low side, your XFD participation is on the thin side as is your WP space participation, There would also be questions raised as to why user talkpages are your second most edited space here (behind articlespace) (although this being said it would be due to your 2010 edits but it could still go against you),

My best advice: Do some XFD and Wikispace work (UFAA, AIV etc) and maybe come back here in a year or 2, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Feminist (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 · no prior RfA)

A few editors have offered to nominate me for RfA in the past, but I have always found RfA to be daunting. Although I have created a number of DYK-level articles, my focus is on

• 7/10. Content looks solid, with good GA and DYK work (as well as featured pictures). Would perhaps like to see a bit more on the CSD log, and some NACs may become points of contention. Overall, I'd say favorable odds. GAB^gab 15:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• 7.5/10 - Content is fine, as is activity etc. I would say CSD log is generally reasonable - I suppose a few more article CSDs, as opposed to categories etc, might be beneficial. I'm not an active participant in RfD so I can't talk to any problems/pluses there. The main area of complaint I could see is in AfD, in a couple of ways - a fairly low !vote to participation/close ratio, but also quite a high deletionist (including redirects) nature attached to a relatively low %. This latter area is significantly reduced in your most recent set of !votes, which is a big plus. You have multiple areas where admin rights would be beneficial so that aspect is well covered. While there are things you could improve, I think even now you would have good odds Nosebagbear (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• 7/10, perhaps even higher with the right nominator(s). I like your work across the board, I've seen you provide good reasoning for RfD. You're short in the counter-vandalism dept. but more voters will look at your content creation - which is quite good. You'd get my vote easily, unless someone dregs up something really unpleasant that I haven't seen. My only concern is your choice of username, it may indicate to some you have an agenda. While I have never seen anything other than calm and rational discourse from you, I could see some knee-jerk voting simply against your choice of name. Ifnord (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• You've written some decent content, and after spending a similar amount of time I would on an RFA !vote, I cannot find any red flags. You don't have to have anti-vandalism experience; you need to have an area (or areas) in which you have a demonstrated need for the tools and the ability to use them well. For you, that seems to be deletion, and that's fine. On that basis, I would say go for it, especially if you have multiple experienced nominators. There are a couple of things you should address upfront. Your account has been renamed a few times (and there's a non-publicly declared alternative account that seems to have existed at some point): these should be mentioned, and explained if necessary. There's a couple of disputes at ANI: I cannot fault your conduct at ANI itself, but you should explain your learning from the AWB-redirect-creating conflict before someone digs it up and cites it as a reason to oppose. From where I'm sitting the concerns with that creation spree seem justified, but you also handled the fallout gracefully, so I personally would not hold it against you. Best of luck, Vanamonde (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  It's generally been viewed as necessary to have at least two areas for Admin tools - but deletion and page moving are both strong examples, so as long as both are stressed I think that's covered well. Nosebagbear (talk)

  Well, deletion is a fairly broad area, and if someone has RFD, CSD, and AFD experience, they've already covered categories which between them contribute a very large fraction of admin actions. But yes, Feminist also has page-move experience, and this is a definite positive; my point above was not so much that "one area of experience/judgement is enough" as "you do not need to know all the basic areas". I for one had no experience with UAA (a fairly basic area of admin activity), I still do not work there, and while I had some opposition, none of it cited my inactivity at UAA. Vanamonde (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• No rating, but just to comment that a change of a username with a subsequent RfA has proven problematic relatively recently, so it rather depends on the strength of the relationships one has in both identities I think. IMHO of course—that could have just been an extreme example. Best of luck either way! ——SerialNumber54129 19:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• 9/10. Did a double take when I saw your name here. Personally, you're a "10/10" in my book. There are probably many editors who remember you by your prev username, so I don't think that will be much of a factor. I've thought for a long time now that you should be an admin. I would definitely reciprocate!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• 8/10 (and, only because non-simplest term fractions drive me nuts... 4/5) I don't see any significant red flags that would give me reason to do anything but support a run, but I do agree with Vanamonde93's points. I'd be willing to consider co-nominating. Strikerforce^Talk 14:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Strikerforce: - my decimalised fraction must have driven you nuts, then! ;) Nosebagbear (talk)

@Nosebagbear: - I may or may not have silently cursed your name. ;) Cheers! Strikerforce^Talk 14:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• 8/10 I recall I asked you a couple of years ago about an RfA. And here you are. Lourdes 18:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• 8/10, strong contributions all around and while I foresee a couple of "no demonstrated need for the tools" opposes, those should be nowhere enough to tank an RFA. The namechange was almost two years ago and should not pose a problem. I did not find any behavioral problems spot-checking your messages either. Personally, I'd love to see more use of edit-summaries, especially in user talk space, so that for example stuff like changing your own comment does not look as if you are hiding something. Regards SoWhy 13:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Quick comment - Everything looks fine - AFD ✔, CSD log ✔, tenure ✔, Got a few DYKs/GAs/FAs so I'd say your chances of passing are pretty high :). –Davey2010^Talk 20:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Slightly worried about your edit summary for a minute there Davey2010; thought you'd just received one of them phonecalls with a codeword or something :p ;) ——SerialNumber54129 20:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I do .... Have 5 minutes to figure out this code or BOOM!!!! :P –Davey2010^Talk 20:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have not changed my mind since April. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Hi. I am experienced in writing articles on various subjects, and editing articles on a broader range of subjects; and of reverting vandalism. I have particular experienced in BLP. I have some experience in nominating for and taking part in AfD and CSD, and pending changes review. I do informal RCP of 2,700 pages in my personal watchlist but have some experience of RCP for English Wikipedia in general using various tools. My number of edits to deleted articles is because of cleaning up the subjects of AfD to aid in their deletion discussions. I would request adminship to give me further capacity in areas I am already involved with and to help in a broader range of admin tasks, at least XfD, AIV, RPP, NPP, AN, UAA. Thanks -Lopifalko (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• ...rating and optional brief comment...

• 2/10 - you have a great amount of content creation and is seriously impressive. However, you have stated your Admin areas of interest, with a focus on AfD, and you don't have the activity there (or RPP, NPP & AIV) to warrant it. I'd suggest picking the 2/3 areas you find most interesting and putting a lot more edits and participation into those. Most 2/10s fail on edit grounds and thus are a long way off, whereas I'd say you just need 6 months work in those areas. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, you simply don't have enough project space experience, with only 193 edits in the Wikipedia namespace. You indicate NPP as an interest yet aren't an new page reviewer - I'd suggest becoming a new page reviewer and working there to gain experience in those areas you've listed, and I'd also say 6 months of good work at various admin areas would improve your chances considerably. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not going to vote but simply going to say Your tenure, edit count and article creations are all superb .. however as noted above you've not really participated in XfD, AIV, RPP, NPP, AN, UAA so personally I don't think your RFA would be successful (You're generally expected to work in the areas you're interested in dealing with), Thank you for all of your contributions and article creations though :) –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for taking the time to assess my contributions Nosebagbear, Galobtter and Davey2010 and for your advice and complements. I will work with regard to what you have said and be back. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Per Galobtter's comment. Yes, please come over and join us at New Page Patrol, work your way up from there with project space experience. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116 (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 thought I would see what you think I could/should work on. I have often thought that there simply aren't enough admins in Wikipedia to handle the workload, as the admin to regular user ratio is quite in favor of the regular user, and the admins seemed to be stretched thin with all there is to be done. I have acquired some of the basic Wikipedia editing tools over time and started some articles and maintain them. I probably average about 30 to 40 edits per week, and have over 12,000 to my credit since I started seriously editing in 2012, and my account was started in 2007. I likely wouldn't bee doing 100 edits per day as an admin, but I could still help. I see the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, and I feel could be a decent mediator there. Many disputes can be resolved within less than a day, sometimes less than an hour. Also, sometimes I see when an article needs protected from vandals, and I could easily help with that. Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• 0/10 today. This is clearly a "not now" in my book. Apart from one ANI thread, there's no participation in the Wikipedia namespace in the past year. No vandalism reporting, no requests for page protection, no AFD votes. I don't see any participation in
  π, ν
  ) 19:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• 1/10 - While you are impressively consistent in your edit count you need far more activity on the non-creation side. You don't have activity in the traditionally looked for areas (AfD, AIV etc). Your blocks are 30 months ago, which is plenty long enough in my view, though I'm sure it would be dragged up in an RfA. If you use twinkle and do any CSD work then it is worth enabling that log to demonstrate that side of it - it would dovetail well with your patrolling work. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• 0/10 - No participation in XFD, Next-to-none edits in Wikispace, No CSD work, Your tenure/edit count is great but tbh that's the only thing that is, The rest in my eyes are very poor and as such I think it would be clearly obvious you have no chance of passing an RFA anytime soon. –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Halfgoofy (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 Wish to Apply For Administer, And Have Years of Experience in Such Matters ... having Operated My Research Center and As Site Director For famousfix.com I do Not plan on being an everyday contributor . .. as My Daily Workload may not allow for this ... The creation of new Client Account Sites and Reference Databases ... And Other Client Requests for Research into many areas ... from Sports reference data to Grave Location and DOB POB DOD POD information ... along with Family Tree information .I use Government Certificates for DOB and DOD ... so they are not hearsay data bits. Halfgoofy (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC) HalfGoofy Halfgoofy (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• -1/10 you have no chance of becoming an admin, and have some possibility of being blocked if you try to do so. This was the editor's first edit to the Wikipedia namespace; their command of the English language seems weak, they appear to be engaging in paid editing of some sort, and their edits are focused entirely on adding dates and places of birth and death to the lead sentence, details that are generally not necessary in articles with infoboxes.
  π, ν
  ) 05:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• -0/10 Complete
  WP:COI and declare any if relevant, learn the basics of WP. Your edits are in the 100's at this point. We need confidence in your basic understanding of the project at this stage. Work diligently for 1-2 years, becoming a useful contributor in dispute resolution, article improvement, anti-vandal work, and then come back. Simon Adler (talk
  ) 06:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• 0/10 You have only made 183 edits to Wikipedia. In order to be considered for adminship, users are expected to have contributed several thousand edits. This request will be closed soon per
  WP:SNOW. — sparklism ^hey!
  07:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Cahk (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 · no prior RfA)

Hammersoft, There'sNoTime (Admin), and GeneralizationsAreBad (Admin) have all approached me within the past year about adminship. I am interested in getting feedbacks and test the water a little. I think my editing log since 2015 has been pretty clear about the majority of work I am doing primarily gear towards getting rid of spam, advertisement, attack, non-sense pages, etc.

I have some article created, with one DYK hook back in 2008. I also received 9 barnstars (as shown on my userpage - 2 from Admins). My admin score is respectively 1196 out of 1300 on xTools and 917.1 on Enterprisey. I think my actual score on Enterprisey could be higher still. I only started logging mid-way through my editing with Twinkle, and as the logs got longer, I had to separate the logs into the current 3rd edition.

My talk page and CSD logs are archived.

To be clear, if I do receive overall positive feedback, I don't intend on running until a few months from now due to some ongoing non-Wiki project I am working on. --Cahk (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• 9/10. My vote would be yours, I see nothing to deny you the tools. Strong anti-vandal work, a good two years of regular editing (two one month gaps, but everyone needs a vacation sometimes), and I really doubt you'd abuse the mop. Someone will find something to gripe about, but I think you're strong on the whole. Ifnord (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• 7/10 Per the sample vote in sample entry. The edit count is high. Activity is good. Even though I dont have any problem with it (three CSD logs, and their content make it up to me), the responders in RfA will point to low AfD, and low ANI count. But if you say you dont want to participate there as admin, and want to work in AIV, UAA, and RFPP; then it will make a difference. How much of a difference, i dont know. Count me in as supporter. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  Low AfD participation is a negative but I've never seen a low number of edits to ANI be a negative - indeed it is usually considered a positive! Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  I mean if AfD is going to be the primary negative, and you think it'll be 3 months until you run (even reasonably busy ones), just participate in 50-60 AfDs - I'd suggest fewer noms (more general participation) and participate in some AfDs you think are non-deletes. That's just my AfD $0.02 - I'll do a proper review after work. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  yes, low participation at ANI is a positive. But the voters might say "no experience in admin areas". Many voters gauge understandings of policies/guidelines from the participation at ANI. They expect participation in uninvolved issues to some extant. In the circumstances of low AfD participation voters might say "no verifiable understanding of behavioural guidelines" (including but not limited to blocking/unblocking, IBAN, and similar issues). Don't get me wrong here, I firmly supported pbsouthwood's RfA. In these comments I'm trying to tell what might happen if the Cahk runs RfA. That's why mentioned if Cahk says that he wants to work in particular areas, and exclude some others; then the outcome might be different. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Based on your statement alone I think you are getting a lot of wrong ideas. Looks like you are probably from the same city so I won't criticise too much, but when it comes to RfA, admin scores are irrelevant, and barnstars are also irrelevant. The last thing you want is somebody referencing
  WP:MMORPG. What you do is mostly CSD and other maintenance work, and that is great; but you do need some better examples to demonstrate your understanding on the content creation aspect of Wikipedia and that you are able to empathise with content creators. Alex Shih (talk
  ) 10:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:Alex Shih I am aware admin scores are not relevant to the actual RFA. I mentioned it simply because it was raised in one of the previous optional poll discussion (for which I was not involved).--Cahk (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• You'll get a roasting for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centerlink - "Speedy Delete. Not-notable, and violates COI." (and your associated twinkle spam) - what speedy deletion criteria deals with non-notability and COI? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• @
  Iridescent
  11:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't meet either of those critieria in my opinion because (as was stated in the AfD) it was originally a redirect, and

the policy says "Review the page history to make sure that all prior revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion, because a single editor can replace an article with material that appears to cause the page to meet one or more of the criteria.". This was the page as created. My concern is not with what Ferohir did - their edits were problematic and unsuitable - but accidentally deleting a serviceable redirect that's been around for nearly 14 years would be a good case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

11:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If warning a new editor about their edits constitute as "spam", then you have truly lost me. If reminding an editor about COI is also "spam", then you have definitely lost me. --Cahk (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

As the great Henry Neeman from the

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign once said, "Spam is the same thing lots and lots of times". And Twinkle is very good at delivering the same message lots and lots of times. So while referring to it as "spam" is a little cutting (and purely to illustrate the point that you won't get a better result from hitting a button compared to delivering a personalised message such as "I'm afraid I've had to revert your edits; there has been established redirect for 13 years and I can't see how this is important to an encyclopedia - can you explain?"), it's not technically incorrect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

17:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@

User:Iridescent I have created 19 articles, but am aware my content creation is low. I expected comments in this respect.--Cahk (talk

) 17:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Middling-->low. Most of the supposedly positive things you list (barnstars, Scotty's tools, etc), are irrelevant, and, indeed, the fact that you think they mean something is not a good indication of judgement. Your CSD log appears impressive, but that's mostly thanks to one particular admin possibly because there are some admins who will delete anything you show them, and again, is not necessarily indicative of your good judgement. Specifically, regarding U5 I'm not sure your understanding of it reflects the nuance that comes with it. It's important to apply policy to user pages—good work!—but I'm not sure you realise that, by its nature, it's also one of the easiest ways of biting newcomers, and I think you might be treating reasonable if seemingly irrelevant content too harshly. I don't think it's in the interests of the project to willingly recruit another admin who
  bites newcoers as a first resort rather than a last; there's too many of them as it is. Further, your (lack of) communication lets you down—with the exception of tags and templates, you have to be able to discuss the finer points of policy with editors whose first language may not be English. I see far too little of this. The good thing about content creation is that it demonstrates this ability in spades; one DYK from ten years ago cannot demonstrate this. AfDs have been mentioned above; but if, as you say, you don't intend working in the area, that shouldn't be a problem. The good thing is, all of these areas of insufficiency can be attended to in a year, which is when you should stand at the earliest. The question of judgement is probably the hardest to change and harder to prove, but with more insightful discussion and precision-wielding of the CSD tool, it should demonstrate itself. Best of luck! ——SerialNumber54129
  11:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:Serial Number 54129 Understood. Communication generally comes through my talk page - assuming the editior isn't blocked, or someone else beats me to replying, I do respond to questions about my tagging.--Cahk (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• The lack of mainspace contributions will be a factor; your last 250 edits go back to mid-June and 80% are Twinkle (either reverts of vandalism or declined/repaired BLPPROD). There are a few substantive edits this year (creating
  π, ν
  ) 23:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho (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 · no prior RfA)

At some point I'll eventually be interested in running for Adminship. Depending on how this goes, if I file it'll probably be around May when I'll have a lot more time to be far more active then I am now. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not ready; Your overall participation in the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk spaces is very low. It takes a lot of participation in that namespace to really gain an understanding of how to be an effective administrator. People would have very little to go by to judge how you would handle the tools. As examples; you've made just four CSD requests, just one
  WP:AIV request [4]. There's just not enough to go on here. What did you have in mind to do with the extra tools? --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 03:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Per Hammersoft, and also that you have made little or no admin-related maintenance tasks - despite calls for urgent participation in the NPR newsletters, you have not used the rights you have asked for. In November 2017 you subscribed also to the Administrators' newsletter which gives me pause - the subscribers to that list are almost exclusively admins or experienced users with an admin level of knowledge and judgment. You will probably not be able to fill these gaps in your activity within the next 6 months and not by only editing on Saturday mornings (or afternoons) until the vacation starts. There is also the fact that while there is no age barrier to being an admin, many of the 100s of RfA voters nowadays prefer candidates who have reached the age of majority or who have adequately demonstrated exceptionally good judgment in the areas where admins are expected to be active, and who can accord sufficient time to the tasks they are asking permission for. I would venture to suggest that you have not yet read all the advice pages that you have been linked to or read what levels of participation are demanded from RfA candidates by the community. That said, your content contributions are already good and should satisfy most voters. Do bear in mind an oft-cited phrase: "anyone who joins Wikipedia with the intention of becoming an admin, has joined for all the wrong reasons'. 08:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
• Hi TheDoctorWho; thank you for volunteering. What admin areas do you think you would be involved with if you were an admin, expanding upon what Hammersoft asked? I would find it very helpful to know this before evaluating your chances. Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:PERM on some (not all) user rights, primarily those I'm most familiar with. If needed or as I became more familiar with the tools I would slowly begin contributing to other admin areas but those two areas would be my starting point. TheDoctorWho (talk)

21:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the follow up. While I hate to be so blunt, I really think you have a low chance of passing at this time. I don't really like numbers for stuff like this but I would estimate a chance of maybe 1.5-2/10. You do a lot of work to improve Wikipedia and your content creation is great, but I don't think you hold up to the very high standards expected in RfA candidates these days. Because you stated that you wanted to work at RFPP, I looked at your edits to that page. You have made three requests since August and seven since March. Of those seven, two of them were declined due to there not being enough disruptive activity to justify protection. You have very little to no experience with any other admin-related areas: one report to
  WP:DYK activity, and hardly any CSD experience
  . As far as AfD experience goes, you only have participated in 4 nominations; the two articles you've nominated for AFD both ended up being kept and the other two were pile-ons to what others were saying. Of course, admin candidates aren't expected to know everything, but the community really likes to see some variety, especially participation in AfD. To summarize, besides a few RFPP reports, some of which were declined, I don't see much participation in admin-related areas.

Additionally, your edit count is relatively low compared to what is expected these days; usually over 10,000 is required, except possibly for very strong candidates. The issues raised by Kudpung are also a concern, although I personally don't think the Newsletter thing would be a dealbreaker; I actually subscribed to the newsletter, not because I want to be an admin, but because it contains policy updates and information that I'm interested in and some of it would certainly affect me (e.g., I didn't know about the new CSD criteria until I received the newsletter today for December 2018). Again, you do a lot to improve Wikipedia and your content creation is great, so admire you for that. However, I really don't think you would pass if you were you to run for adminship today. I hope this feedback is helpful to you.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your follow up as well. I agree about the CSD experience, I suppose it doesn't matter much but to clear up the two which were kept, WriteHelpPizza's user page was deleted as nominated just later recreated; as for the other one, it was merged and now exists as a redirect. As for the rest thank you all for your feedback I appreciate it greatly. At this time I would like to withdraw my request, I will take note of the feedback given above and re-evaluate Adminship at another time. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Foxnpichu (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)

Whilst I only have a fairly small amount of edits, I am an experienced user willing to be trusted with the mop. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• 0/10 not enough experience, and [5] is concerning.
  π, ν
  ) 21:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Those five reverts was me reverting edits a guy made when he/she reverted my edits. He/she incorrectly believed I was socking, thus reverted my edits. I reverted his/her edits because of this. Yes I know, it is confusing. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The lack of edit summaries would be enough to sink an RFA on its own. As would the lack of overall tenure (you've had >50 edits in each of the last 4 months but never beforehand). As would the lack of activity in the Wikipedia namespace. And the top articles edited being about TV channels for children won't help either. I'd recommend a bit more experience, then applying for some other permission (maybe Pending Changes reviewer).
      π, ν
      ) 21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Most of this is fair, but how do the topics I edit matter? Foxnpichu (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• 0/10 Hey Foxnpichu, I have no doubt of your good intentions and that you're here to contribute to an encyclopedia, but I really don't think you have a chance of passing if you were to run today. The fact that you've made less than 1000 edits would on its own cause a pile-on of opposes, and some other problems I see are the link that Power provided above (no edit summary when reverting good-faith edits), little to no experience in admin-related areas, and no article creations. I hope you don't take this comment offensively or let it discourage you from your editing, as you are doing a great job helping Wikipedia out. I just really don't think you'd be able to pass RfA at this time.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have only made 1,000 edits on this account, but I take a "quality-over-quantity" approach. Also, I comment on Articles for Deletion a lot and try to help fix up articles and remove vandalism. Unfortunately, sometimes other admins just beat me to the punch. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I was trying not to mention it, but if you keep talking about "previous accounts", I feel obliged to mention that one of those accounts was blocked for sock-puppetry (though the incident has been resolved). I'd also recommend many more than 3 edits to "Articles for Deletion" articles before describing it as "a lot".
      π, ν
      ) 21:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Okay, I will stop mentioning it from now on. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I have taken what you two have said into account, but I am going to leave this page open in case anybody else has anything interesting to say. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the follow up. From what you said about removing vandalism, I see very little of that, actually. Looking at your revert log, I just see a few reverts of good-faith edits (in many cases you did not leave an edit summary and in one you called a user an idiot, which in itself would be a concern) and no vandalism reporting (
            WP:SPI, etc.) I agree with Power that your contributions to AfD wouldn't typically be considered "a lot", considering you've only made a few edits to AfD pages and that most of them are !votes pilling onto what others have said. Sorry man, your contributions to Wikipedia are much appreciated and I hope you keep them up, but your chances of passing RfA at the current time are very slim. My best suggestion for you would be to forget about adminship for a while and gain a lot of careful (i.e., don't immediately jump into a ton of unfamiliar areas of Wikipedia) editing experience for years, only using this account. Still, no matter how much Wikipedia experience you have, you're unlikely to become an admin unless you have demonstrated a solid need for the tools. In this case, you haven't specified an area which you would work in as an admin and you have very little experience in admin-related areas, so I expect "no need for the tools" would be another reason for people to oppose. I think that closing this poll would be the best thing to do right now. Best of wishes, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?}
            02:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
            • I realised I shouldn't have called the IP that, so I went to his/her page and apologised and tried to offer help. Foxnpichu (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• 0/10 - If you want the complete, blunt and honest truth given your socking history I honestly feel if you were to run for RFA today it would sink ..... We tend to "forget" a lot of things but creating multiple accounts is a huge no no, Whilst 5 years may seem like a long time in terms of Wikipedia it's nothing ...., So for me your socking would be enough to Oppose,

Now ignoring all of that - Whilst you've had the account since 2013 you'd only really started editing last year (so essentially you have more or less a years experience tops), Your XFD log is extremely poor (4 AFDs - 2 last year and 2 this year), and you have no CSD log either

So in a nutshell I don't believe you would pass at this time, –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to add inregards to the community "forgetting" - Your socking will never be held against you forever - If you knuckle down, prove that you can be trusted and prove you've changed (by maybe participating at XfD, Doing CSD work - generally adminny areas) then in a few years the community may well "forget" - Like I said it's not tied to you forever but you do need prove to the community you can be trusted here and I feel the socking although 5 years ago is still fresh if that makes sense,

Ofcourse I'm not the voice of Wikipedia and others may have different opinions, I wish you the best of luck here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You know, since you pointed it out, somebody really needs to merge the two SPIs of mine together. Foxnpichu (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

After receiving feedback, I would appreciate if somebody closes this for me. I will try again at a later time. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I've closed this for you. Happy editing!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I am requesting a review of my history for status elevation to an administrator. My background on Wikipedia should demonstrate that I have passionate interests in politics, arts, American cities, and medical advancements. And, I feel, the proliferation of misleading user-generated material web-wide makes monitoring and content generation at a resource like Wikipedia a duty (for those of us who have contributed and patrolled it for so long). Like you, I volunteer my hours on Wikipedia, so I appreciate that you are taking the time to even briefly review my request. Thank you.

• WP:TOONEW applies here. Galobtter (pingó mió
  ) 07:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• @
  WP:RPP, etc.) so we don't know how well you would do with the admin tools. People typically don't become an admin just because they want to make Wikipedia a better resource, that can be done by anyone (i.e. anyone can create content, revert edits, correct content, etc.); generally, adminship requests will only be successful if it is clear that the candidate will use the small set of tools that come with being an admin (adminship really is just a few extra tools) and use them properly. I hope you keep up your great work improving the encyclopedia, but if you were to run today, unfortunately I doubt you would pass. Best, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?}
  14:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Ddnile,. I think what disqualifies you most is that you didn't read the instructions before starting this poll - or first find out what adminship is all about. So I'm closing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

1989 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

Hello. I would like to ask whether or not I would be eligible to become an admin here someday. I have submitted a lot of things for CSD regarding drafts and user pages that are interested to use enwiki as a web host, and filed images to FFD. I have reported individuals to AIV with a majority of them succeeding. I have 2 FAs, 4 FLs, 5 GAs, and 2 DYKs (proof is in my now deleted sandbox). I have received a Precious for my work. I have disclosed my previous accounts to Arbcom. I am currently an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. Hopefully when I get myself together on here, I can assist helping here as well. 1989 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• 0/10 With the gap in activity in 2018 and having zero
  π, ν
  ) 19:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• 1/10. There is virtually no activity for more than a year prior to 2019 (the last month with more than 100 edits was 10/2017). If someone asked why they should overlook the complete lack of activity for such a long period of time, I see no answer that would satisfy a sufficient number of people. As power indicates, be active for a while, work in areas you are interested it, maybe try to get some recognized content and then ask again in 6-9 months. Regards SoWhy 19:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• 0/10 - With nearly 14,000 edits made to user talkpages / 5 thousand edits made to article talkpages and 4 thousand edits made to mainspace- one truly wonders why you'd need the tools as you seem to spend more time at users (or your own) talkpages than anywhere else on the entire project,

That aside your activity is next to nothing and you've done no adminny work since being here, If you ran for RFA it would sink within seconds,

I would suggest focusing less on talkpages and more on articles and also focusing on admin areas (IE XFD), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I nominated a lot of speedies, that’s why the user talk page count is large. -- 1989 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Davey2010: Anytime you tag a page for speedy deletion, Twinkle makes at least two edits: One, to the page being deleted, and the other, to the creating user's talkpage. Except of course, if it's a good tagging, the tagged page, along with your edit, gets deleted, so only your user talk page edit count increases. In short, people who make lots of (high-quality) deletion taggings will tend to have an inflated user talk edit count. I haven't looked through 1989's contributions enough to form an opinion, but SD tagging is certainly an "admin area". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I'm well aware how edit counts work thanks!, I simply didn't check their CSD whilst checking everything else, –Davey2010^Talk 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Sorry if my edit summary came across as snarky. I was once under the mistaken impression that the edit counter tools really did count deleted edits by namespace, so I assumed you were as well. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

1989 - Ah okay fair dos, IMHO articlespace should top user talkpages as otherwise it just gives the impression you spend more time on user talkpages than you do improving actual articles, meh that's just mho anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 20:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

0/10 Mostly the same as what others have said. Way too little activity at enwiki. See my RfA Criteria and review yourself based on that for more detail. If you really want to follow the instructions there and I'll score you on that. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 20:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, 1989. I was kind of appalled to see all these zeros and ones given to someone with 25,000 edits and as many advanced permissions as yourself. I do think people’s comments here have been a little harsh and I want to ask you not to be discouraged; you are a valuable editor here. On the other hand, when I saw your activity log and the fact that you have created only two pages (and none since 2017), plus the “semi-retired” notice on your talk page, I understood what the others were saying: there is little to no chance of your passing RfA in the near future. I’m not going to give you a score but I do want to say, as kindly as I can, that you need much more, and more varied, experience before thinking about adminship. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thanks for the messsge. I’m in no way discouraged. I find everything above to be a good thing for me. Certainly there is so much more things I can do here but I certainly have not found the place just yet. Hopefully when I find it, it can help me remove the semi-retired tag from my user talk page. Would you happen to have suggestions? That’d be really helpful. -- 1989 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(I'm moving my response to your talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC))

In the interest of keeping this poll a lightweight affair, perhaps this discussion can be taken to a user talk page? isaacl (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I'll move my comments there. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

RedPanda25 (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 · no prior RfA)

• ...rating and optional brief comment...
• 0/10 - yet! - hi there. One point first - it can be helpful if you could add what you think you'd do with the admin tools, so we can say how well you are on your way to being ready for their use.

For the moment mine will therefore be more general. If nothing else, your edit count is too low - editors generally need more than 10k in this editcountitis age. Beyond that, you haven't made many edits in your last year, so we can't really see what your current viewpoint and ability is like. You seem to be doing a massive amount of counter-vandalism work, which is great - and by that user-talk % you're definitely doing the warnings well. Yet I also see you welcoming users, which is a nice positive that I should definitely do more of. I'd suggest getting some more experience in other back-end bits of Wikipedia - I can name lots, but just trying out a few to find another area you like is worthwhile - more enjoyable than me pointing out one specific area to get more experience in.

TL;DR - I'd suggest getting a year's worth of active editing, in a couple of different areas, especially including anything that gives you a broader policy knowledge. Feel free to ask any follow-up queries! Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, you've definitely helped. I know I haven't had much time for Wikipedia in the past year, but after I graduate this spring I should be able to contribute more. You'd mentioned getting more experience with back-end parts of Wikipedia — does this mean policy and related discussions like AfD? As far as what I'd use admin tools for, it would mostly be what I've already been doing: counter-vandalism and related work. RedPanda25 22:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD is a common one, but it could be things like

WP:NPP etc etc. If you think your primary admin activity would be in counter-vandal work, then participating in some AN and ANI discussions would be worthwhile as I've seen quite a few opposes arguing (perhaps oddly) that counter-vandals should have knowledge of the related noticeboards, beyond AIV. Nosebagbear (talk

) 22:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ajnabh (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)

• ...rating and optional brief comment...
• 0/10-
  Don't run before you can walk RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)}
  07:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Tstrasavich (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 know I’ve done some bad stuff in the past but I would really like to help and make Wikipedia a better place for all of us

• ...rating and optional brief comment...

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

• Hi there - it would probably be best if you took at look at
  WP:NOTYET - becoming an Admin is hard these days, requiring many more edits than you currently have. Thank you though for being interested in helping out wikipedia. As well as the obvious content creation there's lots of ways you can help out behind the scenes which is both fun and ultimately stand you in good stead if you decide to run for being an Admin in the future. Let me know if you'd like a chat. Nosebagbear (talk
  ) 15:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• 0/10 - As mentioned above by
  WP:NOTYET. You will need to demonstrate a grasp of the encyclopedia content policies and demonstrate some level of engagement with administrative areas (ex. page protection requests; usernames requiring intervention, etc.). -- Dane ^talk
  15:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• As my user page suggests, I was trying to get a opinion on something else which turned out to be affirmative.Dane and Nosebagbear were very helpful in assisting me.Because of editing Wikipedia some thugs took away my macbookpro while I was distracted. Sachinthonakkara (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• ...rating and optional brief comment...

The Duke of Nonsense (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 there. First of all, the mop isn't my priority right now, it'll be a good few years before I file a RFA. I also know I haven't a chance in passing RFA right now. Feel free to flood me with 1 and 2 scores if you want. I just want advice on my conduct around the site in general. So that I can steadily build my case up over the next few years, so that when I file a RFA, my case would be good. I know this isn't much, but I have written nearly 30 Start Class to C-class articles. And I plan to write a

• ...rating and optional brief comment...
• 0/10 -- Is this some kind of joke? You've got more front than Southend Pier. My reasons for this are here. Cassianto^Talk 16:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• N/A - it's not really what it's here for, but if you're looking for things to do over the next two years, that you haven't already mentioned, I'd suggest AfD - it's the traditional notability proving ground. Try to ensure a bit of a mix (as opposed to just hoards of deletes) - there are fewer "gimme" keeps, but it shows you both consider difficult cases and aren't a staunch deletionist. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Nope per Cass - This seals the deal for me, You have as much chance of passing as I do nailing a blancmange to the ceiling. –Davey2010^Talk 16:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Duke of Nonsense this page does specifically say that it is for those thinking of running in the near future and not for general feedback. You’re better off going to an experienced editor’s talk page.Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• 0/10. If you draw attention to your recent contribution history by showcasing it at RFA, you're far more likely to be indefblocked than you are to be granted addition permissions. ‑ 
  Iridescent
  17:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• 0/10 Your history of aggressive sockpuppetry and your recent harassment of Cassianto means that your chances are nil for a very long time to come. Abandon the nonsense. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)