Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 12

Caker18 (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)

• Um, you're joking, right? You have all of 83 edits so far, and extremely little experience of Wikipedia. There's no chance at all of an RfA succeeding until you've been an active editor with thousands of total edits and an orders of magnitude higher level of regular activity (as in hundreds of edits per month) over a long period of time (well over a year). If you'd read the advice linked to on this page, you wouldn't even have posted this, because your lack of qualifications would have been extremely obvious. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• What was your previous account? Unless you have thousands of edits on it, you have no chance of passing. (It couldn’t have been “deleted” as you say on your user page - that isn’t technically possible.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Caker, no offense, but this report to AIV does not inspire confidence in me. I had to actually provide the diff for you. Otherwise, it would have been rejected. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Given your low edit count, the lengthy period of inactivity until a couple months ago, and lack of experience in administrative areas, you are extremely unlikely to pass an RfA at this time. RfA candidates generally need to have tens of thousands of edits and experience in a broad swath of areas on Wikipedia to have a good shot at passing an RfA. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 04:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr305worldwide (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 - Ignoring your lack of experience, your largest edit appears to have been vandalism.[1] O3000 (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  Endorse this rating. starship.paint (talk)

Kosack (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)

Hi, I'm Kosack. I noticed on the talk page there was a chance this page could be closed so I hoped to use it before it does. I primarily edit football related articles and the general persistent vandalism they receive, so the main areas I would look into would be

• 9/10 - on the look I've given you seem to be a positive. Your RFPP work is excellent, as is your NPP efforts. Page protection and AIV are fairly clear-cut good uses for the toolkit. Even the content RfA hecklers would be more than satisfied with yours. You have enough AfDs to demonstrate good knowledge of the area as someone who isn't planning on specialising in it. The biggest risk is something in you history of interacting with other football editors showing up, but in terms of what I can see - no reason not go for it. Well, except for liking a sport so inferior to the one true egg game. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Never! There is only one valid sport that involves eggs.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate – 10:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• 8/10 - I don't think any serious voters would hold the long hiatus against you, you've been very consistent for the last three years and many successful candidates hadn't been around for that long. So per Nosebagbear, I believe the community would give you a fair hearing at RfA if you have a couple of solid nominations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• 9/10 No obvious concerns. Find a nominator and do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Go for it! All the interactions, I had with this editor, were pleasurable and exhibited good knowledge of policies. I don't see any red-flags, from his NPP work and there is solid content-creation-record. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

QEDK (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)

Hello, I'm qedk. Firstly, I would like to say that I find ORCP a good place to get critique from, so I appreciate all feedback, and if you don't want to comment here, you can send me an e-mail from

• A quick review brings up Nail H. Ibragimov, which you nominated for A7 (declined), then PROD (contested), then AfD (snow keep) just a few weeks ago. This incident would not make me oppose you (my bar for support is pretty low), but I can think of a few others that would swiftly oppose you over something like that. Edit count and article creation might be cursory issues, but those aspects seem to be of lesser importance in recent RfAs. Your activity in other admin areas (ANI, UAA, etc.) and SPI clerking are positives. Overall, I give you a (4 ± 1)/10, with some wobble room depending on how much others might care about the declined speedies and AfDs (I may be over or underestimating their importance, but given how a small misunderstanding in part of the protection policy was weaponized against Hickory in the most recent RfA, I have a feeling something like this would be more likely to set people against you than not). If you show flawless CSD tagging (especially with A7) and no/one botched AfD(s) in the next few months, you can guarantee a much better chance at passing RfA. Hope this helped. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 08:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I certainly see that article as being a cause of concern in any RfA, I wouldn't oppose a candidate over it either but I agree with your view exactly. PROF#C1 is applied way too subjectively imo but I respect consensus and the fact that the community has decided my judgement in that case was wrong. As for any declined speedies (speaking generally, w.r.t. other editors), the issue is that any one who makes CSD taggings will eventually get a fair number of declines (talking about cases where the editor knows CSD and is not mistagging mostly), and I've seen editors with more experience than me being put down for declines but that is a "why is there smoke around a fireman?" type of argument. Again, that's just my opinion and I appreciate your opinion either way, you're entirely right of course, I'm just making point(ful/less) commentary. With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• 3/10 now - but easy to go to 7/10 EclipseDude's point about the A7/PROD/AfD is a good one. This will "die" if given 3 months. However the incident also took me through your AfD. Having demonstrated a mistake there, coupled with low activity, it's probably worth doing 15 a month to show efforts made. SPI and OTRS both show competence and are clear-cut reasons for needing the Mop. I now disagree with ED - I think there are still a significant number of content-preferring !voters in RfA. Content edits is a slog to change and would distract from SPI etc responsibilities - I'd suggest getting 4 articles to "C" and 1 to "B" grading in the next 3 months. It's not a long list of things to fix - I'd probably support now but I don't believe you'd pass, but think it'd be fairly clear with the work done. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm definitely not going to run now, I'm aware that RfA is a place where recentism goes hand in hand with digging through old dirt, it's sort of a ctach-22, but I'm primarily not going to run for the reason that I never planned to. It's one of those things that should be more of an occurence than something made to happen imo. I'll take your advice to heart, really appreciate it. I'm not sure how much content creation I will eventually delve in, I plan to continue making articles on endangered species and hopefully I'll find something to focus on along the way. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'll give you a non committal 5/10 if you were to run soon, you've certainly been working inn the right areas and plenty of our best admins passed on a second run if they failed the first. Based on the rest of your record you'd probably stand a much better chance in 6 months if you avoid any CSD declines. Anyway, you're sane and sensible enough to know what you'd be letting yourself in for and I'm sure you've read all the advice pages and caveats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Knowing the process is however only as good as the candidate being qualified for the same. Thanks a ton for the advice. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• 3/10 but very solid potential per the above. I'd definitely work on getting a solid record at AfD, just to show that you understand what's a valid article to keep and what's not. RFA voters aren't going to be happy with someone who seens keen to press the delete button on an A7 without due consideration - fundamentally, although the A7 criteria are somewhat subjective and vague, ultimately it boils down to whether it stands any chance of surviving an AFD. If it does stand a chance (which clearly the above case did), then it is not a valid A7. Also agree on content creation. Please spend some time before your RFA run doing some article work - it is WP:5P1 the very first of our pillars ultimately the only reason any of the other plumbing of the Wiki exist. It may be that "Content edits is a slog to change and would distract from SPI etc responsibilities", but conversely an administrator who doesn't understand at least the basics of life on the coal face is simply not equipped to deal with the myriad issues that may cross their desk. Other than that you seem a good, friendly, polite editor from what I've seen of you around the place, and I would more than likely support once the above issues were out of the way. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• On the content part, I agree with Amakuru. I'm currently hardly the shinning example of a content admin (in part because of life changes that happened since becoming an admin that make article writing less relaxing...) but being able to understand the content is very important. I think I have a good relationship with most of our content focused users and admins in part because they know that I've done it before and understand what their focus is, while having moved on to serve the project in other areas myself. You don't have to be 100% mainspace focused, but being able to have that experience puts everything in perspective. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I'll say what I said on the talk page: if you had transcluded today instead of posting here, you likely would have passed (low 80s/high 70s, but above crat chat), but now it'd be best to wait a few months and make the improvements suggested. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Tony. I've replied to you on the talk page. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• <5/10 I will go for a support !vote in light of your superb SPI work, general demeanor and overall knowledge of our policies. But Nail H. Ibragimov and other A7 gaffes, will easily bring dozens of opposes; I, for one, look forward to admins from Indic-spheres in the hope that they will be able to properly adjudge the relevant CSDs and PRODs but (sadly) can't trust your relevant skills. Add another bunch of opposes, in light of nearly non-existent content work and that's certainly a valid point of view. ∯WBG^converse 16:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• 10/10. qedk is the kind of user we want as an admin. They very clearly have a need for admin tools as an SPI clerk. They are very clueful and know when to ask advice from others. I recently had a case that he quickly responded to with an apt assessment.
  Very recently, I encouraged him to run. I was about write to them again about this, but I luckily decided to check here again before pressing submit.
  I can say more, but I don't think it's necessary given my very obvious opinion on the matter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Iridescent
  16:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• @
  RFA (not do the poll necessarily) because I already think qedk is 100% likely to pass. All it takes really is just a good nominator ready to address the AFD and A7 concerns (which can be as simple as: not everyone is good at everything. QEDK is not the type of person who, when receiving the tools, is going to be speedy deleting things per A7 outright). This is already his second poll, so nothing I have said is doing a disservice in my opinion. He should just run already. It's as Tony suggested, QEDK doing this poll probably set his RFA back a few months. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖
  18:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• 3/10. The deletion-area mistakes will likely (and rightfully) cause a lot of problems if you were to run at this moment.
  WP:PROF eligibility). I am also deeply troubled by this tagging, especially this revert of someone contesting your tagging without a proper explanation. Also, while Jennifer Mercieca was ultimately deleted at AFD, I also consider it a mistagging since (as the AFD showed) it was not a clear-cut case. What's more problematic though is that according to your speedy log, you just became active in that area (again) last month and the last 30 entries take us all the way back to 2017 where you A7-tagged a network television show and a notable footballer. And there are (arguably) 3 mistaggings out of 15 taggings last month which is a ratio of 1 in 5. At this point, there is simply no sufficient recent data to judge how you would handle the deletion button but the 1 in 5 error rate is not promising. If this changes for the better in the next months, your chances will likely do as well. Regards SoWhy
  08:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• I have neither a review of your WP credentials nor a prediction of how well you would do at RfA, but I will say this: whenever I hover my cursor over your username with Navigation Popups, I keep expecting "sysop" to appear in your list of user rights. That means you have at least one person who needs to keep reminding themself that you are, in fact, not an admin — which is a good thing, because it means you act like an admin. --Dylan620 (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (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) So, currently this page is the only place where one can ask an estimate of one's chances in an RfX process and while it deals with

• 10/10 Can remember you've done some good closes and can't see any reason for anyone to oppose. (Okay, well, someone might complain that you need 25 years as admin or whatever before becoming 'crat, but nothing particularly important). Though at this rate, I wonder if we'll have a lot of crats but no RfA's to actually assess :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  If more admins should run for cratship, there will be more RfBs to assess. Regards SoWhy 10:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely, good call. ——SerialNumber54129 10:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC) As if we're gonna need extra crats to deal with all the IAR-out-of-process-unilateral resysoppings of the near future... ;)
• 10/10 - I guess that it will be a snow-pass if it were not for having way more RfBs than RfAs, of late. ∯WBG^converse 11:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see any successful RfB, unless and until WP:FRAM resolves and the trails die. Obviously, I will vote for you, though! ∯WBG^converse 09:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• I will personally vote for you and I also think a majority of editors will. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• You've a very high chance of succeeding. Go for it. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• 9.5/10 - well I've discovered why I used to be able to do loads of AfD closes and now they always seem closed - but all the ones I looked through seemed good. I'll ask some additional questions in the RfB, but everything I've seen thus far looks good - go for it! Nosebagbear (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• 6/10 to be more realistic. The RfB bar is very high, and given that the general drop in editor numbers over the summer means probably only around 100 participants in any RfX, that means it only takes 15 opposes to tank any RfB. Given the near total dearth of RfAs, the main need for 'crats at present would be bot approvals, so if you can demonstrate BAG-related experience, the likelihood of passing will go up sharply. ‑ 
  Iridescent
  13:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean currently there are vast numbers of editors around because of San Fram. Please note, @Jo-Jo Eumerus: - someone will ask about your viewpoint on it, regardless of relevance. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Kinda with Iri. I won’t give a number, but I don’t think it would pass. We just had two RfBs, and I think the main argument against it would be “no need for more crats.” You’d likely get the same amount of participation as primefac’s, but with a fair amount of support either not commenting or moving to oppose, which would be enough to sink it. The timing just isn’t right here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll just add to what Liz said: regardless of how you answer the "WJBscribe question", you will fail. Easily over 20% of RfX participants will have an issue with his actions, and easily over 20% of them will have an issue with someone condemning his actions. This is on top of the other "no need/just made two new crats" issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Not exactly true imo, there are admins who simply pass RfA by the virtue of having brilliant answers to questions, if JJEumerus can answer this no-win question with tact, such that sounds agreeable to both sides of the dispute, that's a win right there. Ofcourse, if you can't, a loss is only inevitable. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• You're certainly one of the best admin candidates for RfB, but until this Fram situation is resolved I doubt anyone can pass an RfB. It's a lose-lose situation right now.
  π, ν
  ) 17:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• I don't know the precise functions of a bureaucrat, and maybe being a good judge of consensus is important. However I sort of look up to bureaucrats as being above administrators in the Wikipedia pecking order. I have been aware of your activities for some time through DYK, and I just don't see you as having the calibre of a suitable candidate. I won't be specific here, but I checked back through the DYK talk page archives and that reinforced my view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  Hmm. I see. ∯WBG^converse 09:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• I supported your RfA (and narrowly missed out being one of its nominators) but it was sure to pass. Marred only by a semi-relevant oppose by Wikipedia's erstwhile de facto anti-admin brigade guru and proponent of the incivility-and-PA-with-impunity and content-creators-are-untouchable philosophies - and this is an area where I would expect'crats, especially new ones, to be more pro-active on RfAs. After bot approvals it's all they have to do; despite the very high level of trust and competence vested in our 'crats, the community has always been reluctant to extend their mandate.

RfB however, is a completely different kettle of fish to RfA. There is a Wikipedia meme that 'crats need to be unassuming - even boring. Well, your your avoidance of drama areas that require admin judgment, and a low number of logged admin actions since you acquired the tools certainly assures that. OTOH, you are known for regular, intelligent contribution to other discussions.

I would like to see more about you on your user page, I believe the community has a right to at least some basic information on the people who hold higher office - all we know about you is that je bent een Nederlander and not a native English speaker; I don't think anyone would hold that against you though. The main issue is that RfB is not decided on content although that is an area in which you have certainly excelled.

Like others here, I am cautious about giving you a score based on a possible forecast - RfBs are too rare for that, I would most likely support, but to be realistic, however, I'm with

Iridescent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk

) 02:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• ...on the other hand, maybe all the opinion-havers are too preoccupied with FRAMBAN, making this an excellent time to run? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it, Julian. Mine certainly wasn't. A lot has been written at the various FRAMBAN discussions, but mainly by admins and concerned regulars. Not generally the drive-by RfA crowd. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• At this moment, I can't imagine having an RfB right now (or over the next couple of months) where you won't be asked what you would have chosen to do with Floquenbeam's resysop request. It's just on everyone's mind. And this seems like a no-win question. Yes, there was a lot of vocal support for it but there are active admins and editors who saw this action as a violation of the relationship between WMF and the English Wikipedia. I don't have doubts about your qualifications, but I agree with others that the timing is not the best. Maybe by fall, people will have more perspective on this incident. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• How you respond to the FRAM related questions is going to be important, so hang on a week or three to the point where you can hopefully say"I agree with the settlement between the WMF and ArbCom and don't want my RFB to be used to reopen that issue". ϢereSpielChequers 09:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would hope any opposes (assuming you said you would not have touched it with a bargepole and triggered by a bit of unnecessary grandstanding by one 'Crat.) would be disregarded in the assessment. A bigger concern is why? How many more 'crats do we need? Seems we have had as many RFB as RFA. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The better question is imho whether we really need to limit the number of crats artificially. Other projects, such as the Spanish Wikipedia, grant cratship with adminship ("librarianship") and they seem to work just fine. Regards SoWhy 10:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    • You know, it would be really nice if people didn't superimpose their "better thinking" on top of mine. It isn't a "better" question. It is a completely non-feasible alternative. What happens is Spain or anywhere else is of no interest to me. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
      • oh Sir Walter, really! ——SerialNumber54129 11:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
      • As I said, that was imho. I didn't say that it is objectively better and you can of course disagree with it. Just out of curiosity, would you mind elaborating why you think it non-feasible? Regards SoWhy 11:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
        • No. This is someone's poll. Wrong place, wrong time. My comment to the potential candidate will form an oppose. Your blue sky thinking doesn't come close to being relevant to an RfB. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Something else to consider: More than with RFA, suitability for cratship is something that hinges on whether current crats will support or oppose. RFB-!voters are more likely to defer to current crats on whether someone is suitable for cratship. And they are not a homogeneous group, so even if you have a crat nominate you, others might oppose. When I last tried, I had three crats supporting and three opposing and if you take the time to read the opposes (which I have multiple times), you will note that many are partly "per Maxim" or "per WJBScribe". What I'm trying to say is: if you really are interested in running, ask a couple of active crats whether you should. Because their opinions statistically matter to !voters more than those of the rest of us. Regards SoWhy 10:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  @SoWhy: there's something slightly bizarre about this, it indeed it is true. I'd have thought one of the biggest reasons why one might want to vote in new crats at this point in time is to introduce new blood into the mix. The only substantial job that crats have to do in this day-and-age is to decide on borderline RfA decisions, such as the controversial recent one at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS. If we decide up front that we're only going to approve those who have been rubber-stamped and approved by the existing body of crats, and who is likely to make the identical decisions to them, then we might as well not bother... (not that I am complaining about the current crats - I agreed with the RexxS decision, and I think in general they are one of the best-operating bodies on the Wiki right now, but just making the point)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: Well, borderline RFBs, especially those that failed, might shed some light whether this is indeed a trend or just my personal feeling. Unfortunately, there are not enough to really study them. Apart from mine, the last five failed serious RFBs are Salvidrim! (2017), Beeblebrox (2012), Jc37 (2012), my first attempt (2010) and Juliancolton #2 (2010), which takes us back almost ten years. Three of those had a significant number of editors !voting based on opposes made by crats ("per X"), e.g. Beeblebrox (8 out of 40 non-crat-!votes), Jc37 (7 out of 21 non-crat-!votes) and Juliancolton (9 out of 45 non-crat-!votes). So it does look as if there is at least a tendency among a significant portion RFB-!voters to defer to existing crats when deciding whether to support someone's RFB. Whether that is a good tendency is another question, although since crats are not a homogeneous group already, it's impossible that only people that think exactly like existing crats will be successful. But if multiple current crats tell you not to run, it's likely that you won't succeed. Regards SoWhy 13:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes sense, thanks. Sounds like good advice re seeking current-crat advice anyway. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Bad timing now. Plus I think people do not know much about you personally -- you tend to be inconspicuous. Mild-mannered (which you are) is good; overly inconspicuous is not as good. You need to be a known quantity to pass RfB, and as some have commented, your user page offers little to no clue about that. Your XfD-closing skills are good, but I don't think you can run on that alone. What about ANI? AN? RfCs? RfARs? Have you commented much in those places? We need to see how you operate when the stakes are higher and the tensions greater and the issues (and policies) more complex than simply XfD. I greatly admire your work; I'm simply thinking aloud what people may say. Also, I personally like 'crats to have been admins for longer than three years. Lastly, content creation has little to no bearing at RfB, so I would avoid even mentioning it. Personally, I think you'd have a better chance at running for ArbCom (I'd probably vote for you) than for RfB. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• It goes without saying I think you're a fantastic admin and no doubt about it you'd make a fantastic bureaucrat .... however I have to agree with the above the FRAM situation will be asked at your RFB and then whatever your answer will be it will be a lose-lose situation, Unless we ban all FRAM-related questions then I think it'd be best to wait maybe a year or more (because something tells me this won't all die down in a few months). Had the FRAM not been a thing it would've easily been a 10/10. –Davey2010^Talk 16:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• +1 support here. Re: the Fram issue - well, it's pretty much carved in stone that questions will be asked, but until the community fully understands WMF's ByLaws and ToU, and who besides the Trustees is authorized to enforce them, the purpose of T&S, and what is actually written in the elusive constitution Jimbo and others have referred to (I've not seen it, have you?), it could become a sandtrap, but the same may apply a year or two from now. There is no denying that WP has its share of bullies and Teflon editors/admins (unblockables), who are considered by many to be a detriment to editor retention, yet nothing is ever done to correct it. ArbCom spends more time looking for ways to not take a case than they do hearing one. Adminship is a lifetime position whereas WMF staff/employees/Trustees are not lifetime positions. It is certainly food for thought regarding which branch of governance the community feels most comfortable. I'm of the mind that our decisions will be much easier to formulate once we are fully aware of where we stand in the hierarchy, and how comfortable we truly are as volunteers in a community subject to unblockable/absolute power. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I'm admittedly a bit scared to even start an ORCP given how contentious RfA can get at times, but I figured that since I do a lot of admin-type work and would make good use of the tools I might as well get some feedback. I've been on Wikipedia for over two years now, and have been a rollbacker and PC reviewer for one year. I'm heavily involved in UAA, recent changes, and spam patrol, and this makes up the bulk of my work on Wikipedia. My content creation largely centers around WikiProject Horse Racing, for which I've created a handful of articles and done substantial expansions on existing articles, including helping get Gun Runner (horse) to GA and most recently significantly expanding Riva Ridge. I'm also expanding into other, related areas, and recently started clerking at CHU and working with WikiProject Short Descriptions.

• I don't think you are ready for this. You have ostensibly not read all the advice pages and the voting community would probably give you a hard time resulting in no consensus to promote at this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: What specifically do you think I need to work on? "Advice pages" is very broad (and yes, I have read them) and I can't gather much from just "advice pages." Aspening (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aspening: I believe Kudpung is talking about Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: To clarify, I was asking for specific things I am doing well and specific things that might cause a pile-on of opposes or that are dealbreakers. Aspening (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about the most important of the "advice pages" that Kudpung is probably referring to, when he is saying that you have not read all the advice pages. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I can read the pages all I want, but my own perception of my editing isn't necessarily the community's. I'd like to know if there's something that Kudpung or other community members see that I don't. Aspening (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Aspening, I was referring to the very first three sentences on the ORCP page: 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.
This page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors. To seek feedback on what you can do to improve your contributions to Wikipedia, ask a friendly, experienced editor on the editor's talk page for help.

I may be old-fashioned but I believe one of the first things adminship aspirants should be able to do is read and understand instructions and guidelines. Secondly, any serious candidate on reading

WP:RFAADVICE and following up on the linked pages and examples, would have the acuity to make a prediction based on self-evaluation. The RfA process not only checks a candidate's editing performance, but also looks for wisdom and maturity. Don't let me dampen your enthusiasm, my aim is to help you avoid a very unpleasant experience at RfA; keep up the good work, follow the advice of the others here, and try in a year or so, but don't work 'too' hard toward being an admin - anyone who has joined Wikipedia with the intention of policing it has joined for the wrong reasons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk

) 22:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I read the top of the page, and I did not come here with intentions of getting a general review. I am an experienced editor who works in admin areas regularly, and I generally feel confident enough to make speedy deletions, blocks, page protections, etc. in these areas, so I thought I might consider running sometime before the end of the year. You may have misinterpreted what I meant - I used the term "feedback" because that's what I wanted: an honest review of my chances of succeeding in 3-6 months, which is what ORCP is meant for per the instructions, with specific points like the ones the sample entry provides. I read over the advice pages several times, looked at recent past RFAs, and read several experienced editors' criteria. After reading over the information, I found that I checked most or all of the boxes from my perspective. I was aware of the strengths and weaknesses mentioned by Nosebagbear below, and I believe other editors would likely say the same or similar things. What I was looking to get at was how big of a dealbreaker some of the iffier things were. For example, I don't particularly like AfD and usually only !vote there if I both come across an article that is either up for deletion or I think should be deleted while going about my normal patrolling, and I can contribute additional information or policy-based rationales and not just pile on a "per nom" or "per User:Foo." The reason I didn't point out the weak areas right away was because I wanted to see what others saw as my biggest weaknesses and compare that to the areas I identified myself, to see if there might be anything I'm missing. I do value the perspectives of others, and I felt that was the missing piece in evaluating whether I might be perceived as ready in the eyes of the community. Aspening (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

the book on RfA, now read this which is written from my own perspective and if you check all the boxes, I'll support your RfA and if you don't, I'll oppose it - heavily. Note that the 'laundry list' as some call it, while very detailed is actually one of the most lenient sets of RfA criteria - but you'll know this because you have read them all... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk

) 06:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Yours was one of the criteria I read already. Like I mentioned earlier, I can read pages all day, but situation-specific feedback, in my view, is vital to a truly accurate picture and while I can get close by just reading it's hard to tell how strictly voters hold to their established criteria. You said you would "heavily" oppose an RfA that didn't meet all of your criteria, but there were a few criteria that I either didn't see anywhere else or that seemed a bit stricter than most - I don't think I saw any other users with criteria that talked about the help desk, and most users didn't consider a candidate's past RfA edits (some even explicitly said this shouldn't be considered at all). You also said that you "almost never adhere to [your] criteria below," suggesting that you might not necessarily heavily oppose an RfA that didn't check all the boxes. I came to ORCP to get specific feedback and reasons people would support/oppose me specifically if I did run, and telling me "read this" a bunch of times is not very helpful. I have read these pages several times before, and I'm trying to get at how strictly the guidelines apply in practice and what is considered acceptable in terms of breadth of experience vs specialization.

The other thing is, why did you assume I hadn't done any research into this before opening an ORCP? I'm mostly concerned with accidentally coming off the wrong way and I don't want to do that in the future. Aspening (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Simply because the users who come here generally have not read all the advice pages. Those who have, already know what their chances are. I am not here to give you advice on what to do to pass RfA, this page is to let you know what chance we, experienced RfA voters, think the community will give you. Despite the encouragement from my good friend Ritchie333, I think that chance is 50/50 at least for now or any time in the near future. If you think that assessment is bad faith or patronising, I'm afraid I'm not going to be drawn into an argumentative discourse with a possible future admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @Aspening: - we're in a somewhat similar position (a la editcount, pages created, etc). UAA and vandal patrol (including RFPP, which I see you're extremely active at) are both obviously areas where tools are helpful. Your CSD list would indicate your UAA work is of a good quality (through the lens of a 1 min look). One area that might be an issue is activity length - you've only actually had 11 active months, which might concern some. One real killer is that 87% of your edits are (semi)-automated. These days almost all of us who participate in recent changes have a fairly high %, but with a % that high coupled with 15.5k total edits, you'll want more total manual edits. You'll probably be queried on if you can stay out of certain biased areas, given your political tab, but that's no dealbreaker. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: This was very helpful - thanks! I'm definitely going to wait at least a few more months before actually going for anything anyway because I suspected activity would be an issue (off-wiki stuff sometimes gets in the way). I'll work on more content creation, and I generally do stay away from controversial issues when editing (except for obvious disruptive editing). Most of my political work these days is looking out for politicians editing their own pages. Aspening (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• 7/10 I don't think it was very nice of
  also wrote a rulebook on RfA, and you pass it). However, your responses to him lean me towards supporting you in an RfA; you held your cool and disagreed politely but supplying clear evidence you were right. This shows you've been around the block with "difficult" editors and know how to deal with them. Your content work is good, and you are focused on writing content and getting rid of vandalism, which suggests you should have a similar trajectory to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HickoryOughtShirt?4. You haven't participated in AfDs much, which is not necessarily a deal breaker but it is one way people can easily see you communicating with people who disagree with you. Your A7 tag of Bruce Hlibok 15 minutes after creation was declined and criticised, but this seems to be a one-off out of over 150 CSDs in the same timeframe, so I don't think that'll be a long-term issue. Your activity level is in fits and starts a bit, but as long as you can come up with a good reason for it (exams?) I don't think that'll be an issue. In summary, you have an obvious need for the tools, and you'd probably scrape a pass now if you were able to field the above concerns with good answers to questions. Or you can wait six months, carrying on doing what you're doing (with maybe looking at rescuing a few articles from AfD) and have a much better likelihood of passing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  09:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for your feedback. I'm currently in college/university and the waves of activity generally have come as a result of that - I had a lot going on in fall 2018 and that's why I was away. I'll try more AfD and see how I like it now, and a touch more content creation work, perhaps another GA or finishing up some of my horde of userspace drafts. And yes, the Hlibok thing was a total mix-up and it taught me to be a bit more careful about A7s in the future. I think I'm going to wait until August at the bare minimum - I don't want to rush into things and it gives me more time to think things over before making a final decision. Aspening (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's already been mentioned, but being a content creator, with some knowledge on FAC and some empathy towards those who spend their money and time buying and referencing books for the benefit of this project , is also important. In fact a display of just that, regardless of what your template work is like or your temperament at ANI, would seal the deal for me and earn you my support. Cassianto^Talk 17:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  I would note that content creation is perhaps the broadest "what is a good amount" category. Everyone says yes to some being crucial, but I've seen differing suggested levels of between 3 and 50 articles, some who say just a reasonable number of "C"s is good, others who say 1+ GAs (a few want FA involvement). In short - more is always good and will get extra support, but unless you're a content specialist, you won't meet everyone's requirements on this facet. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Spend more time creating content and less time pandering to fan bases at AN/ANI would be sufficient. User:Crisco1492, no longer active, sadly, was the right mix. Now, I would say, Ritchie333, Casliber, Wehwalt and Jimfbleak spring to mind as being good all-rounders. Cassianto^Talk 18:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm pinged, and I haven't looked at contributions or anything, but I wouldn't care to be first serious RFA out of the box after the Fram thing. Likely you'll be asked about it, and it will be hard to avoid ticking off someone so I'd let someone else be first sacrificial lamb. I'm not including candidacies that would have no chance regardless.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Recommend producing some more content. One GA is a start, but doing some more solid content work would cement up some votes from those who think content work is important. Just think who might oppose and why. List GAs etc. on yr userpage. Also, if you want to earn goodwill, many writers are crying out for feedback at

WP:PR - a good place to start as just giving people some ideas is often a kickstarter. See what you get up to in the next three months before returning here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs

) 20:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. I read the article, it's fine, though it's a bit dry. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more. My personal standard is have you helped create some piece of the encyclopedia enough so that you would get concerned if it was vandalized or edited unconstructively. It's your tile in the big mosaic and you'd might be a bit steamed if it were abused and so can understand when a content contributor feels the same way about what they've done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• 7/10 - Tenure and CSD log are fine however the big issue for me is the lack of XFD participation, I would've liked to see XFD participation and closures however XFD isn't the be all and end all, All in all I'd say you have a pretty good chance of getting the bit if you ran an RFA. –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford (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)

Martin had asked me to consider Adminship last January. At the time I declined to do so as I had no compelling reason to need access to the tools. I still am not entirely certain that I do. However, I've approached the terminus of content I want to contribute and have started helping more at Requests for Closure. This can largely be accomplished absent administrator rights, however, there are some requests that demand administrator evaluation. At some point in the future, though probably not the immediate future, I might consider RfAing for that reason. I thought requesting an evaluation might be a good first step. Outside of content creation, I'm also relatively active at Articles for Creation. Thanks, in advance, for your time and patience. Chetsford (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• 7/10: Hi there. CSD & AfC both look good. An RfA on the basis of being able to participate in admin-limited RfCs is an interesting consideration. It's a bit like the template-editor and Interface-Admin RfAs where it's been required somewhat as a means to an end. Some editors frown on this, though I'm okay with it. Your DYK activity, though, amongst multiple other areas, would offer ample reasons for the toolkit. Would you consider participating in any of the admin areas for these? Obviously content creation is great. I'm positive we've had a significant disagreement at some stage, but since I can't track it down I think it'd be rather rude to hold an imaginary disagreement against you - do let me know if you can recall a failing on my side! ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Nosebagbear! " I'm positive we've had a significant disagreement at some stage, but since I can't track it down I think it'd be rather rude to hold an imaginary disagreement against you - do let me know if you can recall a failing on my side!" ... To be honest, the only substantive interaction I think we've ever had is in AfD discussions and I can't recall or find any disagreements there. "Would you consider participating in any of the admin areas for these?" ... Probably not only because, IMO, there are already enough cooks in that kitchen (both admin and non-admin) and I think they're doing a fine job. In any case, thanks very much for this thorough and helpful feedback! Chetsford (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have time to check all of it at the moment but your PROD log lists a lot of entries (albeit from last year) that are basically "no sources" or "no content", which is clearly not a reason for deletion (
  WP:NPOSSIBLE) and which of course were mostly not deleted. Given those taggings, why do you think you should be trusted with the ability to delete articles? Regards SoWhy
  15:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• That's a good question. To the first part, vis a vis the edit summaries, assuming at the time that these would be met without controversy I did not leave the type of detailed summaries I should have left, specifically, that my own BEFORE failed to find sufficient
  WP:N
  , which is my fault.
  

To the second part, in respect of the fact they were not deleted, PROD tags can be removed if even a single editor objects regardless of the objection and I don't believe a blue link on PROD (unlike a low AfD match or blue links on CSD) necessarily demonstrate absence of judgment. A close examination of many of my recent PRODs will find that the objection came from the same editor (e.g.

Inou Tsukai, Flying Mice, Morrigan Press, Gear Krieg

, etc) and the source added in objection to the PROD was a single, fairly obscure offline book. I don't believe this reflects on a lack of my judgment in nominating the article for PROD, only my inability to predict the objections of a single editor. In these cases, PROD — which has the highest procedural threshold for deletion implementation [requiring (a) action by two editors (the nominating editor and the deleting admin), and, (b) inaction by every Wikipedian] — worked as it should, in my opinion. Namely, it allowed me to learn that a single editor objected to PRODs on game-related topics, thereby demonstrating deletion on these topics was controversial, at which point I moved to a better venue (specifically, AfD).

Finally, as my blue-linked PRODs mostly deal with game-related articles I think the best judgment of my evaluative capacity in that regard is by reference to AfD as it reflects the consensus of the community as opposed to the objection of an individual. For full disclosure, my "match" rate at AfD for game-related topics runs slightly below my overall AfD "match" (81% versus 91%) - see User:Chetsford/GameAFD. I engaged in manual tracking for personal improvement and, after identifying that subject-specific discrepancy, almost entirely terminated participation in game-related AfDs. My hope is that this reflects my ability to engage in self-assessment and adjust my participation accordingly. I never presume to be a polymath and try to actively limit my work in areas of the encyclopedia in which there are others who are more qualified.

Thanks for your question. Let me know if I failed to answer it or you have any follow-up. Chetsford (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• 8/10: No problems with the content work. (Have we done a GA review together - I forget....) CSDs are good; out of 116 logged, three were overturned (the remainder of blue are recreations). Importantly, no declined A7s and G11s. The last mistake was this one in August 2018. A good track record at AfD - about 91% matching consensus not counting NCs, and lots of "keeps" closing as such. So your understanding of the deletion policy is, in my view, as sound as a pound. The run of five declined PRODs last November doesn't concern me. "No sources" is a reason to delete if it's a BLP, and your follow up at places like
  bent bit of wood, a few people thought you were a bit "gung ho" at AfD, saying things like, "I will note that Chetsford does seem to have adopted a rather scatter-shot approach to their deletion propositions." However, the AfD stats are right in front of me and in a fight between opinions at ANI and those, the facts win. I wonder if Simonm223 feels the same now as he did last August? Anyway, I'd probably support at RfA, and I think provided you can field good answers to questions, you should pass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  15:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  I had a philosophical disagreement with Chetsford with regard to deletionism vs inclusionism in a hobby topic that got a bit heated. That's not, in my opinion, a barrier to adminship, however I've had nothing really to do with them since and haven't any strong feeling one way or the other about whether they should wield the mop, so please consider this neither an endorsement nor an opposition. Basically thanks for the ping but it's not a place I feel my opinion is needed or useful. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• 7/10: On September 3, 2017 you were accorded the New Page Reviewer right on a convincing request at PERM, but AFAICS you've never used the right. How can I be sure that you would the admin bit? (rhetorical question for now, but one which I might ask at your RfA.). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford has nominated several pages for CSD or AfD shortly after creation, so he must be have been de-facto new page patrolling in one way or another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I actually used to be fairly active at new page patrolling and received the NPP "special edition" barnstar in July 2018 but I haven't patrolled recently, for sure. I haven't requested to have the NPP right revoked, though, as I keep meaning to return but have been more attentive to AfC of late. That said, to be honest, I'm not really all that sure I would use the admin toolset which may be the issue with moving to RfA at all for me. My primary activity would be in areas (like admin-limited closures) where an admin is required for ceremonial purposes but no actual access to tools is needed to accomplish what is asked. (I was taken to ANI once by another editor and visited of my own volition IIRC two other times to comment on an existing case so things like blocking and page protecting are probably not activities I'd undertake much or, really, at all. I suppose it's possible my interests could evolve, though.) Chetsford (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Chetsford: - if you're asking for the mop on the basis of aiding your work in closing discussions etc, it's probably putting together a few of your "best" (best argued, best at handling controversy etc) closes. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a very good point. Thank you. Here are a few that were in typically controversy-heavy areas: [2], [3], [4]. One issue I have is that no one has ever challenged a close I've made so I can't point to examples of someone disagreeing with my close and it then being upheld, though I just suggested the other day to an editor on my Talk page that he/she might like to do so. Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• 7/10 - Your Tenure, CSD log, AIV/UFAA work and XFD participation look fine however your PROD log is slightly problematic (which I know has since been explained above), Your FA and GA work is fantastic and certainly goes in your favour and so if you were to run for RFA I think you'd have a high chance of passing, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback! Chetsford (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Chetsford :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• 7.5/10 You do good work. I would support your RfA. The comments here are meant to be opinions on whether the commenters think you could pass an RfA. I think you could which is why I gave a percentage at the passing line, rather than at my own more favorable opinion of your qualifications. You might get a little resistance because of the PROD log questions but I don't think that is disqualifying and all of the other areas that you have worked in are quite good. Little needs to be added to the views of Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} and others above. Nonetheless, I will add that there are two new RfAs which perhaps should be watched and seen through before more RfAs are filed. It appears the tangential effect of the Fram controversy has only produced one oppose so far. I hope that it will not have an effect on the outcome of any candidacies of qualified users but perhaps this should be considered for the near future. Donner60 (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

I'm generally interested in becoming an administrator. I'm not sure I'm going to have the time to nominate soon as I'm starting some new projects in the real world next week, but I would like to get a sense as whether this would be worth my time. I'd like to be an admin to close AfDs/RfCs and work in areas of copyvio.

I've been a Wikipedia user since 2005 but only have started becoming more involved since about January 2018. Most of my edits were to content space before then, mostly on sports and aviation related articles, hence my user name, but I've since been involved in new page patrol (specifically looking at older new pages tagged with copyvio concerns) and AfC. I haven't created any featured articles, but I have improved some articles significantly when I'm in the mood to create content. I'm around AfD a lot as well, keep an eye on ANI, and do my best to communicate when there's a dispute. The tools I'm specifically looking to use are closing AfDs and RfCs, being able to review the history of deleted articles, and being able to speedy delete copyvios.

• General advice - you've said you're not imminently going for it, so I'll give general "to-do" comments rather than odds (I know some dislike it, I feel it does no harm). Creation: An interesting one. You've created over 90 articles, which is clearly great. However, a spot check shows you rarely contribute much beyond the initial form (still 10x more total than most). Lots of !voters seem to insist on a couple of Bs/GAs/FAs (I personally say 20 starts beats any B, but consider it fair warning). Your mainspace count % is relatively low, but I'd imagine that particular argument would be reduced by the article scale. In terms of total edits, I'd imagine another 6k would be needed to keep the editcountitis down. AfD - you've participated on a great scale, some people bicker over what a good consensus rate is - I'd imagine up a couple of points to be safe. Interestingly (to me) you, like me, try to get stuff userfied/draftified, with roughly the same level of success. Copyvio/CSD Do you use Twinkle? If you do, then it's helpful to enable it to track CSDs (and PRODs). If you're planning on being involved in Copyvio work, then a track record is good. Have you been active in any other copyvio areas/boards? RfCs Just a note that you can close (some) RfCs without being an admin here sets it out, if you didn't already know. Bit broad I know - wanted to cover any bits - doesn't mean all bits! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• @
  WP:GNG has been cleared, and many of my article creations are from Wikipedia's early days and have stuck. It would be interesting to see which articles I've contributed to the most based on bytes, since I tend to improve articles already created (for instance, I sourced ARCO Arena (1985)). I also don't want to change how I vote at AfDs in order to get more "correct," as I always vote on what I perceive the quality of the sourcing to be, though a review of my misses shows I could probably do a better job revisiting some of my votes when I vote early in the discussion, though sometimes I leave an opposing vote if I still disagree with the new sources. Many of my misses are nuanced. I typically CSD using the New Page Patrol, so not through Twinkle, though I do have/use Twinkle on occasion. I've just recently gotten started with copyvios, maybe last two months, but I think I have a good track record and understand that area of the project pretty well, and I always try to rewrite instead of delete if possible. I asked in an ANI thread how to become a copy clerk awhile back, but I don't think anyone responded. I do appreciate the feedback. SportingFlyer T·C
  22:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Red Phoenix (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)

As an editor, I'm predominantly an active mainspace contributor with a knack for heavy research and completely refitting articles to improve their quality, with 6 FAs, 3 FLs, 2 featured topics, and 20 GAs to show for it at this time - mostly in the topic of video games, but I do have contributions outside that area as well. I do have some article creations, though several of them were done over redirects, and those done in the last two years are all at GA status currently. Additionally, I'm involved with counter-vandalism, and, less frequently, the AfD process, including non-admin closures. My work in those two fields, though particularly in counter-vandalism and a desire to help with the AIV backlogs that come up, are why I would like to be an administrator.

I have been an editor since late 2007, although I've really had three phases of activity: 07-08, 2013-2014, and from late 2017 to now. In the past, I had a lot on my plate that caused me to step away for a while, but I've been solidly active for the last 18 months and am still looking for more to take on with Wikipedia with no intention to leave again. I do have a failed RFA from 2008 that I will mention, but I was 11 years younger and barely out of high school at the time, so I will point out that I have matured greatly since then. What I'm looking to get out of this process is more I can build on before a proper RFA in the future - at this point, I would like some guidance on how to proceed to become a more solid candidate for adminship, as I don't personally feel like I would pass at this point, but am unsure where and how to continue. Your feedback is much appreciated - I want to learn everything I can about how I can make myself a better editor and administrator candidate. Thank you, Red Phoenix ^talk 14:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• 7/10 I'd support. Ever since Talk:Sega Genesis/GA2 (one of my more memorable GA reviews), I've thought you were a good egg and knew exactly how to do things here; Wikipedia:Featured article review/AC/DC/archive2 strengthened that view, and showed you can talk about non-video game topics. (I have to apologise for not getting back to you on Sega's FAC). I don't care about stuff from 2008 and the only salient point from there is you didn't have a good handle on AfD. Your stats today are acceptable; I normally go straight for a debate where consensus didn't go your way and see what you said. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechNet (lobbying organization) you (IMHO) made the best argument (and it was still an on-the-fence !vote), it's just unfortunate nobody else agreed with you. I've got this nagging feeling if you ran right now, you'd get a bunch of "no real need for the tools" opposes, however I thought that about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl and got proved totally and utterly wrong, so what do I know? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Off again, on again editing can be a red flag - even with your declaration that you don't intend to leave again, expect some questions and also some opposition there. I think you might also get some opposes for "low edit count" - 10,000 is, believe it or not, on the low side these days, and 4300 of those are automated.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• 3/10 - firstly, your creation content is amazing - and I'd also specifically note you do so in far fewer edits than most i know. This has actually had a side effect of meaning you had fewer edits - Pawnking is correct, some would !vote against on 10k - 15k is probably safer. My primary concern however is that your stated areas for wanting the tools are currently a little low in experience. AIV work is a little hard to check without serious deep-diving, but a lack of RFPP requests means you've not tested out one of the main areas that AIV admins could/would use. Your recent AfD pass-rate is fine, but I'd advise quite a lot more AfDs (participations that is). Tenure is now decent, so suggested wait time is more on the above areas than any particular aspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who has multiple FAs, not least ones like Sega Genesis which have had long-running disputes, can do a good job at AIV with zero experience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has commented so far.

• 7/10 FWIW, I agree with Ritchie's analysis and assessment, but with a nod to other commenters advice. I would support you because your work is good and your content creation is such that you have spent much time on that (which does not lead to many edits) and you have no doubt learned much policy over the years. However 7/10 is on the edge, in crat chat territory. Here is where the comments of Pawnkingthree and Nosebagbear also come into play and suggest anticipating more possible opposes currently or at least good reasons to get more experience. Users commenting here are suppose to evaluate the chance for an RfA to pass, not their own opinions. Experience suggests that a commenter should not be excessively optimistic about that if they are familiar with some past RfAs that have run into trouble, perhaps unexpectedly. I don't think you will get any opposes based on the ancient history of a 2008 RfA. It would be wise (required?) to mention it. I mostly use Huggle and I agree that it seems not to count or make a record of certain actions, including speedy deletion requests. (Having discovered this early, I have kept some records of my own.) In any event, I would also advise that you get some more edits and get them in some places where RfA !voters might look for a candidate to have more experience. AfD has been a topic where opposes pile up in some RfAs and where there are few opposes if a candidate has at least some familiarity with and participation in it. In some recent RfAs, candidates who have expressed the intention to work in other areas have not attracted much opposition based on not choosing AfD as one of them. The FRAM issue did not result in many oppose votes in two recent RfAs which passed with over 90% support. Your reason to wait is to get a little more experience in administrative areas. The pendulum occasionally swings the wrong way so a little more experience and good work never hurts. I would like to encourage you because I think someone with your content experience alone will pass the trustworthiness test. Donner60 (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski (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)

Hi, my name is Ed, and I've been editing Wikipedia for almost two years (I believe I made my account in October 2017.) I mostly edit articles on cue sports, but also video games, professional wrestling and football.

I have created around 200 articles (or so xtools says) and 22,000 edits, a few GAs (such as 2018 Masters) and a current FA nomination. I was thinking of running potentially early next year, however after talking with a couple of members, it was suggested that it would be a good time for around October/November.

I would like some further opinion on if this would be suitable from the community at large, if this would be feasible; or if I should get more experience etc.

I would mostly want the tools to close deletion/technical move discussions and to help out at DYK, where I have had quite a few submissions this year. Please let me know if I should provide any more information. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• 6/10 at this point in time. You've got a good mix of mainspace to project space, with some detailed GA reviews like
  WP:BEFORE failure", which will get opposes), this, this, this, this and this. I appreciate these are all some time ago, but I don't think we're at the stage where they can be considered ancient history. (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Primefac 2 as an example). Moving forward, I would err on the side of caution and only nominate articles for deletion if you're absolutely sure they have no place on the encyclopedia. If you can work on this over the next few months, maybe alongside rescuing articles so they are kept at AfD, I think we will be in a stronger position by the end of the year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  16:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Ritchie333, I'll make sure to work on it, especially rescuing articles. A lot of these are merge/redirect results, which aren't deletions, but do show the subject isn't currently suitable for it's own article. Thanks for taking the time to look at my profile. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Ritchie333. I am not leaving a rating because I waver on how much effect your AfD record would have. I know that the number of opposes based on AfD participation and accuracy have been a problem for some candidates. This varies but like Ritchie333, I would not want to see a "premature" RfA dragged down by this one topic. So I encourage you to follow his advice concerning some further work in AfD. In view of your content creation and other work, I think you could and should get enough support if this area does not spark much opposition. So I think you should try to shore up the AfD area and put a little time between your past edits and your candidacy. Then give it a go. Donner60 (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Strikerforce (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)

With the recent decision of several dozen administrators to step down, I feel that the project needs to have some folks step up and agree to take on the often thankless role of administrator. I am willing to be one of those individuals, should the community accept me. I am not the greatest content contributor you'll find, as many of the areas that interest me the most and I feel I'd write the best articles have already been well established, but I am a copy editor, among other things, in my real life employment, so that's mostly what I do when I'm logged in to Wikipedia. I am mainly looking to contribute in the areas of XfD, UAA, AIV, and AN3, initially, and expanding out to other parts of the role with experience. I have been a registered Wikipedia user for a bit over ten years, although I did go through several lengthy periods in which I did not make any edits as such. During those periods, I may have made edits as an IP user, although I'm not able to point to specific edits or IP addresses that may have been me, since I moved around the U.S. several times from 2008-2014. I am on Wikipedia nearly each weekday, for one reason or another, even if I don't make any edits on a given day. I previously posted here in August of last year. The final edit of that discussion may be found here for reference. I look forward to your comments. Strikerforce^Talk 18:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Query - @Strikerforce: - is there a reason there isn't a link to your talk page archive on your talk page User talk:Strikerforce/Archive 1 - obviously it's your right, but it's one of things that RfA reviewers would look over (it's also generally helpful), and I was wondering if there was a specific reason for it. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: There is not. It is an oversight that I will be happy to remedy. Thanks for pointing it out! Strikerforce^Talk 17:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I just went to correct this and noticed that there is, in fact, a link back to my original talk page on the archive. Could you please elaborate as to what you're not seeing? Thanks! Strikerforce^Talk 14:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Strikerforce: - I realise that by adding a link afterwards I turned a confusing sentence into an utterly misleading one. What I meant was, on your talk page, I can't find a direct link to your archive Nosebagbear (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Ahhh, okay. I see what you mean now. I've added a link to the archive in the banner on my talk page. Strikerforce^Talk 17:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Very low. You've only been active since last May / June last year. ——SerialNumber54129 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• In terms of actually answering your query, I'd also say not quite yet. You'll need a fair few thousand edits and some more tenure. At this point I'd say it's more beneficial to edit in what interests you, rather than pointing at a couple of spots to fix up. The selected areas of interest look good and you can build experience fairly easily. I've no idea about the non-AfD parts of XfD so I wish you luck on those aspects as I can't offer any advice! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Nosebagbear. Your experience prior to your most recent round of activity will be discounted by many at RfA. They will look at how long you have been editing in your recent round and how many edits you have. The requirements concerning length of tenure and number of edits of some users have gone up in recent years. If enough of them think you have not contributed enough for long enough, your chance of success will be greatly diminished. Also, you will need to show some activity and interest in the areas in which you wish to work as an administrator. If you have little or no work in those areas, opposers who say they cannot judge your contributions and competence in those areas are likely to appear. If you have no work in any areas where administrators ultimately need to act, you will get some opposes on the "no need for the tools shown" basis. While I think competence and dealing courteously and well with others are good indicators of the real test: trustworthiness, you could see some users give this reason for an oppose. Donner60 (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• @
  WP:RFAADVICE as suggested in big red letters at the top of your open editing window: no admin material yet.

  You didn't sign your post: no admin material yet.

  You believe that adminship is related to improving encyclopedic content: no admin material yet.

  You have 55 edits to the project
  in three years: no admin material yet.
• Sorry about that! ——SerialNumber54129 09:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Jake Brockman (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)

All, I have been considering to run for admin for a couple of months. Though I have “only” been around for coming up to 3 years, I feel my command of Wikipedia guidelines and best practice has consistently evolved and is now solid for the admin role. I have been focused on NPP, fighting vandalism and to a lesser degree AfC. My real “passion” is to critically review new articles and edits that may be considered promotional, COI or by undisclosed paid editors. This also covers identifying and reporting possible sock cases. I appreciate that some people might consider this “deletionist”, however I have constructively participated where I feel I can add value. Going forward I’d like to continue with a specific eye on counter-promo across the entire spectrum. The tools should help with this and take the pressure off the existing admin team. I think my “success rate” of CSD/AfD nominations and AIV reports has been consistently high. Feedback is much appreciated. Thx.

• 3/10. I subscribe to
  WP:NOBIGDEAL but more and more RfA appears to have an increasing bar. With only 10K edits, and a decreasing number each year, I do not think you'd have much of a chance of passing. You'd need a pretty good reason to need the mop. Perhaps look into a formal project, like the sock puppet team, and spend some time there. Ifnord (talk
  ) 13:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• 7/10 You look like a good candidate. While I do share - to a slight degree - Ifnord's concern regarding your edit frequency, I'd note that 2019 is hardly more than half over so having fewer edits in 2019 than in 2018 at this point is somewhat to be expected. Now that said, while I'd likely support your admin request, there's no harm in getting involved in a formal project for a while. The sock puppet team might be a good fit. Or doing some AfD clerking. Both would definitely serve you well, and would seem to fall in line with your interests here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• 3-4/10 - (edit conflict) I do feel I should say that 12.5k edits (notwithstanding 500 edits elsewhere) is appreciably more than 10k. You are also set to have more edits this year than last, so I'm not sure Ifnord's point stands up there. Your usual areas are fine for showing purposes of needing the mop, but you sound as if you mainly want them for counter-promo, which would be a relatively niche area. I would say that while your stated actions don't scream deletionist, your AfD % is extremely so, and will bring concern. You probably want 15k edits. I'm fine with your content creation, but might be worth adding to a couple of your starts to get them up to "C"s. Mainly depending on how fast you edit, between 2-5 months needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Jake Brockman, I disagree pretty strongly with @Nosebagbear and Ifnord: 10,000 edits is the generally accepted minimum, and while people have commented about it being "low" in RfAs in the past, I'm pretty sure they got hounded for it. As for anti-promo work not being a good reason: linkspam and article spam are one of the most overwhelming areas of admin work with a torrent of the crap coming in. It's hardly "niche" and if it was, it wouldn't be in a bad way: it'd show a solid need for the tools. You've also edited relatively consistently at around 300 edits a month for years, with peaks and valleys, but it is consistent. That's more than enough activity to be an admin. Heck, your 2019 is on track to have more edits than 2018
  As for my views: the one thing that stood out to me was that you didn't have any GAs/FAs, but you were also autopatrolled. I dug down into your articles, which are all classified as start class, to see things that would likely pass a GA review if you bothered to nominate them. I was particularly impressed with Sharmeena Begum, which you rewrote after a copyvio issue. If someone can write a BLP compliant article on that subject matter and rescue it from copyvio issues, you have the content and policy chops to be an admin. There might be some people complaining that you don't have any GAs/FAs to your name, but I think a respected nominator with respect on the content front could easily explain that your work is actually quite good, but that you haven't put it through the GA for RfA resume process, which personally I like.
  All in all, I think you clearly have the capacity to be an admin, and likely could pass RfA in the near future. If you want to be more likely to pass, turn Sharmeena Begum or another article or two into a GA and you'd probably pass in the 90s. You could also probably pass without it with a respected nominator, but the percentage might be in the mid-80s, which there's nothing wrong with. Anyway, this is a longer post than I prefer, but I think the advice given above was particularly bad and didn't look at the entire context of your work. Thank you for your service. Also, speaking as a member of the SPI team, while we always appreciate help, we recently took on two new clerks and I'm not sure if any other CU has the time to take on a trainee, so "Don't RfA until you become an SPI clerk" might be a while... and I wouldn't let that deter you from running for RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify my assessment above, the 3/10 was my estimate of passing an RfA given its current state. He passes my RFA criteria and I would support today, barring anything brought up that I have not yet seen. Ifnord (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I personally would probably be neutral (notwithstanding questions) atm, 3-4/10, like Ifnord, was my judgement on passing. And if you get 6 opposes on the side of edits that a significant chunk of supports cancelled out. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I’m just saying the basis for that judgement is not really reflective of community norms. If you have 6 opposes and 160 supports (small RfA these days) that’s 96% (all recent RfAs that passed had that number or more opposes.) What you’ve said here both initially and just now doesn’t make any sense in terms of how RfA works. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it makes sense, because there is more than 1 thing that gets opposes. Obviously, if the edit count was the only thing that might get them than absolutely OP should go for it. But there are a few things that could be improved, plus any things I didn't consider, any of which might get opposes. Since I can't give precise numbers for each, reducing the low-hanging fruit is the obvious thing to do. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason I’m making a point of this is that your comment is a good example of why I actively tell people to ignore ORCP if they’re serious about RfA: it’s so far outside of community norms for adminship that if anyone tried to make an oppose based off of those lines they’d be heckled to death and the crats would likely ignore it. Jake has a pretty decent shot at passing an RfA right now, and if he waited a month and got a GA or two, an even better one. What your comment did was turn ORCP into a forum that is more critical of candidates than they would ever face at RfA, and that needs to be pointed out so that it doesn’t discourage people from running based on bad advice. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• 6/10 - Tenure is fine, CSD and Prod logs are fine, AFD stats are fine and your article creations are great too, The edit count isn't a concern for me - You're generally hitting over 200-400 edits a month (if it were 100 pm then that'd be a different story), My only slight concern here is that I feel you running for RFA would be too soon ... I can't quite put my finger on it but it all just feels toosoon .... but other than that I think you could potentially pass there. –Davey2010^Talk 15:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment by the subject: Thank you all for your candid feedback. I appreciate that the poll is not a true reflection of an actual RfA process which will a) attract more attention and b) lead to deeper scrutiny. Realistically I had expected that a relatively short tenure (be this in terms of time or edits) may be a factor, so that does not come as a surprise. There will always be qualitative and quantitative considerations in such a process, so I hope eventually the right balance will be found.

About the drop in edits from 2017 to 2018: in 2017 I experimented quite a bit with automation tools such as STiki and AWB, while 2018 onwards edits are largely manual (I don't really consider Twinkle "automated").

I had not intended to run for RfA ‘’today’’, so this was really just an early testing the water to assess how realistic this may be. I appreciate that “the tools” come with no kudos per se – they are really just something that I believe would be useful so I can do what I do more efficiently for the community and to build on what I enjoy. Yes, some people do find “anti-marketing” enjoyable :)

What I take away as synthesis: some more work along this line, some project work possibly (SPI had previously crossed my mind, but that seems well covered now.). GA or similar is definitely a great suggestion.

All in all great feedback, I think._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wyatt2049 (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 am doing a poll on how my chances are for becoming an admin. I just want to see if I am ready yet.

• 0/0, we generally expect more than 351 edits in an admin candidate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• 0/0, your chances are zero because you haven't even read the instructions or followed the links to the advice pages first. Sorry, but you do need a lot more experience. Try to gain your feet by doing some more vandal fighting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Wyatt2049 (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)

So, I have made over 1000 edits, and have pending changes rights. Many of my edits are combative of vandalism, and requesting that pages be protected. I have a goal to become an administrator at some point, because I would love to make Wikipedia a great place for research. I really want to be an administrator to help along with the others. I also want to protect the pages to prevent vandalism if they meet the criteria. I think the more admins there are, the better the wiki will be. I also have a good admin score, which is over halfway to 1300.

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

-6000/10 Your last ORCP was just archived. Please see

• 1/10 You're not at all ready for this. While you've been very active in the month of August, this is after an extended break between then and 2017. Furthermore, most of your edits are pretty much maintenance. While you can be commended for your anti-vandalism work, most admins are expected to have created substantially more content than you have. Continue anti-vandalism patrol certainly, but as somebody who has done a fair bit of work on
  WP:NOTHERE issues including vandalism, I can assure you: you don't need the mop to do that. Simonm223 (talk
  ) 12:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Enivak (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! I am mostly sure that i will not pass an normal RFA, but i would like to start this poll, to receive more detail and feedback from editors. I am an Recent pages patroller, and this is one of the few things (weakly) supporting me. :-) I also felt a little confusing when i saw all pages about this, and the one going me "first" to another etc.

• General comments - as you say, you're not ready for an RFA (for which you'd need at least 10k edits). At 1000 edits you've just reached the point that many (though by no means all) editors start spending more time in the Wikipedia namespace - the backend, doing the various maintenance tasks. Rather than point out specific areas you don't have any experience in and should focus on, I think you'd be better off spending a little time in lots of areas - see whether any of the discussions in the
  deletion policy and then participate in some AFDs - it's the quickest way to learn loads of policy in quite an enjoyable way. Some of these will prep you for other possible fields like reviewing new articles etc. The key thing is finding what you enjoy, so that when you reach 10k edits you still enjoy being here. Nosebagbear (talk
  ) 22:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, thanks for your perfectly pointed comment, it was just the thing i wanted to hear. The truth is that Even if i ever become an administrator (which, as you say, will not be in the near future), i would like to continue the job i'm doing now (patrol pending changes) and the most simple ones, and when i gain experience i would like to expand in protecting-unprotecting pages, and when i gain even more experience (which i will never gain because Arbcom will desysop me for good :-)), in unblock requests. Thanks also for your recommendations, i should had did these things earlier (especially the academy, which i should have joined because of my current job). I always enjoy editing WP (even when some were rude to me, see "Comment by IP" section), so i will surely find something very exciting out there. Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 22:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• This poll is intended for users who believe they would be ready to do RFA in a short period (the order of weeks or months). Please read the documentation in the lead. If you are interested in things to help with, you might consider asking at the WP:Teahouse. --Izno (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  Izno Dear user, thanks for your comments. I thought this was the best place to get feedback and good-faith rating (even if you are not ready for the foreseeable future), although i have read the thing you pointed out. Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 22:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Enivak: I've reopened this to update you. Now that you have been blocked for socking, you need not worry yourself with requesting administrative privileges for around five years. FYI. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

King Rishab Dugar (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...

John M Wolfson (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 am a

• 7/10 if... - currently I'd say your tenure is a bit too short, but waiting till December would give you another 3 months and a couple of thousand edits which would handle those areas. I was thinking that your Wikipedia-space edit count was a bit low, but your patrol count is good, and obviously that doesn't stack many edits. Content creation is excellent, of course. AfD count/% is fine to show you've got the key policy areas down (reinforced by your patrols). CSDs are fine. I see the two blue A7s have justifications. So, one query for right now: could you expand a little on what you'd specifically use the mop for beyond maintenance? Strike that, 2nd question...what were you doing in May? :S Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comment. I'd like to be able to view deleted material to supplement my patrolling, for such things as

  WP:REFUND in order to judge whether a given deletion was valid and/or whether a request is legitimate. As for May, sorry to be a bit of a wet blanket but a lot of those edits were my using AWB to fix the shading of Presidential election result tables for US counties (an example is here). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs

  ) 22:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• 7/10 Tenure is perfectly adequate according to my criteria. However, although it's not necessarily a deal breaker, new page reviewing could be more accurate and a bit stricter. Yvonne Mai (actress) , for example, is a typical case in mind where a very new user needs to be informed of the serious deficits with the article which in fact is a borderline case for deletion or a move to draft; as it stands, it risks becoming a perma-stub. Otherwise, keep up the good work with NPR because it's the one place that demonstrates a good knowledge of notability and deletion which after all are major features of an admin's work. I don't think you need to expand here why you need the mop, our comments here are strictly about how we rate your chances at RfA, and perhaps provide some very basic advice. I do concur that a couple of months without any issues such as 'unreviewed' being reported should leave you with a fair chance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be sure to brush up on BLP in the meantime. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• ?/10 One thing you could do is try to get a
  featured article in the bag. There is a segment of the community that is impressed by content writers and is suspicious of those who just rattle around in project space. It's a great pleasure when the article you've worked hard to improve gets one of these recognition. Jehochman ^Talk
  03:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Part of the WP:Four Award he mentioned includes taking 1927 Chicago mayoral election to GA and then FA status. MarginalCost (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to close this an hour early as I have made up my mind. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)