Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 16

Epa101 (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 have been active on Wikipedia since 2005. Although I've edited almost continuously (some breaks), I've never got much involved with the community (besides voting). I'd like to volunteer to keeping Wikipedia working.

I'll address one thing straight away, as I know that it will come up. I did an edit to the article on Bloody Sunday (1972) with a reference from Hansard, to reference when Colum Eastwood named Soldier F in Parliament. This was given a hard strikethrough, so that it's gone even from the page's editing history. This was just a genuine mistake by me. I thought that Hansard was a reliable source, and was not aware of the perennial sources dashboard at the time of making it (where Hansard has "no consensus"). I then took the discussion to the talk page and, with no consensus, did not edit further. I hope that I can be forgiven this as a mistake. I've sometimes heard Hansard be talked of as a gold standard of a reliable source in British politics, so that's why I made the assumption. Epa101 (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Just a brief(ish) comment from me - you seem to be in good standing, but I'd recommend getting more involved "behind the scenes", as although you've created a few articles, I'm not seeing much in the way of XfD (beyond 4 AfD !votes), requests for page protection, reports to AIV, page moving, or anything like that. My suggestion is probably to look at getting involved in more admin-esque activities. Also with only 6k edits in total it's a bit too soon to be thinking about going to RfA. Getting an article to at least Good status would be a benefit too, as that alone would stop some people supporting you otherwise. Hope that helps! Plenty of things can get involved with without the admin bit. :) Personally, I'm not too bothered about your Bloody Sunday (1972) edit, as it's a one-off and you seem to have learned from it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • For interest, these are my own criteria: User:Kj cheetham/RfA criteria -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks for the feedback. Epa101 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• 3/10 You mistake longevity for experience. You lack the accomplishments many in our editing community would expect of an admin candidate and you fail my criteria. Contrary to what you might have read, we don't need more admins to keep Wikipedia working unless you're pledging to focus on a specific backlog. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback. Just to note at the end, I've not read anything about the need for more admins. I just presumed that Wikipedia needs volunteers to keep going. Epa101 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• A very regular but very low participation since registering. It does not demonstrate the kind of commitment the community looks for in an admin and it would take a lot of edits in a short time in the right places to get up to speed and make up for that deficiency. It shouldn't be, but RfA is also a bit of a popularity poll - most admin candidates are quite active in the community and most of the active admins do not generally beaver away on their own; the use of most of the tools makes interaction with others unavoidable. I would have suggested making a start at New Page Review, but while there is a low minimum entry threshold for this activity, the admins who grant this user right might say much the same. Perhaps you could help out at QUERY, they always need help there and as a start, it might be something you would like to get your teeth into. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestions. I'll look at New Page Review and QUERY. Epa101 (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• User:Epa101, you have an excellent record of adding content to many articles, and excellently, this includes curating existing content and removing poor content. I thin your mainspace editing is a strong reason for support at RfA. The likely failing point will be projectspace experience. In particular, Your AfDstats table is underpopulated, and your few comments there show lack of experience with WikiJargon and deletion policy. I suggest that you engage in ~100 AfD debates, to both gain experience and demonstrate that experience. Enable WP:Twinkle and enable both you CSDlog and PRODlog for the several CSD and PROD candidate pages you’ll find when doing investigations around pages at AfD. Being an admin means the potential to make unilateral judgements on content and editors (speedy deletion and blocking), and some experience related to that is desired at RfA. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the feedback. That is useful. I have enabled Twinkle now. How do I enable the CSDlog and PRODlog please? Sorry, I cannot find them. Epa101 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Epa101: Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. Most everything involved in the functioning of scripts and gadgets happens in your preferences menu linked at top right. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. I've found them and now understand them better too. I've changed my preferences to make use of them :) Epa101 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• 4/10. You have excellent mainspace experience and a solid (but still relatively low, even though you certainly created lots of articles) edit count, which are certainly strengths. Your activity is generally consistently low each year, which could be a minor downside as some RfA participants might require at least six months of consistently solid activity. Another minor issue is your infrequent usage of edit summaries, which is important. However, I agree with some of the previous voters that your lack of projectspace editing could be a downside, with only 68 projectspace edits. Your experience with antivandalism and page moving appear to be quite lacking, so it's unclear how you would handle
  WP:NPPR, it's far less strict compared to adminship and once you frequently give policy-based rationales in AfDs you would definitely be eligible. Then six months to a year later you can come back, start a RfA, and probably pass easily. Thanks. VickKiang (talk)
  03:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• ...rating and optional brief comment...

Ingenuity (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)

Hey everyone! I've been actively editing for over a year now, primarily working in counter-vandalism and

• At least 8/10 edit summary usage good, content creation good, might want to bump up AfD and maybe PROD, but nothing too fatal there and CSD is good upon first glance.
  GOFORIT, but do come up with a compelling reason to be granted the tools and get any remaining ducks in a row. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs
  ) 18:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I think you'd do fine. Good content contribs, which extends to the AfC space. Although you don't have a ton of edits at AfD, you make up for that with CSD. Also, more admins watching recent changes to take care of active vandals before reporting and waiting is always great. You also wrote an anti-vandal script. Lastly, this thing says you'll win, and xtools wouldn't lie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Protip: the admin score doesn't actually mean anything, so don't use that as an argument for your RfA. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I passed that algorithm also, yet anyone nominating me will/should get undoubtedly dragged immediately to arbcom for demonstrating an egregious lack of sound judgement. Which I think is a pretty good intimation of xtools' efficacy, or particularly this one, at least! :D SN54129 21:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Can someone be granted the mop without his consent? Might as well nominate you while I'm at it! 😂 – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• 8/10 (and more if we discount the few who think that a minimum of 1800 edits/month for 16 months isn't enough "tenure"). Clear competence in some admin areas - you aren't saying you're getting the toolkit to do AfD, so not having more AfDs isn't an issue. Content work is obviously more than fine. You would want to lay out what you want the tools for, but for someone with a CSD background...that's hardly difficult! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Content creation is seen as important by !voters and I’ve had a look at your work. Your articles are very clean and I’ve thus assigned you the autopatrolled flag. Schwede66 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 (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)

A late-night whim, this. If I were to run in December, having got Genghis Khan and a couple of other articles to FA in the meantime, what would be my chances, and what areas could I work on between now and then? Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• 5-6/10 Content seems great now, and will presumably be even better by the end of the year. AfD is decent and recent, and there are a few blue links in your PROD log it's not as fatal as if they were in the CSD log. Pray tell, however, why you'd want to be an admin? Although this form of the question is obsolete, what "need" do you have for the tools besides a "late-night whim"? While it's possible for an editor to get the mop solely on content, it won't be a smooth or fun ride. Focus on what you need with the mop specifically, and the more backstage stuff, before considering an RfA. (Also, I see your edit summary usage has been 99% or better since November. Keep it that way.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• I won't give it a rating because the answer to the question what you need the mop for is essential to have first. Schwede66 00:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• 7/10 As always, this is not meant to be a roast nor is it a place for you to get advice. Please state your need for tools, as being a content editor is not one of them. That said, you have enough of the right edits to be in the running, although you'd look better with an additional year of four awards, edit summaries, and back-end work like countervandalism. I don't see anything concerning in my brief overview of your talk page archives. Continue to avoid the drama boards and you have a real chance. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've been very impressed with your content work. Writing solid, well-researched articles, especially on academic subjects that require extensive use of books, and navigating them through FAC demonstrates a lot of the skills needed in admin work. If the back-of-house work is something you're interested in, I'd suggest you gain a bit more experience in whatever area interests you and then by the end of the year an RfA should go smoothly. If you're not interested in the back room, I would suggest you carry on as you are and adminship is more hassle than it's worth. Feel free to email me if it's something you're seriously considering and you want a nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Hi! I'm a longtime wikipedia user and this is my favorite website. I'm primarily interested in editing category pages and categorizing pages and so on. I've been here for years and always edit in good faith

• 0/10 I doubt you read RFAADVICE, which is a very common stumbling block. Your use of edit summaries is too low. You have essentially no participation in AfD. A few articles you wrote have been deleted, at least one for COPYVIO. Your best article, The 7th Hand, is rated start class. Your recent draft Draft:Sewerslvt is insufficient. Your edit count in general is 10,000 edits too low for my criteria. You have no countervandalism experience and no work behind the scenes. You provided no reason to have tools and I posit you should not be allowed any tools. Finally, your editing history also indicates political partisanship. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with Chris and
  WP:RFAADVICE is a must-read. I suspect you wouldn't be asking here had you read that. Schwede66
  02:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been pondering the idea of adminship for a little while, because I'm concerned about the falling number of administrators and I think I could help out with backlogged areas like Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, in addition to combating sockpuppets and LTAs. I currently have one DYK (Thierry Coquand). What are my chances if I run later this summer?

• I won't give a disheartening goose-egg score, but "a DYK", while certainly in the right direction, is not quite what people are looking for in content creation these days: try getting a
  good article, preferably two, instead. Looking at your edit count, your primary page on projectspace is AIV, with 79 edits, and RFPP, with 42, neither of which are especially high. This is somewhat misleading – RFPERM is largely in subpages – but your overall edit count there is less than a thousand even when accounting for talkpages. More to the point, 12k edits and less than a year of consistently active work is a tough sell in the absence of any special "hook" that I don't see here; contrary to what many people would have you believe, Wikipedia doesn't desperately need more admins, and if it eventually did the WMF would probably step in in some capacity. Your user talkpage focus, while I haven't looked deep into it, is good statistically, but the fact that ANI is in your projectspace top three is bad. These are issues that would probably take a year to fix rather than a few months, but thank you for your interest and desire to help Wikipedia! (P.S. be sure to enable "prompt for edit summary" in your settings; there's no reason for an admin to have <90% summary usage, and yours is consistently in the 80s.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs
  ) 06:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

As John M Wolfson says, you certainly need to do more content creation; I can't otherwise see you getting the masses on board with such a short (active) tenure. Your AfD stats are good and your voting behaviour is solid (not just pile-on votes; mostly with a good rationale). At this point or in late summer, you'd probably sink. Stay on this trajectory and you'll get through with little trouble. Maybe next spring, just to give an idea of timeframes? Schwede66 07:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the above two comments, your indefinite block from 2021 (discussion) is probably a deal breaker. A short 24/48 hour block for edit warring from years ago might be okay, but an indef will get cross examination and some opposes right from the start of an RfA, even if you disclose them up front. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I'd like to point out, though, that what I got blocked for (creating new users' user pages without their permission, which I was never even warned about) is fairly mild compared to the things that people normally get indeffed for. I probably would have gotten a shorter block if it weren't for the blocking admin incorrectly believing me to be a sockpuppet. Therefore, I think it would be better to treat it as if I had received a one week block instead of an indefinite one. You can tell me if you think I'm completely off base here. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You might not be off base here but RfA (and this option RfA poll) is all about being open and transparent. It would have been much better if you had declared this incident upfront rather than Ritchie having to dig it up. Schwede66 01:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• You don't meet my own criteria (User:Kj cheetham/RfA criteria) I'm afraid, primarily for general lack of experience, not just with content creation. And for an indef block, 2021 is still fairly recent to me. Maybe something to consider in a year or two. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I must echo the consensus, particularly wrt the block Ritchie raised. On a more positive note, I'll note that you rode it out for a year without appealing, as far as I can see, without demanding the six-month SO by right, as occasionally happens, and that's a positive: you demonstrated patience and a willingness to put the project before yourself. Nice one! However.
  If the problems had stopped with your unblock, I might be saying something else or nothing at all. Since you came back, issues have continued to be highlighted on your talk. Most of them are pretty minor on their own, but taken tous ensemble at RFA, they would probably create severe opposition. The block itself was originally for fiddling unnecessarily with user pages, but you have continued to be warned over similar behavior since returning; this is concerning. Ponyo had to warn you the same month re. mass tagging pages as G10 and creating a
  Streisand Effect. Another admin had to warn you about mass tagging LTA pages as socks etc. Kudpung asked you to stay off his page; you didn't and needed to be reminded of it by him and another experienced editor. In January you attempted to nominate an article for GA status despite not having majorly contributed to it, leading to the closing of your nom. While this was probably just over-enthusiasm, the article has been in such a good state already followed by an RFA run a few months later might lead some cynics to see it as a way of gaming the GA process into getting some easy content under your belt. As I say, I'm sure that's not how it was meant, merely how it might look.

  Still, get these things out of people's memory banks by quietly working on content and with a consistent bit of vandal fighting (try and manage a 66%-33% ratio), then in a year or so, everyone will have forgotten and none of it should apply in any case. SN54129
  13:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't planning on replying to any of these, but I'm going to make an exception here because I don't think it's at all helpful to go through my user talk page and point out everything that might be construed as negative, without considering the context:

  • I have not "continued to be warned over similar behavior". I was informed once that I should avoid adding sockpuppet tags to user pages (which has very little to do with why I was blocked in 2021), and I have not done that since. I have occasionally modified the status of existing sockpuppet tags, which is allowed (notice that doing so doesn't trigger the edit filter).
  • Nominating an article you hadn't contributed to significantly for GA was allowed by policy at the time. My nomination of The Low End Theory was only closed because it hadn't been reviewed by the time the policy changed.
  • Your reference to
    WP:NOTNOTNOW
    .

  I have a lot of respect for you, SN, because you have much more editing experience that I do. But for the reasons stated above, I found the advice of others in this thread to be much more constructive. Partofthemachine (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, and knowing when to not respond to criticism is a fundament of RFA; too bad. As is the fact that you have refuted none of my points, merely explained why it wasn't quite as bad as it seems. Come on. You must know that that would never wash in answer to Q3. And you also know that RFA is haunted by some of the most cynical bodgers on the project; I am telling you what the would tell you. You should celebrate la différence. Anyway, per NOTNOTNOW, when you cease to be an occasionally enthusiastic newcomer, and I become even more constructive :) I look forward to your RFA. Possibly even supporting it too. Cheers, SN54129 15:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• 0/10 90% of the articles you've created were deleted. That's a huge red-flag for
  competence. Your AfD and xfD numbers are fine. Edit summaries could be better. It's a shame you had to ask here in order to get your reality check. Chris Troutman (talk
  ) 16:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @
    WP:CIR). Please stick to your more constructive feedback. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs
    ) (she/her) 21:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• 0/10 This is a forum for blunt critique, not warm fuzzy encouragement for unqualified candidates. It is not biting to point out clear behavioral issues, IMHO. 90% of created articles have been deleted? There's 0% chance User:Partofthemachine could successfully run for admin as of this datestamp. We know they've read WP:NOTNOW, WP:RFAADVICE, and previous polls in this forum. I'll call everyone's attention to this edit from User:Kudpung last October about a similar candidate (my polite 0/10 is just above). This becomes an issue when we read this thread commenced in response by Partofthemachine in Kudpung's talk archive, and this thread currently on Partofthemachine's own talk page (a talk page which contains several direct and recent warnings from other editors, including sysops). IMHO in this recent thread they display a prickly temperament towards another user asking for help. Partofthemachine came here anticipating "antagonism and chauvinism" from blunt editors like User:Chris troutman and myself. I'm happy to oblige them. That they felt qualified to ask this question tells me all I need to know about their competence and judgement. This is not a marginal case. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Curbon7 (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Hi.

I have become re-interested in adminship after seeing this "call-to-arms" at ITN; ITN has been in need of more admins as nominations (particularly RDs) have been getting pretty backlogged lately. I am primarily interested in working there, and I also have interest in the deletion processes. Because of my first ORCP, I figured I should come here first to receive feedback on my chances before anything else. Thanks. Curbon7 (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• 8/10 I'm supposed to be one of the "ITN admins", my bad on falling behind :P. In all seriousness, looking back there was a bit of ANI-ing in May but you've overwhelmingly stayed out of things since then. Your edit summary usage is good, and
  go for it when you have a nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs
  ) 22:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Nice job fixing the issues brought up in your last ORCP. Not writing your GAs from scratch could have been a big issue at an RFA of yours a year ago. Now you've got two written from scratch (and Betty Hall is nice and long) which is fantastic. Nice job with your 847 patrols in your xtools too. One tip: since it sounds like you are going to base your Q1 answer around using the tools at ITN, folks are likely to hone in on your ITN contributions, so make sure those are air-tight. You may even want to ask an ITN admin to nominate you. Do you have any admins that have reached out and offered to nominate you yet? 1 or 2 admin noms would be great. Feel free to email me if you'd like me to background check you a little more thoroughly and possibly nom you. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• CSD, PROD, and AfD stats are all good. I'm particularly impressed with your rationales at AfD, which show a strong understanding of notability. Content work is good, four GAs, no blocks (not including the compromise in 2021). Feel free to email me if you'd like a nom. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• 9/10 - I didn't participate in your previous ORCP but was concerned that you might have poisoned the well with the ANI clerk aspect. I fairly confident you'll still be quizzed on it, but over 100 articles, hundreds of patrols, myriad AfDs, the ITN work - all paints an excellent example of both a productive candidate and one who can take on feedback. Alongside Novem's notes on ITN, it's also an area where you may get some more general questions (that is, about ITN generally, not "merely" your work). But so long as you can talk rationally on it, that won't be an issue. Find an appropriate nom or two, and see you at RfA whenever. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• 9/10 Thank you for taking your last ORCP to heart: it shows. The reviews on your two GAs were not what I would have done but that reflects on the reviewers, not you. Content creation is really what this website is about so you've done enough to prove your worthiness there. Your stats are good, although your edit summary usage could be closer to 100% if it were me. In my cursory examination I don't see any evidence you've been involved in drama. I see nothing concerning in your userpage. By all means, find yourself a nominator. I am glad to review a candidate who understood the assignment. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• I wouldn't call myself an ITN admin, but rather a Main Page admin who patrols Errors. But I do keep half an eye on ITN and have noticed that RD promotions aren't happening at the rate that they should. To that end, I've been promoting RDs recently. If you are after an ITN admin but can't find anyone, and my contributions look relevant enough, feel free to ask me to nominate. The way you've taken the feedback from your last ORfA on board is exemplary. You are ready for the real thing. Schwede66 09:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• If Chris Troutman says you are ready to pass RfA, you are. There's a whole bunch of people willing to nominate here already, but if you want my involvement, just ask. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• 9.5/10. Delighted to see this datestamp here. I've been watching this candidate since the last optional poll and IMHO they are capable, patient, and willing to hear tough feedback and translate such into action. Asks for help and accepts it when offered. Solid wikipedian; good temperament. Proud to recommend this candidate for the run. Some fresh eyes in this forum are very welcome. Curbon7, I am on your team, but you knew that already. BusterD (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ekdalian (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 interested in adminship, but not sure if this is the right time. I have been fighting mostly against POV pushing in contentious caste (social groups) related articles for the last 10+ years here. I have been active against sockpuppetry as well, and tried to make Wikipedia a better place for genuine editors! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Have you ever had another account? Because 5700 edits is far too low for adminship, especially for someone with more than a decade of experience. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your feedback John M Wolfson, but this is my only account! I completely understand; I was less active in the initial few years! Thanks, again. Ekdalian (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  @

  WP:RFAADVICE? Chris Troutman (talk

  ) 14:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Consider that voters will not consider number of years but rather active years. If you only have 2000+ edits per year in the past one or two years it is unlikely voters will see you as an editor with much experience. If you read

  WP:RFAADVICE and user criterias you'll get more information on the expected edit count and experience. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum

  . 14{{b:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ganesha811 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs)

I've noticed an increasing number of administrative backlogs and am interested in becoming an administrator to help. I see need in

What areas should I improve on if I hope to go through RfA sometime in the next year? Thank you for your feedback. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you to everyone who has commented. I have some specific areas to review and improve, and I will plan on doing so over the next couple of months. I welcome any other thoughts, of course, but those below already have given me an excellent idea of what to work on. Much appreciated. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 I have a positive impression of you and am willing to give you an assessment if you emailed me. : ) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do so! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• 9/10 You're a ten year editor. Your content work is good. Clean block log, 99% edit summary usage, your AfD hovers near 80% of the outcome which is fine, and seemingly never any drama based upon your talk page archives... I see little reason anyone would oppose. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• 9/10 If Troutman says you're good, you're good. You might get one or two stray opposes since your AfD votes are overwhelmingly "deletionist"; don't try to argue with them that AfD itself results in 70% deletion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• 9/10 Your content creation is very good, AfD stats are also good. Not a ton of experience in some admin areas like CSD, AIV, etc, but you should be able to pass without it. Feel free to email me if you'd like a more in-depth analysis or potentially a nom. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Have done so - thank you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Your AfD stats include a fair number of nominations that had non-delete outcome. I'd have an answer ready for that, especially if AfD is mentioned in your nomination. – Joe (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed! I've certainly nominated some marginal cases in the past. In a couple cases, I've withdrawn nominations when it became clear consensus would not develop for deletion. I'll review those articles and see where I can improve. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• So speaking as one of those pesky inclusionist AfDers, I thought I'd take a look at each of the actual delete !votes that ended keep. Notably (no pun intended), several of them were actually overwhelmed by several weak keeps, suggesting that the cases weren't particularly clear. I'm actually a little more intrigued that in the few cases that you have !voted keep; your hit rate is only 57%. I don't think this will significantly impair any RfA run, but as more a piece of AfD advice, I'd find a couple of editors who disagree with you frequently in AfDs and take a good look at their reasoning - it's a good way to improve your understanding of different interpretations of the same policy. Outside of that, I think you'll do well continuing as you have and running at an available moment. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. I will go through those and do as you suggest. This one may be a consequence of the approach I take at AfD; I tend to !vote 'keep' only when I see an article in "danger" of deletion that I think should be kept. I also try and avoid tacking on "delete" comments to nearly-done discussions where it's already clear the article will end up deleted. If I can, I like to be one of the first few 'delete' or 'keep' comments. Similarly, I generally don't participate in RfA unless I see a nomination where my !vote might make a difference - i.e., where a substantial number of editors have already ended up on both sides. This means I have supported a number of candidates who did not ultimately get the nod. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• 8/10. I agree with the editors above and IMO you will pass, but CSD might gain a few (maybe 10?) opposes since according to Twinkle, you've only done around 5 CSDs for most of 2022 and 2023 (I didn't check edits longer back) which is quite low, and only done 2 this year, of which 1 has been declined. There would be a few more nitpitcks that criticise both your AfD delete vote rate of 70% (despite that around '60% of articles end up with "delete") and your delete (nom) match rates at 69% (despite that delete nom rates are almost always slightly lower and in your case, many delete noms end with keep had many "weak keep" votes anyway, with few rationales actually being sub-optimal), but most editors I am sure would disagree with AfD-related rationales. Overall, I would certainly support you given your excellent content creation and competence in other areas, and you would very likely pass. VickKiang (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with most of the above; I might emphasise the advice regarding XfD (and by extension, CSD), or even go further, and omit all mention of it in your opening/noms' statements. I don't think your current low stats in this area would tank your application by any means, but it might just impinge upon the fun a little. Of course, if you're willing to put off your candidacy a couple of months and put the hours in at XfD etc, then it'll be plain sailing. After all, you've been here long enough that people expect you to know almost everything already; there's no harm in providing the stats that show you do  :) SN54129 12:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Unless you have some skeletons in the closet which could surface during the RfA, you should have a problemless run. Just make sure you are very clear on what you plan to do (question 1) and make sure that you have a portfolio which corresponds to these plans.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

L1amw90 (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) Am I doing this right, to nominate myself.? I can't seem to find the right page, as there are so many, I'm not sure which one I use. Could somebody link me the correct page to nominate myself if this is the wrong page thanks L1amw90 12:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• This isn't the page to run for adminship,
  WP:RFA is. This is an optional precursor to running. Partofthemachine (talk
  ) 13:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• This page is for asking for opinions on if you'll pass RFA if you were to hypothetically do one. Are you asking how to launch an RFA? The directions are at
  WP:RFAADVICE first. Normally you'd probably want an admin nominator and significant preparation (but this is not required). –Novem Linguae (talk
  ) 13:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I can see on the RFA page to "create a RFA poll"... but not sure how. Do I do it on my talk page? L1amw90 13:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  On the link that Novem Linguae has provided above, there is a box that says When you have THOROUGHLY read the above. When you have thoroughly read through the above, you can un-collapse that section and start your RFA nomination page. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• @
  WP:RFAADVICE, has already disqualified you for a large number of people. This simply confirms that you should not be anywhere near the mop for the time being. Develop a story for "why" you need adminship, wait a year or so to develop the proper knowledge and temperament, and for heaven's sake request a nom and don't nominate yourself. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs
  ) 15:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Taking Out The Trash (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)

RFA is something that's been in the back of my mind for a little while now, and I've gone back and forth on whether I should pursue it. What has really prevented me from running to this point is the fact that I admittedly don't do content creation, and I'm aware of the fact that some people will oppose out of the water candidates without content work. However, as the editor who successfully got autopatrolled unbundled from the admin toolkit during the last RFA reform, I think it should go without saying that I am one who firmly believes that you do not need content experience to perform basic administrative tasks. And that's all I would want the tools for: the basics. I have no intention of getting involved in the drama boards, XFD, or other contentious disputes/discussions. I intent to work almost exclusively at

• I would say that you are not ready yet. Looking at your AfD stats, you have participated in very few discussions and have only a 45% match rate primarily composed of articles that you yourself nominated for deletion. We all have the occasional faux pas (
  The Night Watch (talk)
  00:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• I have to say I'm not confident you would pass at this time. Expect significant opposition over the lack of content creation. There would probably be questions over your previous account and how the clean start makes it difficult to fully assess your contributions. Voters usually look for at least some evidence of content work; as you say that you only did that under your previous account and you weren't any good at it, that would be an issue. Before running I would advise you to improve in this area. It doesn't have to be a GA or even a DYK, it could just be expanding some existing articles or adding references - just something to show that you understand what goes into the content that you would be policing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• I'll have to agree with the others. The expectation that admins do content had nothing to do with the autopatrolled bundlement, and has not been abated by the unbundling. Given other concerns listed here, I'd say get a GA under your belt and focus on those concerns, before running in 6-12 months.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks for your interest. I agree with the suggestion that you should get some content creation experience via writing a
  WP:GA. Running without one is possible, but does not make for a smooth RFA. And RFA is stressful enough already without getting 20 opposes for insufficient content creation. If you follow all the advice in this ORCP (such as improving your AFD stats and writing a GA), and ORCP again in 6 months, you will be a much stronger candidate. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk
  ) 01:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• 3/10 The good news is, you have a clean block log, I see no evidence of drama on your talk page, and you use edit summaries more than 97% of the time. You make a fair argument but you would have to be very persuasive to win over the audience when you have no content creation. Please, just write one GA, get DYK credit for it, and then you've proven that you're capable of it. We need countervandals and we need admins who are johnny-on-the-spot to respond at AIV. I just don't think enough fellow editors would agree that it should be you. And that you're a clean start account; I worry what sort of questions and amateur sleuthing the aggregate will launch. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone for the feedback thus far. I will say that I find it peculiar that content is such a heavy focus of RfA scrutiny today but apparently wasn't in the distant past. Various folks talk about how "easy" RFA was back in the day, but I find that to be interesting because back then would've made more sense for there to be a heavy content emphasis. Today, the encyclopedia is more or less built already, meaning that it's incredibly difficult to find a topic that hasn't already been written about while also satisfying the notability guidelines. Unless said guidelines change, I expect this issue to persist and only become more serious. It just seems a little bass ackwards that people want today's admins to be content creators when most of the content has already been created, but didn't have such expectations historically when there were more opportunities to create new content. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I found it was helpful to go through the

  WP:Women in Red declined draft list and find low hanging fruit when I was struggling to find a topic to write on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

  ) 02:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Given that you are a self-declared railfan, you will find a few relevant red links on this page. Schwede66 02:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• You would not at this current time. You have just about the minimum 10,000 edits people expect, but you've only been really editing since April, and have a paltry 144 edits in Wikipedia space. I'd say give it another 6-12 months at minimum, diversify your Wikipedia experience with stuff like AfD and content work, come up with a reason "why" you need the mop, and get some noms. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• Also, you should answer InfiniteNexus's question from last April which you never did. Better you answer it truthfully here than try and avoid it at RfA. Also, your complete dearth of content creation and over 97% automated edits will not help[ you at all. SN54129 16:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  The ip user he was mentioning was not me.

  talk

  ) 18:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  As IN mentioned in that thread, you're (still) missing the point. You asked IN not to revert unsourced edits, and

  our verifiability policy. As we have all said, if you're serious about adminship diversify your Wikipedia activity, get acquainted with policy (the number one thing that separates admins from non-admins), and create some actual non-automated content. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs

  ) 18:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have tried to enforce

  talk

  ) 19:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Since most of the comments have been negative, I want to close the poll since I probably wouldn't have a chance.

  talk

  ) 19:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Another thing that will come up at any RfA is the length of your user name. It would be good to rename to something shorter for ease of communication. I see you've been given advice on this twice on your talk. The fact you've not replied also gives me a bit of concern around accountability and communication. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• Your antivandalism work is appreciated, but according to XTools you have consistently edited for around a year and have made around 10,000 edits. The "recommended" stats for RfA are about 1.5–2 years activity and at least ~15,000–20,000 edits (though the opinions on this vary). RfA !voters will look for evidence of your understanding of content policies, and a common method of this is looking through articles that you have created or AfD stats, both of which are non-existent. For now RfA is not a good idea, but consider branching out into other areas to improve your experience, like
  speedy deletion or basic article creation. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs
  ) 17:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Usually I would say 15k-20k is too high of a minimum, but given the extent of automation I can see it. How about Mr. 300 focuses on trying to get 10,000 non-automated edits, and some AfD experience and at least a
    good article, before seriously considering the mop? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs
    ) 17:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I was considering automated edits as well as the amount that would help with a relatively stress-free RfA: I agree with the sentiment of this message. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

      Yeah, 20,000 is too high. Counter examples from 2022 include Femke, Z1720 and Colin M. I think 10,000 is kind of the de facto right now. And content creators tend to have lower edit counts than backlog crushers while still having smooth RFAs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Seawolf35 (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 am creating this poll too see about the possibility of passing an RFA at the far end of the 6 months if I were to keep up a steady streak of editing and hit 10,000-15,000ish edits by the end of the 6 months and if I branched out into content creation. I would cut down on the automated edits as well. Seawolf35 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• 3/10 you're still too new, but you knew enough about what this poll is about to ask about the 6-month period and the necessity for content creation, so you're promising and I won't give you a goose egg. In addition to what you wrote, I'd explore
  get a nom and develop a compelling story of "why" you need the mop. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs
  ) 17:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• You started editing, apart from a few edits when you signed up, on 23 August 2023. Just over a month ago. The trajectory may be looking good but there is little to look back over. Stay productive and explore a few things. I can’t see the RfA voters supporting anyone with at least 12 months of solid editing. Schwede66 18:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that at at least 12 months are needed right now. When you get to month 9 or 10 seek out a few people you trust, and who could maybe be your nominators, and seek out their opinions. That's far more likely to be meaningful than what we have to offer you right now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• 0/10 You fail my criteria. Your AfD stats are anemic: i want to see 50+ !votes with better than 70% match rate. You've created no content, which is an absolute non-starter, especially for someone so un-accomplished for vandal-fighting. Your CSD stats look ok and your edit summary usage is 99%, so that's good. Come back in 5 years when you have 20,000 more edits and some GAs and DYKs. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• I don't like rating people but I don't think you need 5 years, 20,000 edits and GAs. I didn't have that when I was approved in my RFA (although it was a contentious RFA). I'd say with recent candidates (over the past 5 years), most editors have been steadily editing the project for about 1 1/2-2 years. I won't even guess about edit counts which aren't always a good sign of productivity. You have some advanced permissions so I'd just suggest learn more about using them properly. Spend some time in administrative areas but by that I don't mean hanging out on noticeboards. Above all, don't try to take on too much too fast in an attempt to be ready for an RFA in six months, slowly build up experience in a variety of areas. RFAs are based on trust so editors want to see that you can handle responsibility and are calm in disputes. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• I'd suggest doing another ORCP when you have 10,000 edits, then at that time we can give you some actionable feedback. Right now your account is very new, and it's hard to predict what patterns will emerge. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• You're going to want some pretty solid answers to questions regarding how you knew of tools like
  Draft:Association of Food Journalists at AfC by experienced editors, and how, overall, your general editing pattern is one of much experience. Just a heads up. Cheers, SN54129
  21:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• 1/10 You are diving into several areas too early without the requisite experience, such as SPI. It's not going to be about your edit count but rather your judgement and expertise. Note too that explicitly targeting adminship is frowned upon and will always net you some opposes just for that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Nagol0929 (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 would want to work in AIV, SPI, and XFD. I mainly focus on anti vandalism work and AFC. While I haven’t written any articles I work in AFC and have worked in NPP.

MaranoFan (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 content writing experience in my arsenal, I would appreciate any guidance on how to move towards adminship, re: what areas I am lacking in, etc.--NØ 19:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• The first thing I notice, quite superficially, is the signature, which doesn't resemble your user name. Per
  WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, you may want to make it easier to recognise the username. Single-character links also pose accessibility issues for people who struggle with fine motor movements. —Femke 🐦 (talk
  ) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• People might be able to ignore your long block log - if you hadn't been blocked again just this month (and warned for casting aspersions). Not likely for a very long time, I'm sorry to say. Galobtter (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• I note a recent block at Special:PermaLink/1178703236#User:MaranoFan chronic incivility, conspiracy theories). While you have been subsequently unblocked after a successful request, that block was also endorsed and was valid. Therefore, with an incident so recent (only earlier this month), I am afraid that your RfA would be controversial, despite your excellent content creation experience. VickKiang (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely understand that. I meant to get advice more along the lines of "participate in more AfD discussions" or "review more new page creations".--NØ 20:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey MF, you can build a new track record. It might take a while but reputations can be rehabilitated. What sort of admin work interests you? (Trust me, though, article writing is much more interesting). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Your AfD record shows participation in 109 AfDs, with a 68% "hit rate" and only 5 AfDs in the past two years. Your arguments seem all right but IMO more participation would be better. For new page creations, it would probably be a good idea to re-establish a good track record in AfDs and then apply for

WP:NPR. Thanks. VickKiang (talk)

21:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

My evaluation of your chances of passing a request for adminship in the next 3 to 6 months is that you would not pass RfA in this timeframe. However, that does not mean you won't ever pass RfA.

As you have asked for advice on what you can do, I would agree with VickKiang and add:

• You should aim to increase your use of edit summaries. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/editsummary/en.wikipedia.org/MaranoFan says that this month you only used edit summaries on 70% of changes. Having close to 100% percentage for the good few preceding months will be a positive point to voters.
• I would agree with Femke regarding your signature. While a custom signature is nice, I have had on several occasions new users attempting to contact me by copying the entire signature. When the signature doesn't include your username, it makes it harder for them to ping you.
• Have a think about what areas of admin work interest you and see if you can help in these areas in a non-administrative capacity. If you already do this, then continue to do this. If any of these areas are backlogged, then helping in a non-administrative capacity to reduce these backlogs is an even better thing because RfA voters often see a RfA candidate saying they will work in a backlogged area that they have experience in as a major positive point.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think deleting and not archiving the user talk discussions related to your October block could be viewed unfavorably. Wikipedians usually value transparency. The content creator voting block at RFA would likely forgive a lot since you are clearly an amazing content creator, but the other voting blocks might be more vocal about their concerns. A simple fix right now would be to archive the deleted content and try to be more transparent going forward. Then maybe allow 12 months for the recent block to become not recent, and of course work on the things discussed here. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Your lengthy block log means you'll be unlikely to pass RfA. There was also a recent ANI thread about your conduct, in which I recall that when I indefinitely blocked Winkelvi, I was considering blocking you at the same time. Not all writers make good administrators. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

003FX (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)

Please provide any feedback / advice / opinions you think would be helpful.

• With less than 1,000 edits and no significant contributions to maintenance areas, I don't think your chances of passing RfA will be high. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• 0/10. This is your 16th edit in the last 6 months and you have less than 1,000 edits. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Please have a look at
  WP:GA. Hope that helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk
  ) 15:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• 0 Why didn't your read the instructions for this page? Many editors don't and I cannot understand why that is, other than banner blindness. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I did. Thanks for the feedback. 003FX (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  OK. Why didn't you follow the advice at RFAADVICE? You fail clearly on content and you should have seen adminship is not for you. If you just want to collect a hat, go ask on individual user talk pages for advice, not here. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Chris. 003FX (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Tesleemah (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 will like to know if I'm qualified for an admin on Wikipedia. Thank you. Tesleemah (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• This page is for gaining feedback on whether or not the community might grant you administrative privileges if you make a request in the near future. It's not the right place to make a request. Please read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates for more information on the process. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I have made corrections. I'm here to know if I'm worthy to make a request or not. Tesleemah (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• With just over 2,000 live edits (because several of the articles you have edited a lot have been deleted), and a talk page that talks about a declined draft, and little project-space edits, I don't think you're suited to adminship. Personally, I'd like to see more admins from around the globe to help combat systemic bias, but we need the experience first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Alright thank you Tesleemah (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think to have a chance, the current minimums nowadays are 8,000 edits and writing a
  good article. There's even more that goes into it, but that seems to be about the minimum that has passed at RFA lately. It takes time to build experience and community trust. –Novem Linguae (talk
  ) 19:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Alright thank you , I know with time. I should build upon that Tesleemah (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• 0 of 10 You did not read
  WP:RFAADVICE? None of the many articles you created are quality and 17% of them have been deleted. Your poor content work is enough to disqualify you, as you seem to not understand how to contribute (as your talk page shows). You have no AfD !votes, which is unacceptable. You have no countervandalism work. Your edit summary usage is around 70%, which ought to be better. At no point in the future should you feel empowered to ask about adminship. Chris Troutman (talk
  ) 19:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  At no point in the future should you feel empowered to ask about adminship. Please strike this. This is too abrasive. Folks are always free to make improvements and then ask in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

   Done Chris Troutman (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I'm of no relation to King of Hearts, who is already an admin.

• You look like a really strong candidate to me. With high edit count, steady activity and tenure, a good article, no blocks, and nothing crazy on user talk page, I don't see any red flags. Will let some of the other ORCP regulars do a bit more digging, but looks good to me! You can probably find your admin nominator here at ORCP too, if you want one :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• 6/10 Only 13 AfD !votes and your percentage is still south of 70%? That's something you can address. Your edit summary usage is >90%. Your single GA and few DYK is enough content work but on the very lowest end of the distribution. I saw nothing concerning with talk page. CSD log is appropriately red. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  They actually have 53 votes with an almost 90% accuracy rate, some of the votes are under their previous username. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Good assessment by Chris Troutman; I think he might have missed your edits there under your old u/name, but even so, get over 100 if possible. After all, even if you just promised not to do AfD work, you'd be called a liar to your face (or almost; it's one of the few bear pits left, far worse than ANI). Maybe do another 40 or so. Not a major malfunction either way; nearly 100 is almost over 100. Having said that negative stuff, a good nom could cut their way through/ dampen down much of that. The important thing would then to get a decent nom; one of the new guys. Novem, Tamzin, leaky, Pppry, FFF, you know the roads you've travelled and may travel yet. The important thing is to avoid some old-timer who just notches it up. Best of luck for whenever you choose. You never lose the way you choose. ——Serial 16:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with this advice other than the idea that Novem, Tamzin, Leaky, Pppery, and FFF could all be good nominators. Racking up stats in areas you're not interested in working in is a poor use of time and not something the electorate generally demands. Instead the information is gleaned, if there is an actual issue that editors want to know about, through competency in answering questions about a topic area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That was the most minor of my points

  devil's avocado. As I literally then evinced by listing nominators who would successfully field the (non)issue—which you, ironically, felt forced to agree with me over. Look, I get that you like to argue with me, but frankly, having to point out how persistently you miscite me is becoming otios. No offence. ——Serial

  18:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I replied here because I thought you were offering bad advice to a potential admin candidate and I didn't want to see that left unchallenged. Unlike the the last time I replied to you - just two days ago - where I was in agreement with you. And truthfully I have no idea when we last interacted before that because I really do try to focus on the idea rather than the editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Very difficult to avoid the impression you're following me around, Barkeep49 when we hear your August advice so rarely here... Anyway, apologies to Queen of Hearts for complicating her ORCP. Good practice for the real thing  :) ——Serial 18:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  +1, I don't see any actual negative points raised here. ORCP seems to tend to point out issues that are not actually issues to actual RfA voters. Galobtter (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oh, one more thing. I would stray away from using the protect and block buttons, although I might do the occasional block or protect if it's clearly uncontroversial and/or backed by consensus. Please be careful negotiating away pieces of the toolkit like this. This sounds an awful lot like "I promise never to make tough blocks or participate in AE", and i do not feel like admins should make promises like this during rfa. Rfa is a tough process, so i feel one should come out of it with the full toolkit. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  +1. Even candidates who doubt they'll block or protect very often fairly quickly realize these are productive tools, and using them helps keep other editors and other admins from wasting time. When I see someone reverted for possible vandalism/linkspam, even if the diff doesn't look egregious, if I have time I go check their talk and contributions. It's amazing how often I find a talk page that has multiple notices/warnings from bots/non-admins and a contribution history that is nearly all reverted edits. And even in a borderline case, I probably put their talk on my watch to see what develops there. It's good to be cautious while you learn to use the tools, but we do need admins to be willing to learn to use them. In the beginning, if you aren't sure, ping or go ask another admin whose judgement you trust. But don't just walk away because it's not clearly uncontroversial. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Voorts (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)

Thinking of maybe trying to get a mop in 3-6 months. I've got a couple of

• 3-4 RN, in my somewhat uneducated opinion. Obviously it's great to have a spread between content creation and projectspace, but unfortunately I think the lack of edits will really hurt. Though 0xDeadbeef passed reasonably comftorably with smilar numbers, they didn't have major ANI contreversies within the past few months, and had been around a bit longer. Mach61 (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think I should have 10k+ in 3-6 months. As for the AN/I stuff, I think the controversies were largely over other people, and I just happened to be involved. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Certianly 6 months is a different story, which is why I appended "RN". I agree that the AN/I threads aren't massive skeletons in the closet, but they're possibly enough to supplement the NOTNOW folks imho. Mach61 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Edit count isn't everything, as I explain in my personal RfA criteria. You've done a lot of stuff that's time consuming in regards to your edits (like FAs) so it's possible people might not place as much emphasis on that as they usually do? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• 7-8 I've seen you around, I like what you do, I would be very happy to support. Sure, you might want to get 10,000 edits just so you can't get hit with the most superficial of opposes (see above). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• I've seen you around in discussions that left me a good impression. Your closes look good, and content creation is great. The blue links in User:Voorts/CSD log might be a concern for some, though. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• The CSD log is of mild concern, not so much the entries (in one case, you tagged Emily Willis as G4 in good faith; only admins can tell the earlier version was different enough not to qualify; Draft:James Gallagher (fighter) only has a blue link because of a draftily and history merge) as the fact they're not many entries, which is going to make people think "doesn't understand CSD policy". If this was a small needle in a haystack of red, people would have less of an issue. There's a NPP backlog drive happening now, try joining in and see if that makes your stats better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• 7 - Cannot comment on the more technical stuff but the quality of your content work is great. I would personally support on the strength of that. NAJHAC.--NØ 10:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  @MaranoFan: Thanks! What does NAJHAC mean? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I assume it means "not a jerk, has a clue". 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Your CSD and AfD stats are not great for someone who wants to work in deletion. In particular, you're going to get questions about the five nominations that ended in keep. If you're going to quote NPP in your nomination, then I'd also up your activity there. I think you're right track, but as Ritchie says you need to put more time in to get those stats up and compensate for earlier mistakes. – Joe (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. The AfD tool doesn't actually capture all of my noms since in some of them I later !voted keep after editors provided adequate sourcing that I had been unable to track down in my

  BEFORE search (eg., ANYbotics) or that were otherwise rescued (e.g., Restricted military area). I'll admit that a couple of my early AfDs were hasty, but I think the rest of them were made in good faith. Although I disagree with the outcomes in some, I respect that consensus was against me and I would have closed those discussions as the closing admins did. voorts (talk/contributions

  ) 14:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Keep a specific list of AfDs where you feel they demonstrate your unique knowledge of notability/other policies, as well as a list of AfDs where you would have voted/commented or closed differently. Editors not only want someone with a good grasp of AfD, but also humility. People tend to focus on AfD stats since those are easiest to find, but highlighting a few complex AfDs will give people more substance to noodle over. A controversial AfD can also sink your nomination, if you don't bring it up beforehand. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestion. That was a good exercise in self-reflection. Any thoughts on this list? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think I have any thoughts on the list other than those look good to me. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)