Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 3

AustralianRupert (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)

G'day all, I have been editing Wikipedia since January 2009. I am largely a content contributor, but I have also found myself doing some admin type work in my role as a co-ordinator of the Military history project. This has seen me reviewing articles, assessing them, closing reviews/determining consensus, participating in discussions about policy, etc. I have also gotten involved at AFD, and have been working on clearing out Category:PD-Australia images with unknown US copyright status and Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons by transferring files to Commons. If I was to become an admin, I would be interested in using the tools to delete image files on Wikipedia following successful transfer to Commons. I would also be interested in getting involved in history merges, having had to request a few of these in the past. I have been thinking about potentially running for admin for a little while, and would be interested to hear what others think about my chances, and to hear any suggestions about things I should do to improve my chances. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• 8/10. Unless you have lots of enemies, I think you've got a good chance of passing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• 8/10 I know you by reputation from your work at MILHIST. On that alone you could probably pass RfA. You have significant history with AfD and overwhelming vote with the end result (assuming that's good). Obviously your content contributions are considerable. Although I don't know the ins-and-outs of the issue, I know some editors are opposed to moving files to Commons because of the differing rules on what images can stay resident on a particular wiki versus commons. That could be a political wedge. I don't see much meta-involvement from you outside of MILHIST, AfD, and FAC so that may come up. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day, Chris, thanks for the feedback. To clarify, I'm only interested in moving files that are unambiguously PD in their home country and in the US. The others, I understand, are hostable locally. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• 9/10: Excellent content expansion and quality content portfolio (will buy you plenty of support at RfA), measurable maintenance contributions. Esquivalience ^t 15:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• 9/10: I agree with the other comments. I also cannot judge whether the file move issue is a problem but it does not seem to me to be an issue that would generate much opposition or overcome your good record. So I will go with the 9 rather than the 8. You are a great content contributor and editor. You have a high proportion of non-automated edits, which some !voters especially like. Yet, you have made significant contributions to some "maintenance" areas and are well-versed in policy. In some of the recent RFAs, a larger number of participants have appeared, probably because of the centralized discussion notice. That seems to have led to a larger number of support votes for most of the qualified candidates (at least in my opinion). I think more people are looking at the overall record and trustworthiness of a candidate and a lower proportion seem to oppose based on non-participation in a few of the more obscure administrative areas. If you have not done so already, be sure to read the advice pages noted above or on the main RFA page. A good nominator can be important, especially in getting off on the right foot. I would certainly support you, for what that is worth. Donner60 (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• 9.5/10 Your excellent record as one of the Military History Wikiproject's coordinators for most of the time since 2010 (including two years as lead coordinator), fantastic content contributions, considerable work on various "back office" parts of Wikipedia and general common sense make you an excellent candidate for the admin tools. My only pre-RFA suggestion is that you give yourself a quick refresher on how admins are expected to contribute to conflict resolution and use the blocking function - the kind of questions and topics covered in Peacemaker67‎'s RFA should be a good guide. I don't see any reason why your RFA wouldn't be successful. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nick, good advice, I will take a look at those areas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• 9.9/10. Nick has good advice. Please run. :-)
  [majestic titan]
  06:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback, Ed, I will toss my hat into the ring. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @
      [majestic titan]
      19:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Ed, Nick has offered to nom, but it can't hurt to have a co-nom too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte (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 · previous RfAs)

I don't know if I want to partake in an RfA just yet, but I'd like to somewhat gauge an idea of where I am at the moment. I've been on Wikipedia for 1 year and a few months, got over 13.5k edits and Rollback, Autopatrolled, Pending Changes and Page Mover rights (along with Extendedautoconfirmed, of course). The few things holding me back are my AfD votes, which are just over 80% accurate, which isn't that bad, but I think I could do better. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• 9/10 - @Anarchyte: I've seen you around RM a bit and your work there is, excellent I must say. Your AFD stats are not too bad to be honest, 83% is a decent success rate which I wouldn't worry too much about, although it could of course be slightly better. Your CSD log is massive, with few blue links, which is a hude plus for you. The only reason why I'm not giving you a 10 here is because of a bit of a lack of concentrated content work. You've create around 30 or so articles which is great, and all of them look in good state, but other than those articles I don't really see a lot of article improvement. You're edit count and tenure here are also a little low. You've only made around 3000 edits to mainspace, of which nearly half are semi-automated. You've only been here for just over a year, which some people may consider too short. None of these things are things which I would personally oppose for, but it's possible that some people might. Anyway, I recommend you go for it. You'd certainly have my support should you choose to do so. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Omni Flames. The reason the majority of my mainspace edits aren't "writing" per se, is because I like to work in the inner workings of Wikipedia, such as reverting vandalism (hence the automated edits). I do enjoy writing (my favourite article that I rewrote would have to be Rust (video game)), but I'd much rather patrol RM, AfD, the Pending Changes log and the recent changes log. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair reason in my opinion Anarchyte. As I mentioned, it's certainly not something I would oppose for, all I want to see in order to support you is some decent work on at least one article, and you've clearly met that. In my opinion, content work isn't really important to adminship, as the two are relatively unrelated. I just wanted to say that it could be a potential reason for opposes. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 11:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• 7/10 Great work overall, but you will get some flak on content creation if you go to RfA right now. So I suggest that you address some issues there first. First, add a full list of articles you created to your userpage. Second, make sure those articles are in decent enough shape and don't have ugly maintenance tags, like "refimprove", "citation needed", etc. E.g. your recently created article Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) from April 2016 does have such a tag. So does 2016 Australian school bomb threats. Third, many of your articles are very short stubs. Try expanding some of them to something longer, such as start-class or C-class. You have done some GA-reviewing, and if you can take one of your own articles to GA level, you'll be in really great shape for RfA and will have no problems at all there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already made a list of all my created articles that are still standing. It's located at User:Anarchyte/List of articles created. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I did not see it. I would perhaps make a link to this list a little more prominent on your userpage. I remember that I did look for it before commenting here originally but missed it then. You do have other lists, such as "Most recent creations", "GA reviews", that are much more prominently displayed. Ultimately, the list of articles that you created is more important, at least in my opinion, so I would make it easier to find. Nsk92 (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nsk92: I've changed it so the most recent 5 creations are shown and only 3 GA reviews are shown. Is this what you meant? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that looks good now, especially since the "Article creations" section now has a link to your full list of articles. Nsk92 (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I've reassessed all my created articles. I can't really expand the Oberkirch article because there are no available references for it in English, which is a big problem. That article was also made as a result of a split. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. The corresponding article on German Wikipedia for Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) is much longer and has a bunch of sources in German. You could at least add some of them as non-in-line-citation sources. You could also use GoogleTranslate to see if the article can be expanded at least a little using the info from the German Wikipedia article. At the moment it does not look good that the article cites a single source and there is a refimprove maintenance tag on the article. I'd also still recommend that before you go to RfA you look through all the articles you created and see if there are obvious maintenance issues that need and can be addressed quickly; and if yes, I'd address them first, before going to RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:GAMECRUFT, should I just straightup remove those sections? Anarchyte (work | talk

) 07:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks for taking care of Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch). I am not sure about Dirty Bomb (video game), as the topic is too far from me. Perhaps it'd be OK to source that section to some primary source, but if not, I'd leave it as is. There are several references in that article which are bare URLs now; I'd at least reformat them. Nsk92 (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• 8/10 - your mainspace edit count is a little low, although I don't think that's indicative of any problems, as I can tell you're more into your AV work than your article creation (as am I!). I'd say go for it, although be prepared for Oppose !votes from some people based on this. --PatientZero ^talk 13:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• 9/10 - Excellent work. You would be a great admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know RfA well enough to give you a numerical assessment. You check most boxes for me; my only two concerns would be that content work is a bit thin, and that you have occasionally been hasty with nominating something at AfD. You should try to address those points before you run. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• 4/10 Sorry for this. You have a very wide and very significant experience across Wikipedia. And you are an admin in the making, if not already, for me. But I notice a few reverts of you which cause me to pause with a bit of worry. For example this and this revert do not seem good faith edits which you reverted. They seem to be vandal edits which you failed to identify and wrongly classified as good faith edits. Again, in this pending change review, you seem to have reverted a good faith edit using your pending changes review tool (as Julia Roberts does appear in Mother's Day).
  talk
  ) 11:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the criticism

WP:BLP, the majority (if not all) of things should be referenced. Anarchyte (work | talk

) 12:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. You are absolutely trustworthy so there's no question of not trusting you with the admin tools. The only small issue is your technical grasp of the revert functionality, which for an admin has to be perfect. Imo both the edits you identified as good faith edits are vandal edits. In my opinion again, the revert button should not be used as an alternative to the undo button, especially when the worry is that newbies will be pushed away, specially when the issue is about a celebrity and her very well known movie that can be searched in a handful of seconds on google search. I will vote support for you if you stand in the Rfa, more so given your answer above. The 4/10 is only to give you an insight into the behavioural hit that a newbie might take. Thank you for taking time to respond.

talk

) 12:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Xender Lourdes, there's nothing wrong with using the revert button in place of the undo button, as long as you leave an appropriate edit summary. In this case, pending changes revert is exactly the same as the undo button, except for the fact that it mentions that the edits are pending. I really don't know what you're going on about here. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 21:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The undo button (which allows you to additionally edit the page while undoing and provide a citation to a good faith edit) is similar to the manual revert (clicking on the edit button and doing the same), but not to the simplistic automatic revert button provided in the pc, which doesn't allow you to edit the version, although allowing you to give a reasoning. If one is using the PC automatic revert button to revert good faith changes especially of a newbie ip, it is preferable to write clearly that these are good faith changes that are being reverted than just mentioning that the previous version was better. Otherwise, use the undo button (or the manual revert, if you may), edit the good faith edits to your liking, provide a citation if such exists, and give a decent edit summary (again identifying the good faith edits as such). If it is a good faith edit, as per our pending changes reviewer

talk

) 01:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames, Nsk92, Patient Zero, ThePlatypusofDoom, Vanamonde93, and Xender Lourdes: Should I go for it starting this weekend, or should I wait a bit longer? I understand my article creation is lacking but I don't think that's a big deal as I like to work in behind-the-scenes-type areas. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Do it now. No need to wait.

talk

) 09:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say be bold and go for it now. Best of luck! --PatientZero ^talk 10:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Go for it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@

^Pocketed

@Anarchyte: I understand that I'm late to the party here, but I second what others have said. I reckon you should do for it now. Yes, your content creation is a little lacking but no one should expect you tp be perfect in every area. As with ThePlatypusofDoom, I'm willing to nom or co-nom you if you need one, but I may not be the greatest person to do so. Best of luck with whichever path you choose to take, you'll certainly have my support. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You've been here long enough and done enough editing to run an RFA. You seem to have the right mix of contributing content and doing enough maintenance work to need the tools. One problem, looking through your deleted edits one of the first I saw was an A1 in the same moment that an article was created. A1 and A3 tags are not supposed to be added to articles in the first few minutes. I didn't check enough edits to see if this was an isolated incident or part of a pattern, but I'd suggest rereading the deletion rules and maybe some of the essays. If it is part of a pattern but you now learn from this then I don't see that an RFA in a few weeks would be problematic, providing you use Question 3 to cover the matter. Two other issues came up on your talkpage, firstly don't worry about your signature as long as you stick to colours that have sufficient contrast with white - ie don't go too pale. Secondly we expect admins to be able to communicate and sometimes that works best by email for example requests for revision deletion. This isn't a dealbreaker, but if you don't want to disclose your usual email address, why not get a free one that you just use for Wiki stuff? ϢereSpielChequers 12:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

talk

) 16:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: For the A1 nominations, I try to wait 5-10 minutes before tagging, but sometimes I forget to check the history before tagging. Even then, I check my CSD Log for those entries to see if the creator has added content and then I remove the tag. I'll try to be more careful when tagging with A1-A3. As for that A7 Xender Lourdes mentioned, I also tagged in for A11 in case the A7 failed. It seemed pretty promotional for an education insitution so I threw both of them on. I see now see my mistake and that won't happen again . I might grab up a hotmail email just for Wiki purposes if the RfA passes. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: So, would you be able to nominate me later today? I have my answers for the questions down packed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is a queue, I've been talking to another potential nominee for a while. Plus I'd like to see a few weeks of CSD nominations after you slowdown on the A1s, and as I said the one I spotted was one of the first I checked, I'd check a lot more before nominating someone. But if you haven't run by early July feel free to email me a draft of your intended answers to the three questions. That isn't me advising you not to run for another month, someone else might do the checks that I don't currently have time to do and nominate you if they think that A1 was an isolated mistake. In the meantime the advice to get a DYK is good, your content contributions meet my standards, but some are more picky on this. ϢereSpielChequers 11:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: All good. Thanks for the advice. I've had a look at my CSD for the whole of this year and I've only nominated ~10 pages for A1 so far. As previously mentioned, I try to be restritive when tagging with that criteria, but sometimes (like the one you mentioned) some slip threw the cracks. Mr. Stradivarius said they'd also take a look at my edits before I started the RfA so I'd need to wait for him anyway. Thanks! Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I would be willing to nominate you, but you may want someone who is more experienced to nominate you. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• 7/10: Generally good maintenance contributions: CSD log for this month is fine aside for some faulty A7s, AfD participation is also fine (based on policy and valid concerns), counter-vandalism looks good. However, some voters will need to see evidence of content expansion. Looking at your mainspace edits, you mainly make gnomish edits instead of content-expansion edits. Contributing to an article to GA-level will dramatically bolster your chances. — Esquivalience (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, my thinking exactly. Nsk92 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• 8/10: No real problems with AfD / CSD logs, no obvious evidence of incivilty or twinkleitis, using self-written edit summaries. The only concern is that content is a bit weak, with a little bit work on
  WP:DYK which hopefully should not be to onerous, just for the experienced. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  14:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I've taken 3 articles to DYK. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Ritchie333 meant getting articles that your created through DYK. You actually do have one of those,

List of most disliked YouTube videos, but from the structure of your userpage the fact that you were the original creator of the article is not apparent. The article listed next to it, Survival Island 3, was nominated by you for DYK, but created by another editor (you do have a few edits there). For the third article, We Don't Have to Dance, you were its DYK reviewer. The main point is that in terms of enhancing your overall content creating experience, the best thing would be to take (some more of) your own articles through some form of peer review process, such as DYK or GA. Nsk92 (talk

) 23:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly this. I have User:Ritchie333/GA, User:Ritchie333/DYK (this is a bit out of date) and User:Ritchie333/saves (the latter contains articles I have prevented from being deleted by improving them). I have these pages partly so I can remember what I worked on, partly as an ego massage, and partly because it was easy for RfA voters to see what I'd done. Something to definitely consider. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

CCamp2013 (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)

I have been a part of the wikipedia community for a while now and I spend more and more time on here, learning new tools. I'm interested what people would think about my chances if I were to be nominated. I think I have a lot of experience with vandalism and disputes with other editors. I have had few conflicts of my own with other people and the ones I have had ended in a talk page discussion and I respected the outcome. I'm always trying to strive for a better quality wikipedia and putting ideas out in the wikisphere to make it better. I think everything I have learned so far will make me extremely helpful to Wikipedia. I think my areas of focus are pretty clear, however, as I explore the world of wikipedia, I go where I am needed. Chase (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10 Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's true: you would get clobbered at RfA. You have only 16 edits in the Wikipedia namespace, 2 of which are to the present page and four more are requests for permissions for yourself. This is nowhere near the minimum expected for RfA candidates, especially since these expectations keep rising! If you want to be an admin, you will need to get involved in admin-related areas including speedy-deletions, articles for deletion, counter-vandalism and so on. Pichpich (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 As well as what has been said above, I saw the note that you had been warned following a complaint at
  WP:AN3, and that's going to result in a pile-on oppose if you ran today. You need to put some distance between you and that. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  15:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: To be clear, I was the one filling the complaint. Chase (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear right now wouldn't be the best of ideas - focus on some content creation and
  AfD discussions, as well as continuing doing whatever it is about Wikipedia which you enjoy Talk page is always open if you have questions and the such -- samtar ^{talk or stalk}
  15:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

0/10. As of right now you do not have the relevant experience; furthermore, the recent edit-warring is of concern. I do hope you have acknowledged that your behaviour was inappropriate, and I do hope you post here again in the foreseeable future. If you adhere to our policies and guidelines for the next six months, I may be inclined to support. --PatientZero ^talk 17:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10 - Sorry to pile on but the edit warring (regardless of who filed it) would sink your RFA quicker than you can blink, I concur with the above in a nice way you should perhaps come here in a year or so and try again, –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 only 16 edits to the WP namespace, and the edit warring is very recent. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10, per the above, you need more edits & more experience. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - I almost never take edit count into deciding factor, although 1,500 edits is too little for me. Try again in 12-18 months. — Music1201 ^talk 21:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13 (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'm a regular closer at

• 8/10: More optimistically, as you have a sizeable portfolio of content (more than enough) and lots of gnoming, and I do not find any rookie mistakes on a spot check. — Esquivalience (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• 6/10 at the moment but should rise fairly soon. I'd give it a couple of months at minimum;
  Iridescent
  20:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback. That tagging was done by my bot, so I quite literally wasn't paying attention; the categories requested by the project were fed into the bot, and the bot ran its programmed task. As per the established best practices for WikiProject tagging, a discussion was held on the project page spanning multiple weeks on whether the categories should be tagged. All subcategories to be tagged were explicitly listed, and I did no recursive tagging beyond that list (i.e. no tagging of sub-sub-categories, etc). I deferred judgement on whether the categories/articles were within the scope of the project to the project participants, since I have no knowledge of the appropriate scope. Unfortunately, neither the editor who provided the list of categories nor the other editors who supported the tagging foresaw these issues despite manually reviewing the categories, partially because they had a different view on the scope of the WikiProject. Regardless of the origin of the issue, I'm responsible for my bot's edits. I manually rolled back all edits from that run after some project participants who hadn't participated in the earlier discussion objected to the tagging. While I continue to assume good faith when editors tell me they've reviewed the categories, you're correct; it's hard to imagine editors actually looked at those articles and didn't voice any concerns. Since that issue, I've modified my operating procedures for when I do tagging runs. I now manually spot-check each category myself in addition to the best practices linked above. ~ Rob^Talk 20:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• 7/10. To be honest, if somebody comes with a cast-iron reason for the tools (in this case it's "TFD and CFD have horrendous backlogs and I want to fix that") with no evidence that the editor will run amok, then it will be an easy "support" vote for me. It's exactly what I did for Cyberpower678's RfA, where his technical skills acted as a "trump card" over everything else. As for whether or not everyone feels the same, who knows? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• I would vote support. I would recommend starting with noncontroversial stuff. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If I do opt to go through RfA, I'm going to make it abundantly clear that I have no interest in the typically controversial areas. ANI, AIV, UAA, RFPP, AFD, AN3, and speedy deletion are all great areas to volunteer, but I'd rather clear the many uncontroversial backlogs requiring administrator attention than elbow other more experienced admins out of the way to fight for the scraps of work left at those areas. I could maybe see myself clearing a backlog at
    WP:RFPP if one develops and a lack of response is causing active harm to the encyclopedia, but that would be an exception to my activity, not the rule. I'd like the tools to enhance my existing areas of activity, not to branch out into new and boring? drama-filled? exciting areas. ~ Rob^Talk
    18:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Good strategy. But be advised: someone will pre-empt you on that, and mark you down for attempting to pass RfA on false pretences!
      ^Pocketed
      18:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'm going into this with eyes wide open (if I go in at all). The state of RfA is such that plenty of people will mark me down for various things that fall under assuming bad faith, others will say I'm too inexperienced (with 40,000 edits and a bot approaching 100k!), and a third group will say my lack of interest in the "typical" areas is somehow a drawback. All I can do is answer honestly, go in with no expectations, and continue working to better the encyclopedia after everything's said and done whether or not I have some extra buttons to help out. ~ Rob^Talk 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• 8/10. Personally I think your case is much stronger than that of Anarchyte, even if the length of tenure looks similar. Your content creation record is much more impressive, with several GA's and quite a few DYKs, and in general with a much greater number of articles created. We do need specialist admins, and TfD/CfD is an area with huge backlogs. I did a quick spot-check of some of your CSDs and did not find any problems there. So it seems to me that a considerable number of people who are opposing or sitting-out Anarchyte's RFA would actually support yours (and if you notice, his RfA is not all that far from passing). Still, I would suggest waiting at least a couple more months, if only to let the current drama subside somewhat (whichever way Anarchy's RFA will be closed, there will certainly be quite a bit of handwringing at WT:RFA for a few weeks afterwards). Also, even if you don't plan to be active at AfD, it is still a good idea to brush up on various obscure aspects of the deletion policy. You may get asked questions about that during an RfA anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your feedback and advice. I'm probably leaning toward running at the moment, but I do have to give some serious thought to the timing. In mid-July, I start the first portion of my PhD program in economics. This doesn't mean I'll go inactive, by any means, but the first year of a PhD program is quite stressful. I don't know whether I'd want to add the week-long heavy stress of an RfA on top of that. I may be in a position where I have to choose between July 2016 or at least August 2017 after the comprehensive exams, which are "pass or get kicked out of the program". ~ Rob^Talk 23:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• 8/10 - Negative - You've been here just over a year, Positive - You've done a ton of great work at TFD and CFD clearing the backlogs etc etc as well as the fact you've created over 100 articles, I believe you'd be a net positive and as you'd help with backlogs you'd be a massive help here, If running I'd wait for a few months until the other RFA dies down abit otherwise you'd probably gain the same !votes (then again you could gain some in a few months however it wouldn't be so bad), Despite the fact I only like to support those with a 2 year tenure I would Support you with out a doubt, You've outweighed the negatives with the positives so personally I think you'd sail through it, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• 85% - You've got a much stronger case than Anarchyte. You have great content work and you have excellent experience in a couple places where admins are sorely needed. You'd have my support! -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• 7/10 - Generally better judgment and higher maturity than Anarchyte.
  flyer
  03:14, 20 June 2016 (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 I've been here actively for a while (before that it was just sporadic) principally writing new articles and expanding old ones that handle of South American volcanoes and some volcanoes elsewhere, as well as policing images (at

• 10/10 - you've got the content experience and a clear need for the tools in FFD, a backlogged area desperate for admin attention. If you're up for it, let me spend a day thoroughly checking out your contributions and if there are no "skellies", I'm happy to start an RfA for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• 8/10 Your longevity and edit count meet expectations. You've created a fair number of articles and I note you have three GAs,
  Uturunku, all of which you've DYK'd, too. I'd also note the articles you've created are all very technical volcanology-related articles. The fact that you're multilingual is also interesting. One problem I can see is that your AfD participation is thin. You vote heavily with the outcome (assuming that's good) but there might be concerns by some of your experience there. I'd support you assuming nothing untoward is discovered. Your semi-automated edits are very low so that won't be an issue. Chris Troutman (talk
  ) 23:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• 6/10 - You can count on my support vote, and there is much to like. I've seen you around and have previously thought you're admin material. There are 2.5 strikes against you. Most importantly, based on the last RfA, you've only been "seriously" editing for just over a year. I know you've been here for 5 years, but the edit count really increases June last year. Less important, but I expect it to generate less opposition, is the number of "mainspace" edits compared to Wikipedia-space edits. Some will like this, but others will oppose for this reason. Nothing you can do about that, but see first issue. Least important, you don't have a CSD log, and you're AfD participation is somewhat slim, as noted above by others. You're "percentage right" is perfect. It's not 100%, but when you "err" (ahem) it is to keep, and the inclusionist cabal (which is stronger on RfA, while the deletionist cabal seems to have the run of AfD) will like that. Your content creation is stellar, no problem there. Wait 8 months. It's not fair, but this is an evaluation of what is, not what should be. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

He has a CSD log here and the AfD stats don't log his contributions to FFD, which seem to be substantial. Perhaps the RfA might get stuck on cross-examination of copyright law, but I can't see how at the minute. When I see a candidate with a "specialist skill" not too many existing admins have, it puts a big weight towards support for me (eg: see Cyberpower678's RfA) and I am quite confident the RfA regulars can demolish any opposition without too much effort. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I missed it, I see. Yes, that CSD is substantial, and looks good to boot. Thanks Ritchie. I'll move it to 7.5, and if you really feel the NOTYET crowd can be cowed, that would be delightful, I see no other substantive objections. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• 9/10 – If someone has common sense, uses diplomacy, has been around three years with 12,000 edits, does content work, makes reasonable posts to admin boards, and wants to contribute to an area like FFD which is in need of admin help, I'd say go for it. Note that, since you are claiming the ability to sort out copyright matters, you might get questions in that area in the RfA. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• 10/10 - You're a content creator, Been here for well over 2 years, Want to help in FFD & the backlogs .... There's nothing that you could be opposed for although I'm sure someone will try and find a reason, I personally think you'd pass easily. –Davey2010^Talk 02:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• 9.9/10 - 'nuff said. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• 9/10 – anyone who has not only a 10/10 support from Ritchie333, but also an offer to start an RfA for you wins my trust. I hedge the 9 out of 10 by one because the process is unpredictable and until the questions and comments come out in any request...there is always a slight unknown. Fylbecatulous talk 12:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• 9/10: You might get some opposes based on pie chart nitpicking; but qualified candidate. — Esquivalience (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• 7-8/10: I'd probably support you, personally, but are you up for seriously nasty editing disputes? Gamergate trolls? Enforcing 1RR or other discretionary sanctions on, for example, the GMO issue or resolving a hot debate over abortion or climate change? The stats counters love nice numbers that line up with supermajority percentages; I care about whether an editor is being outed and harassed in real life due to standing up to bullies or enforcing sanctions on strong-minded editors. What kind of disputes have you been involved with and how did you handle them? Montanabw^(talk) 02:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

After 2 years and 2000 (including deleted contribs) edits across with wiki, I'm giving this a try. I'd like to see what other editors think of 2 years of good contributions. I am fully aware that gaining access to advanced functions is not the purpose of my editing rather it is granted for the purpose of continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia as I would do without the access. I don't think it hurts to put my history to under the looking glass to see what areas need improvement. So I leave it to the community to give an assessment of my edit history. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10 - No blocks, and a decent (62.8%) AfD involvement, but I think the 756 non-automated edits and not-so-great content creation could do with some work. I think a bit more time providing reasoned AfD votes and involvement in
  WP:UAA paired with putting down the automated tools for a bit could really help -- samtar ^{talk or stalk}
  11:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  pretty straightforward. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• 2/10 - Hi VegasCasinoKid. I'll try to give you an honest review here. You've done some work at AFD, which is always good. However, your AFD stats show that you're vote has only matched the result just over 60% of the time, which is not great. You generally use an edit summary, which is a plus. Anyway, there are two main problems with you applying for adminship in my opinion. Firstly, your talk page. It's filled with copyright violation and deletion notices. Secondly, your edit count. You've only got around 2000 edits total, and only around 700 of the are non-automated ones in the mainspace. That's not very many. You're really not very active, looking at your edit count, you only make on average around 30-50 edits a month, a tiny number. I'm also struggling to see any real content work, you've created 16 articles, but many are deleted and some appear to have been tests. Overall, I'm sorry but you've got no chance of passing RFA. My advice is to get more active, broaden your editing areas and come back when you've done more content creation/improvement. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 11:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  The latest copyright image notice was resolved with the posting a fair use tag on the image page and the image survived the deletion discussion. There are many copyrighted images and logos on the project, you just have to make sure they're tagged (and used) properly as I have learned. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• 1/10 - the speedy deletion notices on your talk page are the kiss of death. I'll let you off for trying to create an article about yourself as the first edit, as that's a rookie error, but you are still getting speedy deletion notices dated this year. That suggests you don't understand the notability and deletion policies properly, and so I cannot trust you with the delete button at this time and would have to vote "oppose", and would use what I have just said as the oppose rationale. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  @

  New Rangers Ballpark seems to be a success and I have a good deal of contributions to it. So the best I can do is learn for the mistakes and move on. Your best teacher is not found at school. His name is Experience. Thank you for your input. VegasCasinoKid (talk

  ) 02:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10 With your speedy deletion tags and image deletions on your work, I don't think that you will pass RfA. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• 4/10 Sorry, but you don't have a chance. You have about 2,100 edits, and I have *cough* over 5000 *cough* Edit counts aren't everything, but most people will look at that. The speedy deletion notices are not going to help you either. Peter Sam Fan 23:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 @VegasCasinoKid: I think the folks above were being polite about your AFD stats, green cells in the 60s will look pretty bad. Also, this one from only a few months ago stands out. Your edit count by itself wouldn't be an issue for me, except that your contributions raise some red flags. Besides AFD and the speedy deletion templates mentioned above, there seems to be too little experience with, and demonstration of knowledge of deletion policy. There also seems to be little work in the area of counter-vandalism. Also, a lot of your edits to User talk pages appear to be template welcome messages, which comes across like an attempt to artificially inflate your edit count for RfA. I would suggest that you start learning policies well, especially ones related to admin functions. Continue editing for a few years and try this poll again.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 - 2k edits? No way you would pass in 2016. Also per concerns raised by other editors above.
  flyer
  03:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10 For me, 2 years and 2K edits? No. 2 years and 10K edits, maybe. While edit counts are not everything, the low count is coupled with insufficient content creation. Without having a single DYK or GA, you have no idea what most editors go through. Of the 16 articles you created, 9 were deleted. (In contrast, I've created 236 articles, of which 5 have been deleted) I want someone who has the mop to understand the issues, and I am concerned that you do not fully understand what encyclopedic work is all about. Montanabw^(talk) 02:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • While I don't disagree with your assessment of this editor's chances at RFA, I think that "no idea what most editors go through" is an overstatement. Most editors never even attempt anything as complicated as DYK or GA and cannot boast a 98% survival rate for articles they create. This editor's experience is much closer to "most" editors' experiences than yours or mine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • But most editors are not good admin candidates, and I think you misunderstand Montanabw's point anyway. Also, there's nothing complicated about DYK (which is trivial, both in the sense of easy and not important), or even GA (which is important and tedious, but not complicated). Actually getting through FAC, yeah, that can be complicated, in several senses.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10: I agree with Ritchie333, Becky Sales, Montanabw. Yours would be a
  WP:HERE nuances in disputes and be able to handle them productively, instead taking a "punish everyone who is arguing, just to shut up a dispute I don't understand and can't be bothered to figure out" approach, which is probably our #1 problem with bad and questionable admins. A history of being on the wrong side of what content is appropriate is even worse in the eyes of many RfA !voters. An over-50% deletion rate of articles you've created? Day-um, as Will Smith would put it. I would expect to see a rate more like 5% or less (with amnesty for merges – people care about whether you're injecting unencyclopedic content, or potentially encyclopedic content with poor or no sourcing, not whether people later want to move good content around). Two of the most typical points of RfA criticism are going to be AfD track record and deep understanding of CSD. Someone who has more than half their articles nuked clearly has neither of these under their belt.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢
   ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• WT:RfA, but you'll need a thick skin ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 08:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Mdann52 (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)

Been a while since I last run, just want a gauge on what people think now. Mdann52 (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10 - I'm genuinely sorry to do this Mdann, I don't like giving people bad news that will make them upset, but the honest truth is that this will be RfA #4, and at
  WP:BEFORE. The only speedy logged for 2016 is File:Karen Dawisha meeting Vladimir Putin.jpg, which was ultimately kept. Your AfD stats are still around 55% and there's been very little activity for the whole of 2016. I realise there are extenuating circumstances with things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas D. Taylor (2nd nomination) where you simply passed on an OTRS ticket as a neutral observer, but if the subject was clearly that notable, there was nothing stopping you from saying "by the way, I'm voting keep, I just want the community to confirm this can be restored". Everyone is going to be watching your AfD score like a hawk as it's how you failed the previous RfAs, and that's pretty much impossible to weasel out of without having an immaculate track record in it over the past year. I know you're keen and willing to do the job and do a lot of good work around here, but I can't vote support unless I see proof that the aptitude is there too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  13:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@

CSD F8 was what the file was deleted under - as it was uploaded to Commons, it shows as a bluelink on my log. Just a note for future reference. Thanks for the feedback noneless. Mdann52 (talk

) 17:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• 1/10 - The short version is, you've already had three bites at the apple and you haven't done enough to change any opinions. Don't go to RfA ever again. The longer version: I'm torn on my opinion. For any of these polls I always look at the candidate's previous RfA and your AfD record was a large issue for opposers. You have more blue links on your AfD log than I'd want to see and your AfD stats paint you as a deletionist. I've looked over some recent AfD noms of yours where the outcome didn't result in deletion like Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov and Dubrovnik Annals. Your rationale wasn't bad and I think I agree with your arguments. However, in each case there were enough Wikipedians that saw it differently. For those that judge your cluefullness by your agreement with the consensus you fall short. Sadly, you'd've been better off gaming the system by finding AfD's underway and just voting with the consensus "per nom" rather than sticking your neck out. I can see where you're coming from with this AfD nom although you're apparently wrong on our BLP policy. You have blue links on your PROD log like this where I agree with your rationale but someone else countered. A cursory examination would only tell !voters that you're out of step with the community when I think you're making fair calls. The other problem the last time around was an OTRS issue that, while I didn't bother to research it, might not be far enough in the past for the aggregate to overlook. Which brings us to the final problem, it's only been a year since the last RfA. Are you in desperate need of a hat? Are there editors you are seeking revenge upon? Is anyone clamoring for you to get a mop? I don't see a reason we need you as an admin and three RfAs in less than three years is giant red flag to me. In each of your past RfA's you've had as many oppose votes as you've had support votes. In your first two RfA's you didn't even have admins nominating you. If you're that far on the outside politically then I don't see how you'll ever pass RfA. I think you could make a good admin but that's not how our system works. With the right sort of moves over the next five years you could change perceptions but right now I don't see a way you could pass. You're a good contributor to the wiki and I'd be happy with that. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 – What they ^ said. I'm wondering why you want this so bad. Not everyone is really suited for adminship, as presently (and arguably, poorly) conceived. I've been here over a decade and learned I don't want to be an admin after observing what so many of them go through after being approved, and what a negative effect is has on their article content productivity in most cases. I'm also a curmudgeon, so I would never pass anyway. Maybe you're more cheerful than I am, but the lesson to be learned from my old barely-past-noob RfAs is the same one to absorb from your own string of RfA declines: If your WP activity does not radically change in ways that address why an RfA failed, the next one will fail, too. I'm not sure anyone has ever passed RfA #4 or later; it's probably a lost cause. If your life's dream is to be a WP admin, then see
  WP:CLEANSTART.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢
   ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: Regarding your last comment: nope. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zoicon 5, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco 5, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ST47 5, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 5 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 6 (admittedly a reconfirmation after a desysopping, but nevertheless...) all passed on their 5th or 6th tries. You're right though, in that your chances certainly decrease with every subsequent RFA. Omni Flames (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised! But anyway, it's very rare, and that was the point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10. I disagree with Chris troutman that you should never go for an RfA again. However, now is not the right time for the next attempt, IMO. Your first three RfAs will be a significant burden, and the first question the people will ask is: What has changed since the last RfA? Right now you don't have a good answer (other than, the passage of time). Your AfD stats are still at about 65% agreement with the consensus outcome, which was a significant issue in the opposition in your last AfD. The same stats show that in your most recent AfD record you had 129 "delete" votes, 3 "speedy delete" votes, 4 "keep" and 1 "merge" votes. That's a rather radically deletionist record, which might be worth reflecting upon, at least in terms of what kind of AfDs you are participating in. I see that you are currently doing some ArbCom clerking. That's important and rather thankless job but I am afraid in an RfA it may actually play as a factor against you. Many RfA participants tend to see, fairly or unfairly, that sort of thing as evidence of being too interested in power. I personally do not, but I think that ArbCom clerking is better left until after one becomes an admin, if only because sometimes clerks need to have access to protect, block and revdel buttons. Also, the issue of content creation will certainly come up. Right now X! tools show that you created a total of 18 pages, 12 of which have been deleted. You do have a link at your userpage to one article, Oblivion (roller coaster), that you helped take to the GA status. But that was 3 years ago, and that's where your major content contributions seem to end. That won't be enough, come next RfA, particularly given your pretty radically deletionist AfD record. I would recommend resuming some article writing in a more systematic way and perhaps developing a more specialized area of expertise (not related to centers of power like ArbCom, ANI and such), perhaps something to do with files or templates or categories or copyright or some such thing. Nsk92 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Rahmatgee (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)

• 1/10: Less than 500 edits, and only 77 in the last year, = a lack of provenance for the community to adjudge.
  ^Pocketed
  06:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - I'm sorry but with only just over 400 edits during a period of around 6 years you've got no chance. RFA !voters expect to see some activity, and you've had very little recently. Omni Flames (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 – Even setting aside the obvious lack of activity that would result in a speedy
  WP:NOTNOW close, this recent AfD vote would sink any RfA. No understanding of the speedy deletion policy (what criteria did that qualify under?) or how GNG works (failing the PROF criteria does not imply failing GNG). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk
  07:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - you will get a SNOW or NOTNOW close within 12 hours. Please read
  WP:NOTCSD carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  09:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)