Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 6

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

I was nominated for admin about a year and a half ago but withdrew due to valid points made in the RfA. Since that time, I've become heavily involved in TFD, as well as maintaining my presence at AFC and in the help room on IRC. I've been getting nudges from various corners to pull the trigger again, so I thought I'd post here and see what a straw poll would show. Happy to answer any questions. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• 7/10: Content creation is not that bad, but you done significant AFC work and helping newbies in their creation of articles. Also, XFD stats are fine after seeing a bunch of red results that resulted in keep or speedy keep closes that lead your withdrawal of the previous RFA. Great work! KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 03:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Bearing in mind that I thought you should go for it a year ago and would happily nominate you based on your excellent TfD record, I suspect some of our, erm, more literal-minded commentators will have the following thought process: "Last RfA failed because of deletion issues. Let's check AfD stats. 59%? You clearly suck. Nominations that ended in speedy keep, in 2016? Oh noes!!!" (They're unlikely to click through and see which ones you withdrew, or where a
  WP:HEY effort. Finish up whatever template stuff you're doing and polish up a moderately obscure article to GA, or alternatively create a few new ones. (Do send them to DYK, don't specifically mention that at RfA.) Find any AfC articles you've approved that were later deleted and be prepared for the oppose section to contain in succession "Oppose, too deletionist" and "Oppose, passed dreck through AfC". Also, enable your email. Then I predict (with the caveat that I'm terrible at this) that you'll pass in the mid to high 80s. Opabinia regalis (talk
  ) 08:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• 5/10 or 50/50 - it could go either way. The pattern of a RfA is that the first dozen or so supports come within the first hour or so and are done without much research. The serious oppose votes come from experienced users just when the candidate has been lulled into a false sense of thinking all is going well. Then there are the trolls and serial opposers who will always think up some feeble (or even invented) reason to oppose. We've started cleaning up RfA now by making examples of some who disrupt the process, but to get rid of the others who rest on their laurels for the outreach and off-Wiki work they do, it will take more than ANI; it will need some decision from Opabinia regalis' band of merry people to make some decisions and unfortunately tradition has it that prolific content providers can behave as badly as they like with impunity and at the merry most they get off with just a slap on the wrist. If we could get another two or three topic banned within the next 6 months, I would give you 8/10 in June. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Take an article to GA and then come back. I'd be very, very happy to see you run given your TfD work, but this is a crucial step. It's very difficult to pass RfA these days without a GA to your name, and you seem quite close to it, so there's no point in not going the final mile. You got Astronomical spectroscopy to B-class according to your user page, so just nominate that for GA and respond to the criticisms the reviewer drags up. Don't worry too much about whether it passes the criteria at the moment, since the reviewer will point out where you need to make improvements. Before GA, I'd give you a 5/10 at best due to the fickle nature of certain RfA voters. Afterwards, I'd give you an 8/10, but ping me on IRC for a piece of advice I don't want to give on-wiki. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  @BU Rob13:, I do not think this is correct. GA is definitely a bonus but not a requirement. On my RfA I was pretty open about it and explained why I will never have a GA and how the community can benefit from giving me admin tools in other ways, and it was never an issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: Your RfA was in 2013, which was considerably more relaxed. I also don't see members of the "content crowd" at your RfA; they may not have been active at RfA at the time. My rating is intended to be a probability, and without a GA, it's really a flip of the coin. If the "content crowd" arrives in numbers with 10-15 !votes early on in the RfA, then most editors who arrive off the watchlist will see those concerns and pile on. If the "content crowd" is mostly on wikibreak, the RfA will most likely pass. It's a coin flip on whether they show up. It's all about if they're around and whether they vote early to establish negative momentum. Note that the content crowd largely "retired" all at once recently, and the result has been a much more reliable RfA process, but many of them have recently returned at least somewhat, so their future RfA participation is up in the air. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, anybody who is seriously concerned about RfA and knows how to quarry for stats, would have long since come up with a table of how many candidates had GA at the time of their RfA. We might then get nearer the truth about some of the conjecture about ridiculously demanding criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• 7/10 If I take your last 100 AfDs over the past 6 months, I get a much more respectable 82% correct, which shows me that your rate of success is improving, and that is the important statistic. Your CSD performance over the past year has been okay, and you have a clear need for the tools at TfD. As Kudpung says, whether you can pass RfA right now depends largely on who turns up and who could knock any early silly oppose votes on the head. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tennisuser123 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)

I have been very involved on Wikipedia in the past, and I believe that I would like to continue to serve the Wiki community more in the near future, having spent a good deal of time away from the site. As a recent donor to the Foundation and a constant user of the plethora of resources available both for pleasure and for study, I'd love to give back to my community in a fruitful and dynamic manner, making use of RfA privileges to provide a small but sincere effort to work towards a more academically-sound Wikipedia, freer of vandalism. I appreciate your feedback and hope to garner your support moving forward with the RfA process.

• At present 0/10 but will rise very quickly if you become active again and involve yourself in admin areas. Although you've made almost 25,000 edits, only c. 400 of them have been in the past five years, so there's no way for voters to judge your knowledge of Wikipedia's current policies and practices. (Since at the time of writing your talkpage consists almost entirely of warnings, albeit mostly related to files you uploaded years ago, most voters' default position will be to assume that you don't understand policy.) Given that, other than adding yourself to this page, you have not made a single Wikipedia-space edit since 2007, it will be very hard for you to demonstrate that you have any need for sysop tools since almost everything they're used for relates in some way Wikipedia-space pages.  ‑ 
  Iridescent
  10:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 Unless there's something wrong with WMFlabs, it says you've never !voted in an
  GA. You haven't performed a single countervadalism edit or report to the noticeboards in years. Not counting 2017, you've had less than 100 edits annually every year since 2012. This community needs admins but we expect candidates to be current and active. Now is a great time to return to Wikipedia. Maybe in a year's time you'll be ready to go. Right now, I can't see anyone placing any trust in you. Frankly, you seem to have skipped reading RFAADVICE. Chris Troutman (talk
  ) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• 0.1/10 Your chances are virtually nonexistent. You haven't edited consistently in years, and considering that you don't work in WP space areas, you don't have much need for the tools. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10. Your last 500 edits take us back to 2011. No chance currently. Future chances will depend on the quality of your contributions going forward. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• 0/10 Sorry pal, five weeks' tenure, four hundred edits, and a recent block for disruptive editing? Please actually read the instructions at the top of this page for the criteria. Thank you for your interest in assisting with the administration of this site today.
  ^{...Imperatrix mundi.}
  08:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

In fact, let me expand on my previous remarks, having examined your contributions. Your very first edits were to request redirect creation?

^{...Imperatrix mundi.}

08:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Epicgenius (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 don't think I'll need admin tools anytime soon, but I'm just interested. It's been a year since I last asked, so... epicgenius (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• 7/10 - Content creation definitely there, and XfD/AfD stats look pretty good. CSD log is a bit thin, but maybe I'm judging it too harshly. I sure hope people will have forgotten about your 3RR block by the time you run, although in my opinion it's mostly balanced out by your strength in other areas. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 - I'll keep this as short as possible: A user page looking like a teenager's bedroom wall - older professionals/academics users looking up who is behind CSD tags and deletions will doubt the professionalism of Wikipedia. Your age and/or maturity is going to be the big problem. With over 600 edits to ANI that's even more than me and I'm a busy admin who spends on average 5 hours a day on Wikipedia. Although there therefore seems to be no shortage of content work - on the contrary, there might even be too much of it - 159,559 can only be mainly automated clean ups at the speed you work. I'm not sure that the high number of pages you have apparently 'created' are your own work or are drafts you have moved to mainspace. Note that a lot of the 'real' work is not reflected in edit counts - I often spend a whole day unraveling an SPI, or two days traveling to a Wikipedia conference, andthat's why I only have 80,000 edits to show for 7 years of solid work. My page patrols often take 3 minutes each or more to do properly and the more work that is done, obviously the number of possible errors increases in direct proportion. It all needs further examination which is not within the scope of this project.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 per Kudpung: That user page almost look like a teen's bedroom wall that made me laugh, but currently, it's an 50/50 chance I think. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Before you run, clean up your user page and find a respected admin who will vouch for your maturity. I don't know you well enough to judge your chances at RFA, but the times when I've run into you have been positive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 Mainly per Kudpung. You also have some experience of content creation, which is important. Also, whilst I don't have an issue with the user page, the block for violating the three revert rule might cause for some opposers if you did run now. I'd personally wait 3-6 months more before running so the block can be forgotten about (as it was 2015 when you were blocked and its 2017 now). You were also blocked for personal attacks, but hopefully this can be forgotten about now. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thank you for the feedback so far, everyone. I've cleaned up my userpage. It loads much faster now! Also, in my defense, maybe I should have cleaned up my bedroom this morning. (No seriously, I'm actually a teenager.) epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 - I just wanted to chime in and say I've noted a significant demonstrated increase in maturity. I'm afraid some will oppose because of past dramaboard participation, no matter what, so I'd place your chances at about 50%. I'd recommend giving it another year and a half. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 – I think the perception of immaturity (whether justified or not) is likely to stand in the way of a successful RfA for at least the first half of this year. I'm sure it's no secret that you're a relatively young editor, but if it were me (and it was me, at one point!), I'd try to avoid telling people as much. Some of our more curmudgeonly RfA voters might read "I'm actually a teenager" and then see something like this and get entirely the wrong impression. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 I'd like to have some more young admins on Wikipedia,but many people would not, and people might think you have maturity issues. I would support you, but it'd be a close RfA. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 per
  High Line's GA review, and thought you were pretty mature back then. I would lean towards supporting you at RfA; the problem is convincing everybody else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  11:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• I do have some concerns over your block log, but at the end of the day, that was in the past, and I'm sure most people will overlook that in addition to your userpage and see that in actuality you are a mature young editor. I'm not going to give a score out of ten, as I think I have a small COI considering I'm of similar age to you - but overall, I'd support. I would take Class455's advice and wait a few months, though, just to be on the safe side, given your recent block. Patient Zero^talk 11:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I ran unsuccessfully in 2016 and wasn't intending to run again in 2017, but recent emails prompted me to consider this candidate poll. I have been editing for over 10 years. I have contributed to 54 featured articles and lists, 87 A-class articles, and 242 good articles. I have created over 400 articles. I have four four-awards bringing articles I created to featured, and three million awards for bringing articles with over a million page views to featured status. (A fourth, Richard Feynman, is at FAC. If someone would like to submit a review, that would be great.) I was awarded a Golden Wiki by the Military History WikiProject for 2012 Military historian of the year, and was runner-up in 2014 and 2016. I maintain the MilHistBot and FACBot, which carry out chores related to A-class and Featured articles and lists. I ran unsuccessfully for ArbCom in 2015; not being an admin is one of the reasons I lost. I was pretty busy in 2016 with the Paralympic History Project, but my content creation activities are now tapering off. I attended Wikimania 2016 on a scholarship, and the Rio Paralympics as an accredited journalist. I made 4,300 edits in August, September and October 2016, created 269 Paralympic pages, submitted 22 Paralympic DYK articles and took 700 photographs. I wrote about the project on the Wikimedia blog. I am an autopatroller, extended confirmed user, file mover, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker and template editor. But it would be nice to be able to build DYK queues; move pages without having to fiddle with redirects; delete pages; and assist in reducing the admin backlogs. I hope some helpful comments will eventuate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• 6/10 your work is good, I've reviewed dozens of your GAs, and I admire your articles on more niche topics like Paralympians, we need that kind of person. I'm not sure if you need to be an admin, building DYK queues is possible without admin rights, just stack up Prep areas like the rest of the project are doing. Suspect your motives would be questioned at RFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  I have at times built DYK prep areas for a month or so each year. It's pretty soul destroying though when the prep doesn't run due to no admin being available. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  I don't know of any prep area that ultimately didn't run on the main page due to admin unavailability. At worst, it ran later than initially expected, but it still ran its full time. Do you have any examples to the contrary over, say, the past five years? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  The prep areas are set to run one a particular date and at a particular time. I would take into account what time and date it will be in certain time zones and set them up accordingly. Running late messes things up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  That's how it works now with non-admins building prep sets for particular times. You don't need the mop for that. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @
  ^{...Imperatrix mundi.}
  22:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I opposed (in fact was the first) last time. I don't know how it will end if you run now. We are in a bit of a golden period at the moment in regards to RFA, but that might not necessarily work to your advantage (i.e since we have recently promoted a lot of admins the "we need new admins" argument is lessened). You have lots of friends, but unfortunately a fair number of high-profile editors that will oppose you off the bat. Content wise you are more than sorted, but you know that already, and one can't help but admire your commitment to the project despite your setbacks. You need to address the desyopping early, many of your opposes were based around your handling of this. Also the links presented above by O Fortuna! are worrisome as they come off quite bitter (which is understandable to a degree). You probably want to explain why you asked that question as it will certainly come up. Personally I opposed mainly to a block I witnessed many years ago and I was pleased to see you specifically address it (I saw it too late to change my !vote and to be honest might not have anyway).[2] I think you will be fine if you stick to the stated tasks above and would probably be an easy support if you could get the tools without the block button. I honestly don't know which way I would go now, thinking neutral or even sitting it out. I suppose that gives you roughly a 50/50 chance. AIRcorn (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  The reason I asked that question was that the issue has been in the headlines here lately [3], and therefore in my mind, and we had an incident at Wikimedia Australia I witnessed personally back in 2011. In 2012 I wrote most of

  Wikipedian of the Year case. I always ask for policies and procedures rather than what action someone would take, as real-life situations are rarely simple. Hawkeye7 (talk

  ) 08:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am not going to give a score out of ten, but all I will say is that I am likely to oppose an RFA for this candidate. I have concerns about this editor's maturity - they asked a rather silly question at a recent RFA. Sorry Hawkeye7, but this will be your third RFA (!) and I don't see it going well. I think many other editors would say the same as I have done. Patient Zero^talk 11:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• The links provided by O Fortuna cast a very long and dark shadow which the community at large will not ignore. Leaky Caldron 11:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not gonna score however the links provided above would be enough for anyone to oppose and being honest I think that that question alone would be enough to sink your RFA, As noted above there's a need for admins at the moment however this won't work in your favour at all, In the nicest possible way I think you should forget RFA for a couple of years and just focus on editing, Constantly coming here & retrying RFA isn't going to get you any closer to being an admin ... infact it'll do the complete opposite. –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10, not a review of you personally but just being honest about your chances just now. You squeaked by in 2009 when RfA was less of a shitshow, and found your way to being desysopped three years later for wheel-warring and "conduct unbecoming"; your desysop will always come up at RfA. It was five years in the past, but the discussion Fortuna posted above was not: it was very recent, it shows that you're holding a grudge about your own history, and most severe currently is that it comes off as an attempt to disrupt RfA to make a point, something which RfA regulars have taken to be the flagship issue recently (ask UNSC Luke 1021 about that). It doesn't really matter that you had a reasonably decent reason for asking the question, the discussion preceding the question casts your motive into doubt and it came off poorly; nothing you can do about that but accept it. You do have a pretty decent history of participation there, so perhaps you can counter opposition based on that one series of missteps. In the plus column, you're a stunning content creator, one of the best probably. Your AFD stats are not terrific, and there are a few recent discussions in which you were the only one (or one of very few) editors arguing keep based on a notability essay often criticized as weak and not reflective of genuine notability, for articles where the consensus was to delete. You don't seem to have a CSD or PROD log, either, you should either start both or be prepared for questions about why you don't have them - they're good for demonstrating "need for the tools" as well. Overall, I think your chances are poor now, but will improve rapidly with continued civil participation at RfA and more successful arguments at AFD (not that you're wrong, but you're failing to convince people). If all other trends continue I think you'd pass easily in six months. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  I see the problem. I have the log options turned off in the preference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wouldn't recommend it. You will always have my unquestioning support, but even your recent edits to RfA show that you still have hard feelings about the desysop and the events that led to it. Regardless of the merits, you'll need to show that you've moved on from those events before you'll be able to get enough support. An RfA now is likely to be a bloodbath, and it would really upset me to see a friend go through that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 Until and unless you deal with the desysop as something that you understand and have put behind you—and you've pretty much precluded that for a while given the comments noted above at that recent RFA—I'd expect any new RFA run to have the same problems and results as the last one. And your reply above about building DYK queues doesn't reflect the actual process, which was both surprising and disappointing. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 I supported you at the second RfA because I felt we should
  not remind others of past misdeeds and that you more than deserved another chance. However, I had to remove my support during the RfA because of your attitude. Your question at Liz's RfA was utterly unacceptable and justifiably described in User:Kudpung/RfA criteria as ".. perhaps the silliest question of all ... The editor was condemned as a troll by an admin." The recent conduct at K6ka's RfA doesn't help either. I think enough people share this view to sink an RfA, and I expect that will remain the case until you show remorse for your earlier actions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  11:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3/10 Your trolling of RfA will not help you, and although it is old, the desysop will hurt you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 Unlikely to ever regain tools short of a miracle at this point - especially since conduct is either similar or worse than the previous RFA. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Seriously? --
  old fashioned!
  11:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3/10 Temperament: Already his comment in one of the other ORCP candidate polls above gives me pause - when I have been unable to fully do my homework before speaking, I admit it, hence to assume I do sloppy research is not AGF. The comment above by
  Fortuna
  would be enough to tank any RfA by a normal mortal and I do not think today's RfA community as regarding such excellent content work as a reason to ignore them.

Before voting, I think anyone would need to read

Beeblebrox, Drmies, Floquenbeam, RexxS, and SilkTork

. I left a ‘Neutral, leaning support’ because I was on Wikileave and was unable to do any in-depth research; there were also some heavyweights in the Neutral section. Hawkeye is an adult and I don't think his character is going to change in the space of just over 11 months. Maybe he just has an unfortunate way of expressing himself (if his mother tongue were one of the northern European Germanic languages, I could understand).

What we also have here is the paradox of someone making a bid for the mop who is jointly responsible for maintaining RfA as the 'horrible and broken process' that it is. I wouldn’t risk making the same mistake supporting a n’th run like I did with Ironholds who turned out to be not easy for many dedicated Wikipedians to collaborate with, and who finally ended up being desysoped within a short time. RfA voters are a fickle crowd, not less since the reforms that more than doubled participation - the tradition is still to let a few opposes do the work and then for everyone to pile on, and pile on they will. The RfA had more than its fair share of trolls and other voters who have since been blocked but the net result was still a clear 'no consensus'. Xeno's user:Kingturtle's advice was to wait a year or two, I think 'two' more apt and might leave more time for the dust to set|tle, but I would still not be overly optimistic even then. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hawkeye, if you can't let bygones be bygones (and those recent RfA comments indicate this), then there's no point in running again: last time you got to 191 supports, which is an amazing number and it clearly shows you have made lots of friends with the good work you do, but you racked up 95 opposes, which is likewise a very high number. What sank the last RfA are the kinds of things that, as is signaled above, are still visible in your recent edit history. I'm sorry, but I won't be able to support, and I fear that an RfA now will go down in the same way. Don't do it--it won't make you feel much better about our project which, admittedly, has many ways in which it can sink one's spirits. Drmies (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• When you bring up your "unfair" desysop in other user's RFAs, yet never bring it up yourself when the discussion is about you, that's indicitave of a problem with your attitude toward adminship. Your statement here touts your many fine contributions to content. We need content creators, you are apparently good at that, and adminship is an area where you have had trouble in the past. Why not stick to the content and forget about returning to adminship after all this time?
  talk
  ) 06:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  I was here to listen, not talk, but I'm not going to let the "unfair" remark pass. I didn't bring the desysop up, and I never characterised it as "unfair". It was ill-advised, ill-judged and ill-fated, and I think that is the community consensus and not just my opinion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• The credentials are impressive - there is a clear dedication to the project, and I for one would like to see someone with those credentials and that dedication be given the tools to assist in their general Wikipedia activities. The stumbling block is partly the desysopping, but mostly the attitude since. The community accepts that editing on Wikipedia sometimes results in a rush of blood to the head, and also that we are human and make mistakes. What the community likes to see is people who have made mistakes and learned from them. Indeed, it sometimes appears to me that the community prefers folks who have made mistakes and learned from them, because they are more rounded, more experienced, and we trust them more because we have seen that they won't make those mistakes again. The community appears to be more cautious of users who have not made mistakes, because we don't know how they will react. Some users put up their hands and say "Ah, yes. I made a mistake. Sorry. That won't happen again", and we love them for it. Others refuse to admit they made a mistake, and will deny it, or cover it up. We cannot trust those users, as they may make the same mistake again, having clearly not learned from it, and may even attempt to cover it up, so creating a bigger mess. The community is very reluctant to accept a user who has made a mistake and continually refuses to accept it, and worse still, acts in a pointy and immature manner about the incident. I don't think the road to adminship is closed, because you have a lot to offer, and there are many, like myself, who are appreciative of the work you do. But the first step is to acknowledge publicly that, on reflection, you made an error of judgement in wheel-warring to re-block Malleus Fatuorum/Eric Corbett. Such a mistake would be understandable and forgiveable. The community does not wish to punish someone for ever for one heated moment. The next stage would be to explain your behaviour since. And, again, it is understandable that folks get frustrated when they are restricted or opposed for reasons they don't understand and accept. But, even with this, you would need a period of space from the recent RfA incidents which the community has taken a dim view of. You do get involved and make sensible comments, but some of your "curly questions", have raised eyebrows, and given parts of the community a poor impression of you, which coupled with your past history, may suggest to them that you are a volatile person who may impose a little too much of their own personality into admin actions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I have more than doubled my overall edits since the last time I ran a poll, gotten my edit summary usage up and become active in UAA, and moving files to commons.

• Iazyges, in my (admittedly not vast) experience, one of the things fatal to an RFA is if !voters feel you are too eager for adminship. Posting a second request here two months after the first is going to seem like overeagerness to many, whether justifiably or otherwise. I, personally, would recommend that you think on that, and possibly withdraw this poll. Continue to accumulate constructive contributions in the right areas, and eventually people will see that giving you the tools makes sense. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Well, in Iazyges' defense, I think it's only human to want feedback on your progress. But, yes, asking often does look bad to many people. 11,000 edits is pretty good, but most RFA voters are going to want to see more than six months of editing. I would suggest one year as a good minimum. Try comparing yourself to various people's RFA criteria and see how you stack up. User:Kudpung/RfA criteria is a good starting place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 I would oppose you, just based upon your over-eagerness and I don't think I'm alone. You've created plenty of articles. You have at least one GA already and another is being reviewed now. Your CSD log is appropriately red although your PROD log is questionable. Your AfD stats tend to agree with the consensus. You're on the low end for both edits and longevity but you're not an unreasonable candidate in that regard. You've been recognized by MILHIST for your contributions. I have real concerns, however, in that this is your second time at ORCP since October. Your desire for the mop will be the reason you don't get it. Please, do not ever ask about adminship ever again. Seriously. Never ever ask someone to nominate you. Don't add some userbox to your user page saying you want to be an admin; nothing. It would be a shame for this project to not have you as an admin only because you're asking for it. Rest assured, if the
  cabal wants you to be an admin they'll invite you. Chris Troutman (talk
  ) 00:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• 1/10 per my prev comment in the last Poll which was 2/3 months ago, Also the over-eagerness really won't help you either. –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Right now, your chances are low. I've been keeping a loose eye on you since you got elected a MilHist coordinator and you certainly have the potential to be a great admin, but you need more time and more experience of the back end of Wikipedia. What sort of admin work are you interested in? Start by getting involved in those sorts of areas, but for what it's worth admisnhip is mostly boring grunt work and button mashing. If article-writing is what you enjoy (and from what I've seen, you're good at it), don't feel you have to do something you enjoy less just to climb a career ladder; the view isn't better from the top. On the other hand, if you spend some time on admin-type tasks and find you enjoy them, you could have a good shot at an RfA in six to twelve months. I'd seriously consider supporting you after a few months, and I might even be willing to nominate you when the time is right. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with what Harry just said. You've only been doing serious editing in six months, but I've seen what you've done from coming across your review work already, and it is good, so I think the aptitude is there. To be honest, I'd probably support you if you ran for RfA now, but many people wouldn't, so come back around September and we should be onto a winner. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• My comment on your previous poll remains more or less unchanged - including my remark about the reading list. Take note particularly of what Harry and Chris troutman say above - the Catch 22 at the moment is that even if you would make a good admin someday, the more you work towards it, obviously it looks to others as if it's what you are working towards, and promotion through the ranks of Wikipedia shouldn't be anyone's goal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Iazyges, I would advise you to put more effort into communicating clearly on discussion pages. This will help to gain the confidence of other editors.
  Category talk:Ancient Roman forts in England is an example of a message from you that was not particularly clear. – Fayenatic London
  12:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• 1/10: Having seen the overreaction at this recent GAR nomination, I don't believe the editor anywhere near ready for the mop, and people will pick up on it based on such examples. I wouldn't ask again here until 2018 at the earliest; you need to cultivate a great deal more patience, which is something an admin needs to have and to demonstrate. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering some recent RfAs, I'm taking the "saying more is better than less" approach: The "skeleton in the closet" that I foresee being a turnoff to some folks is a series of encounters with Eric Corbett a couple years ago that were related to the

Any comments, questions, or reviews would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and input! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• 9/10 With nearly 70,000 mainspace edits, a clean block log and a 79.3% vote/result (11% NC) no concern from me. I'd support without question.   Aloha27  talk  06:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• 9/10 - You've shown a need for the tools and i've seen you around many times and you've always exercised good judgement. I would support and I think most of the community would as well. -- Dane ^talk 06:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 Your harassment of Eric Corbett almost caused Talk:Snake Pass/GA1 to crash and burn, and the Arbcom case that followed it was a fractious affair. Expect an RfA to be unpleasant with lots of awkward questions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: Could you elaborate on the relevance of Talk:Snake Pass/GA1? The GGTF case was some time beforehand and I'm struggling to find any relevant edits from the time of that GAN. Sam Walton (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I might have got my wires crossed slightly and confused EvergreenFir with the

Gender Gap Task Force generally, for which I apologise. The specific trigger in my instance was this comment from Eric "resigning" as a result of some comments the GGTF made that he took exception to, and I simply mean if Eric slinks off in a huff, feeling unwanted, he isn't going to finish my GA review. The actual AE case that EvergreenFir filed is this one, which led to Eric getting a short and controversial block. I particularly note Reaper Eternal's comment, "My one thought is why didn't EvergreenFir simply remove the comment if it was such a problem rather than immediately jumping for the block / drama request". A few weeks later, she did it again, which led to another controversial block and then onto Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement

- one of the most tedious and pointless dramah festivals in the history of Wikipedia. We can debate the pros and cons of blocking Eric until the cows come home but the simple fact is this sort of controversy sticks in people minds for a long time and you need to do some serious work to distance yourself from it.

Moving on to the present day, a glance through her talk page shows two worrying things. Firstly, she tends to edit in controversial topic areas which naturally gravitate towards disruption and need careful and diligent use of the admin tools. Secondly, there are cases such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this (particularly "please, do be more careful in the future EvergreenFir, with your hasty reverts and then slapping it on my talk page") and this warning for edit-warring which put together suggests she has accrued a large number of enemies, who could all come together at an RfA and sink it with multiple oppose votes over a variety of diffs.

I appreciate that's just a cursory view of things by skimming over EvergreenFir's contributions, but in my view there is far too much risk giving her the "block" button and I cannot trust her with it at this time. The best person I think who could give you further advice is Montanabw who has been in the same situation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification Ritchie333 and understand your concerns. To me, the Corbett thing is ancient history (I've not directly interacted with him in over a year), but I understand that not everyone feels that way. I've gained a better sense of boundaries and norms since the Corbett thing (and yes, it was a train wreck and handled very poorly by many people) and know which issues not to touch in any admin capacity. I hope to not be held accountable for dozens of folks' actions, but understand my association with the mess. The warning was from a misunderstanding of a joke I posted on NeilN's talk page. You are correct, though, that I've butted heads with some folks in the past, especially since I edit on social science, politics, and current events rather frequently. I do not actively seek out drama (I hope the past 1.5 years has shown that I've learned that lesson), but my areas of expertise and interest do attract drama unfortunately. The white pride page, for example, was inundated with trolls due to the first image in this search making the rounds of social media. I think Doug Weller can attest to the trolling. But your points about hard feelings and mistrust are honestly my main concerns with an RfA. I feel I've maintained a cordial relationship with folks I've disagreed with in the past (happy to ping a few if you want their input), but I have no way of knowing if they feel the same. FWIW, I do fully understand the gravity and responsibility that comes with the tools. They are not warning templates or reports to AIV and are a last resort to stop disruption. In cases where I know my POV might be getting in the way or where I have history with a person, I am more than happy to ask for 2nd or 3rd opinions, make reports at ANI if necessary, or simply leave it to someone else. I find parallels with teaching: most cases can be handled with dialogue or warnings, but when a student does something repeatedly or egregious it requires a higher level response. In those cases, I consult with colleagues to see if I'm being too harsh or unreasonable (though I'm usually the "softy" in my department when it comes to student discipline). I wish I could demonstrate in some way that I understand the difference, but I know it boils down to trust. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest,

WP:AN3 by an editor who screamed "FUCK OFF" in an edit summary but I felt was actually right on the merits of BLP (that doesn't obviously mean that I felt the edit summary was acceptable, rather that it was by the far the lesser evil than having false and potentially libellous content on Wikipedia). I wouldn't normally go as far recommending this, but I think in your instance you could build a lot of bridges by improving a few articles to GA from scratch, and seeing what it's like when you put a lot of work into something, only to have people fiddling with spelling, citation formats, or infoboxes, or add unbalanced and / or unsourced content. At the moment, there are too many people who do not trust you can keep a level head with them, and doing some article work will meet them half way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

00:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for the comments and input. I agree that white pride is not the sort of place one goes to have an easy time (or black pride, which I worked on and helped at least get sourced and up to minimum standards), but someone has to do it I guess. I generally trust myself now with the contentious topics (I follow Donald Trump's page, though I utterly despise him, because I know BLP violations when I see them and am willing to remove things I otherwise might agree with in private; same with Dr. Luke or Roosh V). I think your point about working on GAs is a good one; you are correct that at the time I did not appreciate the amount of time and work that goes into even a simple page. Pioneer Cabin Tree took me 1.5 hours to get up to where I wanted it, and it's a C-class, B-class at best. I do have a draft page I'm working on of a larger article. I can think of a few article that might be near GA that I could work on. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• 8/10 - Ritchie brings up some good points, but you're a decent editor, as everyone else has said (70,000 edits and a clean block log = very good) and I'd be likely to !vote Support. Patient Zero^talk 13:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I was pinged here, and this is my advice: For those of us who have done stuff that has been controversial, the bottom line is how a person responds under pressure. You have to show by your actions that you aren't going to abuse the toolkit, and especially the block button. I am thinking about running again, myself, and Ritchie333 raises a good point that my last RfA is illustrative of the ways the process can be daunting. You will have every mistake you've made since joining wikipedia discovered and questioned; some things you've totally forgotten about will come up. You will even have some people make remarks that come out of left field—there was stuff said at mine that needed to be oversighted. You need to figure out how to make it clear that you can distinguish between having your strongly held personal views and how you would behave as an admin. You might fail on your first attempt, I did. I've dusting myself off and am thinking about trying again (see below), and I take heart from the experiences of those who eventually succeeded on their second or third try. I won't give you a polling number on your chances, because I suspect you will have a rough go either way. If your experience is like mine, be aware that you will probably be doxxed off-wiki, subjected to both on and off-wiki canvassing by opponents, and it is not impossible that there could be real-life harassment (what I dealt with was minor, but it was mean-spirited and annoying—and it was an attempt to go after my real-world work). But you, like me, may decide it's worth doing anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear, I am fine with constructive criticisms and concerns at RfA, but I find personal attacks, doxxing, outing and harassment utterly abhorrent and unacceptable. If I wanted to see dirt dug up, I'd read the National Enquirer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't provided a thorough review, but you fall within my "Wait, they're not an admin already?" bundle. That's an easy support from me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• I admittedly know very little about the Eric Corbett issue raised above, but I thought I'd leave my two cents here as somebody who successfully ran at RFA despite a fair bit of my content work being in a monstrously contentious area. A few things that seemed to help were that I had content work in non-contentious areas, too; that even if I had exhibited temperament issues at various points, I had learned from them: that I had managed to avoid being on the wrong end of drama for a good while before my RFA; and the fact that my content work stood up to scrutiny from folks who were not deeply entrenched in their positions in the topic area. I don't have the time to determine whether these things are true for you, just thought I'd offer them as food for thought. One thing I did not have was particularly heavyweight opposition: though my oppose numbers were somewhat high, a lot of them (not all, certainly) came from the fringes. So if you do think some heavyweights will come out to oppose you, perhaps look at addressing those issues before any RFA, or even plans thereof. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Editing in contentious areas should never be a bar to becoming an Admin, although it might make you enemies. And I agree about the trolling. I can see where Ritchie is coming from and you may have a bit of a rocky time, but that's life. If you fail, you can try to fix the problems and run again. Sadly Montanabw may be right. I know I've been attacked off-wiki partially because of my being active in some fringe archaeology issues, here and in the past elsewhere. Again, that's what happens if you work in certain areas. Vanamonde's last sentence may be relevant, you may need to work on some issues first. But I'm with Rob in the end. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10-- per Ritchie333. Harassment of another user, particularly Eric, is enough to ring alarm bells. Cassianto^Talk 13:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10 - your name pops up in many maintenance areas I visit frequently, and I've often been surprised that you've not run for RFA yet as you obviously know your way around. My general observation is that you get involved in controversial areas, which is an asset because you're no stranger to conflict and you're obviously willing to dig into difficult administrative situations, but also a liability because you've no doubt earned yourself some enemies here and so surprising things are likely to come up in your RFA. Absolutely make sure that you passively distance yourself on-wiki from any real-life political leanings (do it, but don't look like you're doing it) as far in advance of your RFA as possible, there have been quite a few wacky opposes lately over perceived and projected political biases, but at least as of now a wacky oppose is still counted against you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 - This project should be an indication of how we think others will vote on RfA, not generally an expression of our own probable votes, but we may offer advice. Being a female is of course fine, and the community is genuinely favourable towards electing women admins. Socio-political activism however, is regarded with a very critical eye and many voters will be wary of trusting admin candidates to be neutral in such areas. I can personally understand why anyone would like to have a go at people who may be perceived as misogynists or admin haters, but poking those bears is unwise - they have friends; our strange policy also demands that we tolerate incivility by prolific content creators, turn the other cheek, and paradoxically allow them the satisfaction of knowing that they will always come off best. After all, RfA is their one playground where they can say what they like with impunity. The solution is to help out with backlogs in maintenance areas but stay away from drama boards, Arbcom cases, and other contentious areas for a year and perhaps get a couple of articles promoted to GA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't plan on running for a while due to time commitments, I'd just like an idea of how successful I'd be should I decide to run. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• 0/10 at this time - Don't take this badly, it's just conventional on Wikipedia to require at least a couple of years experience and more than 10k edits before a candidate is taken seriously by the community. You've been here for less than a year and have 7,000 edits (1,377 non-automated edits in the main namespace). Keep working on stuff that interests you, involve yourself in deletion debates, try not to get blocked, and wait a year or so and ask again. You can see some semi-formalized critera
  talk
  ) 20:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• As per Brianhe, and referential to [4]. Cheers,
  ^{...Imperatrix mundi.}
  08:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• As per above, Concentrate on admins areas and perhaps come back in a year or so. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 at this time . Far to little demonstrable experience. Admins are supposed to be able to read instructions - so it's back to the top of this page you go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I ran previously in the fall of 2015 and I am ready to try again. Running a poll has been recommended to me before I toss my hat in the ring. I am a prolific content contributor (93,000 edits) with a 10 year history and absolutely clean block log, but I faced quite a bit of opposition last time around. Since that time, I have obtained the page curation and page mover toolsets and I believe I have handled them responsibly. My continued interest in the admin bit is because I have an interest in: 1) Being able to work with protected areas, such as building queues for DYK; 2) having the tools to protect articles; 3) to be able to delete articles if needed and, conversely, to view, and when appropriate, restore deleted content; 4) to assist generally in areas where there are backlogs or a severe shortage of admins; 5) Other duties as needed. I have mulled over the feedback that I received last time around, and I would hope that the record will reflect that the biggest concerns raised have been addressed. I invite comments. Montanabw^(talk) 17:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Assuming you're going to run soon .... I'm not going to give a rating as I've got absolutely no idea; it depends entirely on who turns up to the RfA, what arguments they make, how well they make them, and who else agrees with them. It could be a straight pass with a few grumpy opposes, it could be a 'crat chat, it could tank within 48 hours of opening. I haven't got a clue.

As you know, I've spent time recently looking at things again and chatting to you via email because I would have loved to stick you on the pile on the recent good run of RfA candidates - but I can't do it in good confidence if I don't have conviction you will pass. I can't doubt your enthusiasm and dedication to the place, and there are areas where you can do a lot of positive work with the tools. However, I've also asked around my group of regular RfA enthusiasts (mainly to see if I could put a nomination together) and there are a number of people who I am absolutely positive will !vote oppose if they get a chance. I can only repeat what I said in November, which is : "better calls at AfD, don't let your systemic bias concerns get in the way of policy, keep calm and DGAF about critics. If you can adopt that attitude for the next six months, we could be onto a winner". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• We also had some discussion by email, and my offer still stands for a time when we can all be fairly certain of a pass. I'm not 100% sure that that time has quite arrived yet and at the moment my thoughts are very much the same as Ritchie333's. Let's see how this poll goes and hope that those participating here remember that this poll is an assessment of how we think the community will express itself rather than how we would personally vote. Let's not get too excited about 7 or 8 passes in the first two weeks of this year - if the math has anything to do with it, we have reached the 2017 'quota' already! During the next six months there may also be some positive changes at RfA which might help those who really want to vote objectively to understand more about the process, while convincing trolls and serial opposers that it's probably not the best venue for testing their back-office skills. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  Have you reconsidered your own appraisal of "her frequent brash and snarky outbursts"? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, I do hope that is a purely rhetorical question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would not hesitate for a second to support the nomination, and admittedly, we've had our differences in the past. She never raised her voice, worked toward compromise, provided options to consider, and exercised patience. I would think that any editor who is worth their salt could see there are far more positive reasons for giving her the mop than not. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• (6/10) which is bollocks, because that's what I think your chances are, not what I would vote. You're an outstanding candidate and would 100% be a net gain for the project, but having been around a while, and while we have "commentators" like Colonel Warden/Andrew Davidson who will work damn hard to find any reason to oppose you, I couldn't give you more than a 60/40 right now. You dare to stick your neck out and that's something I hold in the highest regard, but the community has recently demonstrated more of a passive tendency which your style may not suit. That notwithstanding, I'd be fully behind you, let me know when you go live. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't usually give percentages, but I agree with Ritchie that this would be a toss-up. I'd probably go neutral myself. It's hard to support after this interaction, though I doubt I'd oppose outright. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure of a percentage, so won't give one. RationalObserver was fueling the oppose flames on the last RFA, and she is obviously gone. I'd support, but some people may go out of their way to stir up dramahz. I don't think that's a reason not to run, though! Overall, I think you'd be a good admin and could help a lot at DYK, which we are both pretty active at. Revdel would also come in handy on some of the BLPs, and I don't see a reason not to give you a mop. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• 5/10 - 86 opposes is a lot. More, in fact, than any RfA in the last 5 years (besides Hawkeye7, who got 95). I don't think the issues raised there have been fixed in their entirety. For instance, regarding AfD judgment, this !vote was a month ago. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• "and I would hope that the record will reflect that the biggest concerns raised have been addressed." They haven't been. I'd oppose.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• (6/10) I'm agreeing with TRM here. I remember your last RfA, which left me with the impression that you not only make a great admin, but a good friend. You'll certainly have my vote if you run again. In order to pass, you need to keep the number of opposes down to about 50, and get 150+ support votes - somewhat more than last time. This should be do-able. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I was not very active when you ran last, but have read through you RFA since. First off, that was one of the nastiest RFA's I have seen for a while. You behaviour in it was exemplary though, which went against many of the temperament concerns raised. I have not really interacted with you, I half remember some comment at organic farming or a related article which rubbed me the wrong way, but most of the times I see you discussing things they have been constructive. Although while not referencing me, the strength more in numbers than in argument comment did raise my eyebrows and could be interpreted negatively. However, the biggest issue seems to be a concern that you would take admin actions in support of your friends. This is tricky, because I do not know how someone can prove that they won't do something. I know someone with you tenure and experience would know what
  WP:Involved means, but you may need to emphasise this. You should probably address the AFD percentage[5] as some will rely on that, although personally I don't have a problem with it as it should be more about the arguments made. Like others I have absolutely no idea how a second RFA would go. If you and Hawkeye run at the same time it would be a very interesting week. AIRcorn (talk)
  07:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't the confidence to give you a rating, but I'll say this much. The last time you ran I !voted oppose, reluctantly, for what I perceived was an unwillingness to let things go. This was not tied so much to any philosophical/political views, but to behavior in disputes in general. After more than a year in which I have encountered your work numerous times, I have regretted that !vote, and will support if you run again. However, this is not because my concern has been addressed, but because I find it outweighed by your enormous positive contributions to this project, and the potential for more. I don't think everyone will judge the balance the same way, which I believe should be food for thought in the time before you actually run (I do think you should run eventually, provided, of course, that you don't believe it will be too dispiriting an experience). Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 per The Rambling Man: Well, at XFD, are you a a secluar includsionist? A lot of keep votes indcate your a bit good on XFD. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• 6/10 or lower. In addition to arguments brought the last time, I will oppose and will bring more recents diffs. You do make a lot of good contribs but you have demonstrably shown bad judgement in some places as well as obvious wiki-politics (in other words, the whole "supporting friends/attacking enemies" thing), and the diffs showing that will drive many no !votes. How many, nobody can predict. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, no chance. You have too many fervent opponents. →StaniStani 13:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• The last run was quite a while ago now and was one of RFA's low points in several ways. The Opposse has generally been better behaved since then. I think that another run would still be contentious, but many of those who opposed over a year ago will support unless there are problematic diffs from the last year. ϢereSpielChequers 14:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Go for it. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Montana, I have no idea how to guess what would happen, but I'd like to see you try. I do think a lot of the opposes would support now. You've got numerous FAs and GAs, you know the place like the back of your hand, and you'd be great at helping to resolve disputes. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• It's not encouraging to find stuff like this August 2016 ANI. I don't have an immediate opinion on the merits of that complaint as I haven't read all of it, but it's just discouraging to find big sections at ANI with your name in the title. How are you getting along these days with Rjensen? wbm1058 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

in response to wbm1058: Montanabw and I have been avoiding each other since 1995. I'm still angry about her apparent need in 1995 to control Wikipedia affairs in Montana, to the extent of repeated deletions of non-controversial information without giving helpful ideas re alternative views or RS or even civil explanations. Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Really Rj? Wikipedia didn't exist in 1995. I also did not start editing Wikipedia until 2006. Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Finally I agree with Montanabw on something. I wrote '1995' and I really had '2015' in mind. Time does fly. Rjensen (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rjensen:, the ANI you cite is a vicious pre-emptive strike and as such, for the OP an almost blockable PA/harassment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: note that it was wbm1058 who cited the ANI pablo 10:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

re: "vicious pre-emptive strike", that may be, but I'd ask why that is happening. Most admins don't often have such attacks launched against them, do they? Evidence of how she diffused conflicts before they escalated to noticeboards would help her case. An olive branch handed to Rjensen would be nice to see too. wbm1058 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to think the opposes will change their mind this time around. I would have opposed the last RFA if I voted even without knowing back then they had been previously desysopped. Montanbw does fine at a lot of content work when there is no controversy. Add in disputes though, and I've seen a tendency to antagonize the situation, which is the exact opposite of what an admin should be. I can think of a few editors, including myself, who could present diffs showing the same belligerent behavior since the last RfA that was so concerning. At the end of the day, a lack of admin tools isn't going to prevent Montanabw from content creation, and the same problems are going to come up again if they go for another RfA.
  talk
  ) 17:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• One small point - Montanabw was never desysopped - they've never been an admin. The last RfA was the first RfA as you can see at this link. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Hawkeye's poll (and Ivanvector's comment) bled into this one as I was scrolling down. I struck that portion out. No wonder I was surprised by the thought in the first place.

talk

) 00:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Pretty much the same as Kingofaces. I do not see any real improvement since the last RFA in temperament. I highly doubt a majority of people will vote for admin a user who when in a conflict situation makes things worse. I would only go ahead with another RFA if I was feeling particularly masochistic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Of the 86 opposes last time, if you generalise the issues raised, do you think you've substantially addressed m/any? This (well, maybe combined with the arguably better moood at RfA at the moment) is the key point. --
  old fashioned!
  11:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Dweller, I am glad to see the feedback and food for thought provided here. I'm not seeing any surprises, but overall I am heartened by the responses. I am mulling over my answers to the "classic three" questions that are answered at a RfA nom so that those responses will address your question, and the questions others have posed here. Anyone who wants to discuss my potential (and probable) candidacy further with me directly is certainly welcome to send an email if they have private comments, or they can chat publicly on my talk page. For anyone watching this poll, it will be at least a few weeks to a month before I actually file, as I have some RL things that have to take the front burner for the immediate future. Stay tuned. Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• I supported you before and I shall again. I still hang my hat at support #104 by Drmies. He echoes my opinion. I cannot assign a number (too many variables: which is why I do not fill in brackets for
  March Madness). The thrill is in the unknown. If you have the heart for it, I will show up in support. All the best Fylbecatulous talk
  22:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This, of course, is not your own personal rating of the editor, but a prediction of whether or not the candidate would succeed in requesting administrative privileges.Cheers,

^{...Imperatrix mundi.}

22:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not everyone who has commented has assigned a number rating for success / failure. Ping me when all else do; until then I likewise defer. Fylbecatulous talk 23:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

How about I ping

^{...Imperatrix mundi.}

13:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers in return, @

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:. ツ I look forward to seeing you in the actual run. All the best, Fylbecatulous talk

14:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Relevant? ツ

^{...Imperatrix mundi.}

15:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Apart from Wu (which is an ongoing gamergate crapfest), none of those linked had any indication of bias due to the sex of the person involved. Until you brought it up in one case. Without re-arguing the AFD's - A low-notability post-doc with little impact, a company of no real achievements, and someone who only made the press due to one event (regardless of her actual work). That these were women were irrelevant, they would have been nominated eventually even if they were men. On the other hand plenty of evidence was presented previously that in AFD's Montana was voting keep on women of low/zero notability because of their sex. Which is clear and demonstrated bias. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Your eagerness to nit-pick these examples proves my point. Those like Montana (and maybe me) who are associated with promoting diversity of coverage on ENWP, or any other contentious issue, will have an uphill battle. -

talk

) 16:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Conversely, your objection to having your claims scrutinized proves

Lepricavark (talk

) 18:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• As per Ritchie - It's a hard one and I have no idea how it would turn out nor do I have any idea where I'd stick my name if you ran again, I don't want to give a rating or say "oh yeah i'd support" when infact issues may crop up, It's a difficult one. –Davey2010^Talk 12:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Amortias (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)

Having previously run one of these in April last year I would be interested in seeing any changes in opinion or any new/different/same stumbling blocks.

• 5/10 - I expect that you will receive opposition for your AFDstats. In particular, the number/proportion of your delete votes, failed nominations, and overall participation. There will also likely be oppose !votes citing the limited number of articles you have created or significantly expanded. You might also receive questions about the apparent proficiency with which you edited when you started using this account. It may be advisable to disclose any prior accounts, even if from a clean start. Also, some editors may oppose for the appearance of over-eagerness as possibly suggested by your creation of a Portfolio, Admin Dashboard, and use of this userbox. Also, some editors may take issue with having another ORCP less than a year after the last one. There have been a string of successful RFAs recently, and maybe it could continue with you. Perhaps there are areas of activity outside of AFD that you could emphasize that would attract enough supporters.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The portfolio page was used (and had since been forgotten about) when I was asked to evidence things I had done for an application for access to OTRS.Amortias (T)(C) 10:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• 6/10: Mostly per Becky Sayles, but I still support you getting the mop with some constructive opposes. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10 I sense a pattern On a review of your contributions compared to recent successful RfAs and the currently "expectations" we see at RfA, I believe you would do well. You have some content creation, though you will get opposition for not having FAs and the such. Your pie chart looks good, and with 328 reports to AIV you could use the tools well. Your CSD log is mostly red. Please consider contacting a nominator or two and drafting your answers to the standard questions to get the ball rolling, but there's no rush -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 19:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 Started well, but editing has been less frequent for the last 10 months and voters will pick on that. Being an Arbcom clerk may be perceived as a plus by some participants, but others will see it as a deliberate stepping stone to adminship (which it often is). OTRS is a bonus, but it’s relatively easy to get (do they still strike off people who have not used it for 6 months?). You are of course aware of the staggering backlog at NPP - is there any reason why you stopped patrolling for 6 months only to start again 2 days ago? Nevertheless, it is nice to see someone using the Page Curation tool. Very few other kinds of patrols though. Some voters may take exception at some of the earlier (since removed) statements on your user page which may give rise to concerns about age and/or maturity. The only real fly in the ointment is this almost immediately after registering - most users don’t realise what a disservice they are doing themselves for a future run at RfA; it actually rings alarm bells - there are no spare seats in the admins’ cantina for power seekers. I would probably oppose an RfA attempt any time soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 Per Samtar and Becky Sayles. You're a good editor, and although RfA voters are notorious for nitpicking, I doubt that an edit that's over 2 years old, and made when you were a new user, will matter that much to most people, the only people that will care about that are the people that would oppose you anyway. You're an ArbCom clerk, which is also a positive, and you do good CSD tagging and vandal-fighting work. I would support you in this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10 - Amortias is a good editor with lots of participation in a large part of the project. I think that there is a great chance that an RfA would pass - I agree the AfD votes may be a sticking point for some people but overall I think that with the red CSD log, AIV reports and ACC participation, Amortias would succeed at RfA. -- Dane ^talk 23:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• 0/10 Per
  WP:CIR. Chris Troutman (talk
  ) 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 See the notice at the very top of the page and
  books
  } 17:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 - If you cannot do something simple as file this correctly then to be blunt there's no hope for you at all!, "Yo yo Sanjev here"[6] doesesn't do you any favours either!, Come back when you've grown up!. –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You know,

^{...Imperatrix mundi.}

17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope I have done a good job in editing Wikipedia so far and welcome any comments or suggestions.

Thank you,

• 0/10 For inability to follow instructions. This page is not for general editor feedback. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong?

23:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@

YITYNR: We used to utilize Wikipedia:Editor review for that purpose but it was shut down years ago. Yes, you can withdraw your request; just strike your request and leave a comment stating such. I'd recommend you ask individual Wikipedians you respect for their opinion. Chris Troutman (talk

) 23:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Hello! This candidate poll is my very first foray into the (potential) RfA world. But I've been around for 9 years so by no means do I expect punches to be pulled. Basically what I'm hoping for is feedback regarding "holes" in my Wikipedian resume. I know, for example, that I have very limited content creation experience. This has been pointed out to me as a potential RfA hurtle. I'll also point out that my contributions have some pretty significant time gaps. Pointing out any other issues you notice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance, —Non-Dropframe _talk 19:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• 4/10 Your absence from 2012 through 2014 might come up. And yeah you've created three articles unless I'm mis-counting, one of which is still a stub, so that might be an issue for some reviewers. Another issue will be the understanding/correct application of speedy deletion, considering light creation history plus warnings from a senior admin here (2009) and here (2015). Right now I'm going to say 4/10 because AfD has been kind lately and you have not been blocked, and the only case I see you named at in ANI was without merit. -
  talk
  ) 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your candid feedback. I'd like to think that a warning from 8 years ago wouldn't be too detrimental to my success, having always taken such criticism to heart and appropriately amended my practices. Again, I genuinely appreciate your comments! —Non-Dropframe _talk 22:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• 5/10: The inactivity issue give me pause, and also a majority of edits are automated. I would recommend you wait another 6 months before considering an RFA. (might time to remove the I wanna be an admin ubox?) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10: I don't think this edit count monthly profile will be met with much enthusiasm by the RfA crowd. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• 3/10: the fact that you had significant activity in only two months of 2016 (and seven months of 2015), with lengthy absences before and after, is enough to decisively sink any nomination. If you have at least a few hundred edits in every month of 2017 and can assure people of your intention to continue such regular editing, you could stand a chance in 2018, but I wouldn't try before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)