Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 7

Headbomb (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'm not really planning on running for admin, since I don't really need the tools (at least in as much as I'm usually patient enough that admins will eventually get to my db-move requests, or whatever it is I want to get done) and have zero desire to get involved in behavior policing or the dramaboards in an admin capacity, but I'm kinda curious to see what the feeling would be if I decided to run to get access to a couple more tools that'd make some maintenance easier, or review deleted some old article for salvageable content that could be merged into other articles. If support is high enough, I might let that convince me it's worth running, but it's mostly a hypothetical for now.

I've got a few hats already (filemover, templateeditor,

• I think you would coast through RfA. Please strongly consider running, I think you would be an even bigger asset to the community as an admin. Jenks24 (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  10/10: Great work! Strongly just go for it. Good luck at RFA! ;) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Changing score to 6/10: Not everyone need the admin tools but I'll advise you not to say "I don't need the tools" before considering an another RFA. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10 You've been around easily long enough to understand what admins do, the main concern is the attitude at ANI and elsewhere. 5 years ago you'd have got a lot of civility-based opposes, but you've dialled that back a lot in the past few years. It does still crop up in User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2016/October#I am displeased, so I'd expect a bunch of "candidate was mean to me waaah" opposes to crawl out of the woodwork. The edit-warring at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) doesn't help either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Although I'd probably advise against saying, I don't really need the tools, eh  ;)

^{...Imperatrix mundi.}

16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think that's an issue, I'd rather have somebody who could make use of the tools if people felt it was useful for them to have them, as opposed to somebody putting the "I wanna be an admin some day" box on their userpage (which more often than not is a warning sign). To be honest, I think if Headbomb ran for RfA today, I'd expect a similar trajectory to Montanabw. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

'Crawl out of the woodwork'? Something else to advise against saying on the big day perhaps. I expect you mean 'Good faith opposes' :)

^{...Imperatrix mundi.}

17:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I'd also argue that anyone that needs tools to get anything done hasn't been around enough, or needs to work on their patience. I don't have revdel rights, but that doesn't prevent me from dealing with things like

books

} 16:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• 4/10 Good work so far, and you have plenty of experience... BUT saying you don't really need the tools puts me off slightly. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • My personal feeling, having observed the process these past few months, has been that the majority of current RfA voters consider
    WP:NONEED to be a fairly weak argument for opposing a candidate, so I don't think this will significantly drop Headbomb's chances on its own. Mz7 (talk
    ) 01:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10 I think there is a fair chance that an RfA might succeed and I note that the score by Class455 probably reflects his own opinion of the candidate rather than an estimated possibility of a pass. Headbomb has certainly ruffled some feathers over the years, including mine, and for a long time I was of the opinion that his temperament alone would make him unsuitable for adminship - Ritchie333's comments above are not without importance, and woodwork-crawlers are also very much a reality at RfA. However, others who have more closely followed his career claim this to have become milder. Headbomb is certainly a highly dynamic and much needed kind of editor and in his work he would certainly come accross the occasions where the admin tools would prove useful, so I am left wondering why he personally does not feel a distinct need for them. Any attempt at RfA would need very carefully worded nominations from strong nominators, and the answers to the set questions would have to be the result of very careful penning, and stepping back from what I anticipate may be a natural tendency to riposte against some of the inevitable opposition. Headbomb can go for RfA any time he likes, there will be no 'take your time and consider running in a year's time' - certainly not from voters who actually know what RfA is all about (and many of them clearly don't). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 Like Kudpung and Ritchie333 said…You’ve ruffled some feathers and if my experience is any indication, they will all come out of the woodwork at the RfA. That said, if at first you don’t succeed, try again. It might take two runs, but if you stay above the fray and act like an admin during the RfA and thereafter, the second time may be successful. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10 – I've seen you around and have a positive impression of your work. Better not emphasize that you don't need the tools. People will probably accept that a person with 160,000 edits may occasionally run into a need for tools. You have stated "have zero desire to get involved in behavior policing or the dramaboards in an admin capacity", but this does take away some of the case for your adminship. It wouldn't be very risky to take on the task of blocking obvious vandals that you might run across while doing your other work. Also, handling requests for protection is unlikely to get anyone in trouble and is usually not hard to do. People might want to know your record on speedy deletion nominations and it wouldn't be difficult to enable logging for that. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@

books

} 18:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a good example since I don't have a CSD log, but see

WP:TW/DOC for how to turn it on. Twinkle is now a gadget and just needs you to enable it in Special:Preferences. From there I think there is a further step to create the CSD log. The template used here in the ORCP poll has an entry called 'CSD log' (if you have one set up) so many of the admin hopefuls who post here already have it on. This won't report on your previous speedies, only any new speedy tags may apply from now on. This might seem like busy work if you don't use speedy much, but the log is used by RfA voters to get a view of someone's judgment. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Bleeerghhh Twinkle. But I if it's a gadget now I suppose it's not tooo much of a big deal.

books

} 18:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad (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)

Hi, I'm GAB, and I'm interested in making a run for adminship. Currently, most of my work revolves around my SPI clerking, and I am seeking the tools (deleting pages and viewing deleted edits, history-merging cases, and blocking socks) to battle the daunting SPI backlog. I am also heavily involved in recent-changes and new-pages patrolling, and have considerable experience in CSD, RFPP, UAA, and the like. I have acted upon the recommendations in my previous RFA attempt by participating more in AFD, and have added further content work under my belt, including Operation Infinite Reach (DYK, GA, FA), 1995 CIA disinformation controversy (created, DYK, GA), and Carré d'As IV incident (DYK, GA). Thanks very much, GAB^gab 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not ready to assign a rating yet, could you briefly address
  talk
  ) 20:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• 7.5/10: (edit conflict) Good work, but almost half your edits are automated which can receive constructive opposes based on your edits. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Not in the habit of giving numerical ratings. At your last RFA, though, I was neutral leaning oppose because of a lack of mainspace, non-automated edits, and generally low content work. I think you've addressed both concerns. Another red-flag some folks raised was a conomination by an editor described as a Neo-nazi (I'm not acquainted with them myself); this, of course, you should avoid repeating. I did a quick run through your World War II work, and I see no glaring neutrality issues; but remember that thanks to that conom, folks will go through your contributions with a fine-tooth comb, and your edits need to stand up to far more scrutiny than I am currently able to give. Given that these were the substantial issues the last time around, I would see you doing well; personally, I'd probably support. Honestly we do need admins who have had experience with politically fraught content work, whose edits can still stand up to scrutiny...because there are other such messy areas which need attention. Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• SPI is definitely not trivial (even if username policing is); rooting out socks involves a lot of work and judgement. Both RfPP and CSD require careful thought, too, though I'm unclear what your "considerable experience" in them would be as a non-admin; if your requests regarding them are usually correct and acted upon by the admins who respond to them, this will be a good sign. Be prepared with answers for questions about ones that were rejected. The AfD participation will help, if you're usually on the prevailing side and your input was thoughtful not just obvious. GA and FA work will help mollify those who feel a strong content record is essential (I'm increasingly neutral on the matter, but there are many who are not). Not prepared to offer a percentile rating without further examination, but "better prospects than last time", surely. :-) PS: KGirlTrucker81 is correct. The way to resolve that is to just put away all automated tools (at least any that leave an editing history trace) for several months and edit the project manually. There are lots and lots and lots of people patrolling new pages, recent edits, and new users, so nothing will fall apart if you give baddie hunting a rest for a while.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Ive seen you around at SPI as a clerk and I do think you need the tools to expand your work in that area, as well as in other areas, but I do think a lot more mainspace work is required. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• 7.5/10: The automated edits are going to raise some questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8.5, 9 on a good day, 9.5 on a very good day with the wind behind you and a strong nomination statement and strong answers to the three standard questions. When you took Infinite Reach through FAC, I was very impressed and thought then that you'd make a good admin, but I thought the last RfA might have been a bit fresh in the memory. You were calm and responsive in your responses to criticism of your work, and getting a big article like that promoted involves lots of the same sorts of skills we look for in admins. Having people pick holes in something you've spent weeks writing requires patience and leaves you with policy shortcuts burnt into the back of your eyeballs. Most of the opposition in your last RfA focused on insufficient experience outside of Huggling. There's nothing wrong with vandal-whacking (it's essential, and it's bread and butter admin work) but adminship is about judgement and you needed something that showed that you can make complex decisions that involve weighing up policies. A year on, you've made a name for yourself doing other things and you've got a featured article to your name (hopefully the first of many). I wouldn't expect a unanimous pass because it's RfA—there will always be something you've done wrong or someone's toes you've trodden on, and some people will oppose for the sake of opposing—but I would say you're in with a good chance. I'd be more than happy to nominate if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8-9/10 - I agree with the comments above. Editors of your caliber have passed with relative ease. I shouldn't be generalizing like that though; it's bad. — 
  talk stalk
  14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8.5/10 – The automated edits are going to certainly raise some opposes, although I seriously doubt that will sink your second RfA. J947 18:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Cameron11598 (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)

Hello! I'm Cameron11598 and I'm considering make the run at

• 6.5/10 Good content creation. I've seen you at IRC, so I know that you're fairly active, but your edit count is low for someone who has been on WP for over 6 years. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 Good CSD and AfD stats, some GAs, and you've had an "attaboy" from Bishonen. If 6,500 edits is not enough to pass these days then I despair. Let's chat about getting an RfA set up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 Clean block log, a fair amount of content creation and involvement in the adminy-areas topped off with a calm and collected response to conflict and vandalism. Given the current RfA climate I personally think you'd pass if you ran now. Agree with Ritchie that 6500 ought to be enough editcountitis, and with his backing you'll sail through -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 15:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• You guys have more faith than I do. Some of the oppose reasons from a recent RfA: "just over 11,000 edits"; "only two years and 11,000 edits"; "11,000 edits, although a mesmerizing number to a budding Wikipedian, just doesn't cut it in an RfA". It may not sink the RfA entirely, but "only" ~7,000 edits will definitely garner some objections, unfortunately. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• ought, but not suggesting that Cam won't get some editcountitis-based opposes :-( -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 15:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I had over 24,000 edits at the time of my RFA, and I still got an oppose based on edit count...I'm not saying that such a concern would be justified, but it will be expressed. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• 8.5/10: Edit count is not a problem here, but your RFA could pass anyway with those constructive opposes. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8.5/10: Almost certainly a pass, but Julian is right: if, and it's a big 'if', the trolls would stay away with their ridiculous demands for high edit counts. No need to feel ashamed if it doesn't work out, plenty of our best admins passed at their second run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10 – I hate to be pessimistic, but I agree with
  !vote support, but expect a lot of constructive opposes. J947
  02:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• 4/5/10 - I would oppose purely based on the edit count & tenure alone, But I would probably also oppose due to the fact you've been at ANI more than any other Wiki-space here, There hasn't been much experience with UFAA or AIV either, and last but not least you've not really had much experience with AFD or any XFD either, All in all I personally don't believe you have much experience here to run for RFA just yet however I could be entirely wrong and your RFA might succeed, I suppose I'm a "troll" now but hey ho I'm sure I'll live with that. –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  That was a rollercoaster of a poll response! Having an opinion doesn't make you a "troll" --

  to explain

  ) 16:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks @Davey2010: for your perspective and insight, I don't consider you a troll by any means. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• 5.5/10. Sorry to rain on your parade. My best guess is that an RfA now would end somewhere in the 60s and either end up being withdrawn or being closed as unsuccessful. Yes, 65% and up is bureaucrat discretion, but in reality the bureaucrats only have discretion because they almost never use it, and crat chats have been consistent in declining to pass an RfA that has substantial, well-reasoned opposition, which I would expect yours to receive. There are a handful of things in your CSD log that raise an eyebrow just on a quick glance, you've made almost 450(!) edits to ANI which sends up lots of red flags, and the edits themselves tend to add little (an unnecessary closure here, a drive-by comment there, but nothing that improves the signal : noise ratio). I'm not seeing any evidence of judgement or decision-making or deep policy knowledge. A lot of adminship is about judgement and not rushing in headlong when you actually have no idea what you're doing (some would say that's rich coming from me, especially in my early days as an admin), and the large number of short comments at ANI suggest to me a tendency towards the latter. I'd want to see evidence of weighing up arguments and policies (be it at AfD or FAC or RfCs or somewhere else, but preferably not ANI) and more involvement in the project space. At the moment, I'd oppose. So why 5.5? Because your content work and work with the Wikipedia Library show dedication and promise. Carry on with that sort of thing, maybe write some longer articles on bigger subjects and aim for FAC (itself valuable experience), and get to know the back end a bit better and in a few months your chances could be much improved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 OK let's start with the good news. I don't see any real Red Flag issues (i.e. show stoppers). Your content creation looks good and you've been around for a while. The problem is that I see a number of Yellow Flags, which is to say issues that are going to make people pause and think carefully. If you get enough of those the tide tends to swing against candidates. Here are my yellow flag issues. Your edit count is low for RFA. Whether we agree with it or not, the current standard for most regulars at RFA seems to be 10k+. On the flip side your edit count at ANI, as already noted is a bit high. That's gonna cause more than a few editors to take a deep breath before pulling the support trigger. We don't want editors who look for drama as admins. And your behind the scenes work like AfD is also a tad light. A lot of this has already been pointed out above. My general take is that you are a good prospective future candidate, but you need to polish up your resume a bit. Here are my suggestions. Spend the next six months focusing on various adminny things like AfD AIV UAA and maybe see if you can help out at SPI which is perpetually backlogged. Maybe help out with closing some RfC's that aren't so contentious that people are going to insist on an admin closure. Avoid the drama boards. You've spent enough time there. And you can always try helping out in some of the areas that don't get a lot of love and attention like the main page (OTD ITNC etc.) and FTN. Then come back with the 10k+ edit count and we can take a second look. As of right now however, I think your chances of passing are dicey. If you do choose to run in the immediate future be prepared for a week of stress as I can all but guarantee you will get some oppose votes. In the end though I don't see anything that is likely to cause a SNOW close and the shortcomings in your resume are mostly correctable with a little focused editing in some of the neglected areas that people tend to look at in RfA discussion. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - It'd be 10/10 if it wasn't for the people who think edit counts & experience are the same thing. Feel free to counter them with the fact that someone once created 18,000 articles and they were all nonsense. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I realise Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dr. Blofeld is not likely to happen any time soon, but it's not very nice to call his work "all nonsense" :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear god, do not call the wrath of Blofeld down upon me! Exemplo347 (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I think HJ Mitchell who has made a greater in-depth assessment than I did, has made some very valid observations. Not all voters at RfA are drive-by ones (even if I may appear to assume that many of them are), and it only takes one seasoned RfA regular to oppose with the same rationale and it could make an RfA come tumbling down. I'll not revise my score, because I still think it could go either way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Would someone mind closing this? I have some self reflection to do before I make any choices. Thanks for the feedback everyone I really appreciate and will take the comments on where I need to improve to heart. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (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 have been considering running for admin and thought I would ask what others thought of my chances. I have been an editor since 2010 and have around 65,000 edits to my credit. I am basically an article creator / expander / improver with plenty of DYKs, GAs and FAs, some of the latter groups being joint efforts. I have won the WikiCup twice and am now a WikiCup judge. I am much involved at DYK, and am principally seeking the mop so that I can do more there, moving prep sets into queues and providing the administrator attention that is not always available at short notice. I would also aim to get more involved in maintaining the main page, another area where administrators are sometimes needed at short notice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• 3/10 To cut a very long story incredibly short, unless you can settle your differences with Fram (random example) I predict there will be just too many pile-on opposes to pass RfA. FWIW I see a similar trajectory to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thine Antique Pen (except you're probably older than 15). Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Although the vote is my view on how likely an RfA is to pass, I might as well give my personal view as well. You clearly have the project's best interests at heart and have continued contributing in the face of some pretty unpleasant abuse that would cause many a person to give up and go elsewhere. My concerns are typical of what I feel towards regular WikiCup contributors, in that you sometimes contribute a little above your station, and seem to try and run through a process to get the green blob or brown star at the end, at the expense of what is actually best for the article and the end reader. For example, in Talk:Severn Railway Bridge/GA1, I said the bridge's completion date was not in the source given, and you immediately removed the claim. While that technically means the article is closer to the "factually accurate and verifiable" part of the GA criteria, it conversely takes it further away from the "broad in coverage" - an article on pretty much any British bridge in the last 200 years will have a source somewhere with its completion date. If you'd said, "I haven't got a source, let me ask around" or "I can't verify this, what options have we got?", that would have been fine. Later on in the review, you pressed me for completion to meet the West Country Challenge; I said it would be done when it was done and there were still outstanding issues. Put that altogether and you've got someone who superficially seems to be doing a lot of really good work, and indeed in many cases probably does, but scratch beneath the surface and you find issues that just seem ... wrong. If you had the mop, I feel you'd slowly accumulate enemies, and it would grind you down so much you'd get completely frustrated and worn out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• You know you are possibly the strongest argument I've seen for unbundling the ability to edit fully-protected pages...I'm afraid I have to agree with Ritchie. Your content work is really solid, and that will bring you a number of supports: and you'll probably get a few more from people who have seen the massive amounts of hard work you put into DYK. That said, I can think of a few heavyweights who, justifiably or otherwise, will express strong opposition, and I'd guess that this will lead to enough pile-on opposition to sink an RFA. That said, you are no stranger to standing up to harsh criticism, so if you're willing, perhaps you should give it a shot. Yours is not the sort of candidacy that will necessarily be improved by waiting X months (unless by some miracle there are no difficulties at DYK for that period!). So if you can find some strong nominators, I'd guess it would do no harm to try. Vanamonde (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support you, but that may not be to your advantage. You're cool enough under pressure, you are neutral in tone and do a lot of very good work. The issues noted above will not help you cause, not because they don't make you worthy to be an admin, but because you're a human being and Wikipedians don't, in general, like human beings, they prefer robots. There is not one iota of evidence that you would be anything other than a net benefit to the project with the mop. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10: There are no age limits in any RFA, but there will be some opposes based on your age that you're too young. In my experience, I always hide my age when running a future RFA compared to yours. That's an tip for preparing an RFA. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe Cwmhiraeth has asserted at least once she is married with kids, so you must be getting confused with somebody else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And, of course

^{Imperatrix mundi.}

15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, its quite easy and a bit hard to prevent it. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• 4/10 - I would 100% support you without a doubt however the issue with Fram won't help the RFA and as noted above you need to resolve the issue with them before running otherwise your RFA will probably sink (In all fairness it may not but I have a feeling it will), You've done some amazing work at DYK and elsewhere so I'd happily support but I don't think others will, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 15:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10.
  Fram's would have got an admin hauled before Arbcom. I'm pleased to see that TRM would also support your bid for the mop, but again, his comments here are pertinent. Adminship is not a badge of honour, in fact it can be really hard work if taken seriously, and can make one a target for a lot of unwarranted nastiness. To the exception therefore, of the recent issue at DYK (I'm not judging anyone here) which could well be sufficient to scupper a run for the mop, your Wiki career is so illustrious, would you wish to damage it with a failed RfA? Not that the community would care two hoots of course, but I'm worried about how you would take it personally and how it would affect your enthusiasm for the encyclopedia. (BTW, if ever you need a second opinion on translations from German, you can always ask me). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 00:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 – You're a content creator, and one which will probably get a lot of supports. I don't think the issue with Fram is a
  RfA-sinking issue for you; although it would be for the vast majority of candidates. All in all, I'd support you for the bid. Honestly, I thought you already had the tools. J947
  02:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• 2/10. I was pinged here, so I might as well give my opinion. Apart from the DYK issues, there is the problem that an admin needs to show understanding of and experience with dispute resolution (even if they don't ask the tools for that reason, it still is one of the main reasons the tools exist). Cwmhiraeth's recent major example of an attempt at dispute handling is this ArbCom request about me, which was rejected unanimously and with some talks of a boomerang against Cwmhiraeth instead. I don't think that someone who believes the "evidence" he collected for that case is sufficient for an ArbCom case (or believes it even correctly represents the situation), someone who thinks taking admin actions against globally banned users is evidence of admin abuse, someone who thinks "secret" evidence is acceptable or convincing, someone who keeps that onwiki "evidence" page and keeps adding to it long after the case has been rejected, and despite requests to delete it, is in any way ready to pass an RfA. I see little to no evidence of dealing with vandals, deletions, disputes, ... Their editing has markedly improved since the 2014 lows, but being a good editor doesn't necessarily makes someone fit to be an admin.
  Fram (talk
  ) 07:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I asked Fram to comment here because many people will be unaware of the matters at issue between us. Fram criticized some of my actions at DYK and tried unsuccessfully to get me sanctioned at the TRM ArbCom case, to which I was not a party. I later tried to initiate an ArbCom case against Fram concerning his behaviour. This was declined by the committee, not because the case had no merits, but because there was insufficient evidence to proceed and sufficient prior dispute resolution had not been undertaken. The "evidence page" to which Fram refers, is a sandbox where I had collected diff's that supported my arguments. I have hardly added to it in recent months and could delete it, but doing so because Fram requested me to delete it just didn't appeal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You should delete it because that is required by policy. That you let personal animosity overrule policy is a good reason why you shouldn't be an admmin.

Fram (talk

) 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now deleted it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, the arbitration case was rejected as it did not 'meet [the] criteria for acceptance,' and was 'unripe for arbitration.' Further, at least one admin. was 'tempted to accept [the case] for boomerang purposes' and that ultimately your 'choosing to interpret people's reactions as "closing ranks" rather than taking the feedback you're receiving and considering your own contributions to the issue is unlikely to lead to a resolution.' Unfortunately, I think it will take a while for that Arb case to be erased from the colllective memory. Just my OpEd. —

O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.}

11:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• 6/10 because you are a wonderful content contributor and would be a very good administrator, I would support you. But you will be fighting the usual opposition that I too faced - most content contributors make a few other editors unhappy and these sorts of fights become !oppose !votes at RfA. (Though probably fewer than I had because I’m more openly feisty — LOL!) You have shown that you have a lot of grit and determination and I don’t see having conflicts as disqualifying, though some folks do. I think it is more important to look at how the disputes work out, how a person responds when under attack and the fact that you’ve stayed here and kept on doing content work is impressive. Your block record is clean. And Fram, (nodding to Fram) sometimes can be kind of difficult; I don’t see a spat with a few users to be disqualifying so long as you didn’t get blocked as a result. Frankly, people who have survived the tranches are apt to be better admins than someone who has barely been here a minimum amount of time and has never had to defend a GAR or live through a series of drama board battles. I don’t think having a failed RfA is a huge issue (I’ve got one, I’m still here and I AM going to try again if I get enough mental space in real life for another round of outing, doxxing, off-wiki personal attacks, and dealing with the really weird people who vandalize my personal business page with fake reviews, etc…) The one thing that Ritchie333 is right about, though, is the way that people who become admins can get ground down by the trolls… I’ve seen it happen to a number of admins who now have a “retired” banner on their pages and that is a real issue to think about. Montanabw^(talk) 03:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Wouldn't recommend it. I would happily support but it's likely to be a bruising experience and I have a feeling adminship wouldn't make you happy anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Note that Cwmhiraeth has just shown another aspect making him unfit for adminship. In an Arbcom case I just started against admin Magioladitis, Cwmhiraeth added a comment with the first paragraph indicating that they didn't even understand the simple basic issue at the origin of the case, and using it to reiterate his failed ArbCom request against me with quotes like "Fram targeting certain vulnerable individuals by humiliating and bullying them". Making personal attacks to further your own, already soundly rejected case in an unrelated case you don't even understand (and inadvertently calling admin Magioladitis a "vulnerable individual") is harassment, not sound dispute resolution.
  Fram (talk
  ) 07:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I will not be running for admin in the near future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – I will rate you later, but just looking through you're recent contributions, there seems a lot of
  !voters. In regard to: No doubt some would auto-oppose simply because I have edited on political topics, you might want to see Schwede66 (a major contributor to New Zealand politics)'s RfA, which passed almost unanimously. I'd !vote support if you put up a RfA. J947
  19:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Ticks all the right boxes; as for politics (but- no religion? lightweight!), we need candidates who are willing to dirty their hands on the sordid underbelly of this thing. After all, the last man who entered
  ^{Imperatrix mundi.}
  19:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't want to give a vote just yet, but the conversation at User talk:Ritchie333#Shelby Cragg just gives me pause. Okay, I snapped and lost my temper, you didn't, but I'm concerned your views on what constitutes CSD A7 may cause similar problems to what was seen at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dodger67 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CaroleHenson. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah ha. I was waiting for this one. I 100% stand by the position that citations in and of themselves do not constitute a claim of significance. Anyone with a public facing job can probably find some citation for the fact that they exist and do what they do. In A7 the onus is on the article creator to make some credible claim which is well below the standard of notability; whereas in AfD the onus is on the nominator to do an in-depth search and verify that the subject is not in fact, existentially notable.

I appreciate that the guidance you cited gives helpful advice, but I would probably not support this particular portion if it were put forth for promotion to a guideline, because if a person is in fact notable, it should not be difficult to make any claim whatsoever that meets A7. In fact, for someone who is patently non-notable, A7 should be an easy standard to meet even if the author is outright lying.

TimothyJosephWood

21:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A follow-up conversation is at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#A7 - still a viable reason? The problem in the context of RfA is not one of who's right and who's wrong; rather you just need enough people to write convincing enough oppose votes with diffs to sink it, and then enough people to side with that point of view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would point out that I've been on the project since 2008, and I never argued that I was more experienced, but rather that I was correct in principle, where I believe you were lowering the already quite low standard of A7. But I "get" that A7 is de facto the average of reviewing administrators, and is subjective by its very nature, although less so than PROD. I'm also starting to "get" that this process is apparently more like running for public office than an actual evaluation of individual merit. If I fail that standard that's fine. The most exciting part about the whole project is finding a well documented area that's not yet been covered, and being the first person to fill that gap, and I don't particularly care what permissions I have as long as it doesn't interfere in that process. Having extra bits is convenient only in as much as it makes that easier. Being an admin would only serve to make me more productive to the project as I look for those holes.

TimothyJosephWood

22:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Timothy, I often find myself agreeing with your opinion whenever I see you comment on an admin board. Nonetheless, someone who glanced quickly through your ANI contributions might get the impression that you are argumentative. If you can come up with any examples of where you have helped to resolve a dispute, or calm down someone who was angry, that could help your case. If you are in fact someone who likes arguments, then you might be able to balance out your reputation if you would do more work in some of the more (usually) peaceful areas such as article development. For instance, if you sometimes rescue articles that would otherwise have been deleted, that would be significant. If you have already done some of these quieter things then gathering some of this evidence would help in an RfA. Your work at AfC appears good, and I see you've done a lot of uncontroversial moves. You have stated above that RfA is like running for office and that sounds correct. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, there is this ANI thread, which put me in touch with Ltbuni, with whom I helped to negotiate a dispute on Ferenc Szaniszló, and who came back later to ask my help in resolving a dispute on Sebastian Gorka. There is also this comment recently referring to another ANI thread (I'm afraid I've contributed enough to make finding diffs hard) where I invoked IAR in order to link to a discussion at the refdesk talk, rather than starting a new ANI thread. As I stated in this thread, I enjoy mediating disputes and lose that enthusiasm pretty quickly as I become a belligerent, and have actively warned users against posting at ANI for no other purpose other than being argumentative as can be seen here, which was seconded at some point at ANI by User:Bishonen in a diff too buried to resurrect.

As a matter of practice, I don't post at ANI unless I think my contribution will likely lead toward an end to the thread. I do post the occasional friendly banter, and was probably rightly warned against it recently by Floquenbeam; a rebuke the validity of which I fully accept.

But overall, I end up at ANI the same way I end up at most other places: because I'm looking for disputes to resolve or articles to contribute to. This is the same way I browse new file feed on

TimothyJosephWood

01:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling it a "rebuke", but I do think it was an unwise comment, and simple removal was better than making a big deal out of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• 6/10: Most of your ANI contributions are good but I prefer people to stay away from the drama boards as the voters would probably oppose based on that. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• 5/10 I would be neutral, leaning oppose, primarily because you tend to be a bit tendentious at times; and note you are already arguing with people here who are trying to point out potential problems with a future RfA. It’s one thing to have vigorous discussions about content or at the dramaboards, it’s another altogether to model argumentative behavior where you need to be showcasing who you are at your best. Montanabw^(talk) 22:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it took me about a day to realize that I'm not actually expected to respond to these ratings. I don't really hang out here and that's my bad.

TimothyJosephWood

00:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• 8/10 It'd be 10/10 were it not for the fact that people obviously have bees in their bonnets about certain issues. A high post count at AN/I shouldn't be a reason to turn someone down for Adminship - prospective candidates are told to get experience at admin-based tasks and AN/I is one of the most high-profile. Yes, tempers can get slightly frayed but it's not just the non-admins who lose their tempers. Personally, I'd see a low AN/I participation level as an issue - experienced editors should be willing to dive in and resolve conflicts, getting their hands dirty, rather than sitting back and watching the drama so they can drag up "offending" diffs months later. Wikipedia needs admins who are willing to perform tasks that may draw a bit of flak - reluctance by admins to take definitive action on serious issues has caused at least 2 major problems in the year I've been editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 - drawing this discussion back to an evaluation of what we think the candidate's chances are rather than an expression of how we would vote ourselves, I would reiterate the comments by Montanabw and EdJohnston which concur with my own perception, suggesting that RfA participants basing their votes on such issues can easily turn a bid for the mop into a non starter. Nevertheless, it could go either way and I'm not sure which way I would vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 – Good work; although I'd recommend coming back in ~6 months and giving this another whirl. I largely echo others comments and please refer to my first comment for further analysis. Support from me. J947^(c) 05:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Object Not the right person for adminship, some are just not. There are many who does this voluntary work and its almost everyone's despair in wiki for not having the tools to be more productive. Some just do what they do and their way of handling might be interesting, there are seasons too were one might get an easy adminship as a wise admin once commented it only takes 4 months of clean and active work for passing the qualifications. Giving user-rights is one thing but giving adminship for people with a history of games, poor social and supportive skills or similar mentality will only further problems than solving it. Shutting down a problem is easy, appealing to active users for personal gains only requires investing time but for really solving problems it takes leadership qualities (takes time) and in a voluntary work such as wiki it takes a heart of service or the place will remain and remind of a sordid underbelly even if it has functioning laws.

"we need candidates who are willing to dirty their hands on the sordid underbelly of this thing"

The rest is drama and this is what I stated. Let an admin candidate truly come out through the wiki system as a person of quality, better standards of engagement and with a 2-3 years of solid history (there should be clerks evaluating the activity history with some sort published standards). Not with a false balance of boiler plate support votes.59.96.163.132 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have a hard time taking seriously a logged-out user hiding behind an IP in Kollam to throw stones. If your opinion was valuable you wouldn't display such cowardice in expressing it. I'm glad Timothyjosephwood can see first hand the sort of behavior mop-swingers have to deal with. I find it amazing we have contributors that will volunteer to be admins knowing this is the price for exercising authority. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a hard time taking seriously any person who uses the term "sordid underbelly". I mean,

TimothyJosephWood

18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)