Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Blythwood (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)

Having recently passed seven and a half years of editing Wikipedia and 40,000 edits, I'm starting to wonder about an RfA. I'm probably best known on here for my edits to font and typography articles, but I've also done quite a lot of NPP, some vandal reversion, and other things, including a lot of edits to Wikidata on the topic of UK geography. I've now done five GAs (although one was when standards were much lower, so I don't really count it). I guess my weaknesses are being a bit fat-fingered sometimes and occasionally rushing into making edits, and also that my main topic of editing is obscure, meaning I don't really have to do much collaborative work with other contributors, and BLP issues rarely arise. I'd be grateful for peoples' thoughts. If you're interested in my approaches to contributing I guess my my guide to spotting hoax articles and template messages for communicating with new users are a good start. Blythwood (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• ...do you have a particular task that you might use the tools for? You look pretty close from a scan. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Article protection and blocking vandals, perhaps also revdel. It's always frustrating to see vandals running around and your request on AIV sitting there. (I once ran into a vandal-presumably not their first account on here-with the username "Report me to AIV", incidentally...) Requests for permissions, especially autopatrolled. And quickly deleting hoax articles and attack pages: again it's good to get these deleted fast. Blythwood (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• If you see people blatantly creating sock puppets to engage in vandalism, you might as well tell a CheckUser on their talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm (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)

Well, I honestly see a bit of a need. It seems like there's frequently backlogs at RFPP, AIV, UAA, AFDs needing closure, etc. My approach for most of my time on Wikipedia has been that if there's a need for more hands, I'm willing to chip in and help with it if the community views me as capable. So I'd consider an RFA in the next 2-6 months if I was in a spot where I might have community trust. The pros: 50-odd GAs, including three BLPs, 2 FAs, and quite a bit of AFD experience. The cons: average CSD log (many of the blue links are from recreations), length of tenure, and I'm probably a rather obscure editor. Feel free to close this quickly if I'm nowhere near. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Shhh, I was going to send you an email about your chances in a week! I'll try and get something to you this weekend.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sent Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• I was going to email you about nomming you in about 3 months. I think your chances are very good, if you stop with the ‘nobody would ever consider me qualified to be an admin’ nonsense. Because they will. I’ll give a more thorough review shortly. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 7.5/10- I've personally had good interactions with you, and been following your work semi-closely. Your content creation and reviewing is exemplary. CSD log looks good in that it's mostly red, but I'm not qualified enough to pass full judgment. PROD log is fine. Edit summary usage is high. AFD votes that I checked are mostly good and defensible where they don't align with consensus. Good talk page interactions for the most part, and you seem to be willing to learn from mistakes-- a big positive. Now, why I didn't rate you a 10/10 right off the bat is twofold: As NBB points out below, you will likely get some opposes based on tenure. That doesn't faze me, I think you've demonstrated commitment and skill in spades over the past year. Additionally, discussions like this provide a good opportunity for you to show learning from mistakes, but we need a couple more months to see whether that happens. Finally, there are several places where I've seen you say something along the lines of ‘nobody would ever consider me qualified to be an admin’. That has really got to stop-- while it's great to not be gunning for an RFA, there might be kneejerk opposes along the lines of "If they don't consider themselves qualified, why should I?". You are qualified. You do have the right stuff, IMO. In three months, I think you could very well be a shoo-in. Barring a smoking gun, I'd be more than happy to co-nom you, though I suspect there may be others more qualified for the role. Anyways, just my 2c. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• 8.5/10 - obviously all the content side is excellent, standard RfA areas all look in good form. I'm not seeing any specific area that would benefit for more experience that is key, but I didn't rate you 10/10 as I imagine a few of the old skool will believe that more tenure is key. I disagree, and look forwards to you running whenever you choose to. Eddie's timeline seems reasonable Nosebagbear (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Seeing as you asked, and seeing as how you wanted me to be honest - no need to ask, do you remember the sign that used to be at the top of my user page? (Before it was hinted that it could be taken the wrong way.) Any hoo, elsewhere on Wikipedia I went public with "HF is clearly an administrator in the making" on 28 September. As NBB suggests, some of the old farts will grumble that you shouldn't be an admin until you have spent five years sweeping the floor and making the tea, but I believe that you would easily pass an RfA and I am quite sure that you would make a very good admin. If you are unsure, just think, if you were an admin you could bully me around - wouldn't that be fun? PS Eddie is correct - so go find a mirror and give yourself a good stern pep talk. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(yes, pushing Gog around is quite fun-- honestly it's probably why I ran in the first place-- -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC))

• I won't provide a rating here because while I would probably be supportive, from past experience of voting on over 400 RfAs it is likely that a tenure of just one year to the day is likely to create some highly significant opposition. The opposition might not tank the RfA, but could make it a hard and/or unpleasant ride. That's what this poll exists for: making a prognosis on how the community would vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know Hog Farm per se but if Eddie and Lee were going to fight over nominating him that's a good sign. Your point that running after exactly a year might be less pleasant than if he waited some longer time is also probably true. However, I am convinced that one way we make RfA a better place is by having candidates who we think can pass and who are willing to tolerate that experience run and pass. It shows other candidates it can be done. So I would say that shouldn't deter Hog per se it just should just factor into his decision making process. My caution for Hog is that listing his own cons is a tactical mistake and so he'd probably have stood a better chance of passing an RfA tomorrow, or some other near future time rather than 3-6 months from now, if he hadn't posted that. But also that too probably isn't a deal breaker. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't offer an opinion on Hog Farm at all, Barkeep49. I expressed, as this poll is intended, how the community might view such an RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• 8/10 - Just a note, if you were to run right now, I would personally oppose your RfA per my criteria, but you seem like an editor others would like. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• 8/10 or so. Nosebagbear's comment is well considered in my opinion. I am familiar with your work and your energy and accomplishments in such a short period of time. You are not obscure to those familiar with military history articles, for sure. You certainly seem to be knowledgeable and trustworthy and have good interactions. I would certainly !vote in support of you. I think you would pass now but as others have said, you might face opposition because of your length of time editing. If that is the only point anyone can raise, I don't think that would be enough for an unsuccessful RFA with everything else in your favor. But since I've seen a few strange results over the years, I also won't go to 10/10 just yet. Waiting a few more months and keeping up the good work would lessen that complaint, as Barkeep49 has noted. Donner60 (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• I don't often comment here, but 8/10 sounds about right. I have come across this editor at CFD (my specialism) and RFD, and he makes a lot of good calls, with sound reasoning, well expressed. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ampimd (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)

Interstellarity (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)

After almost two years of active editing, I would like to explore the possibility of adminship. First, I would not want to do a self-nom. I think it would look better on me if I get nominated by someone else. Second, I believe I have developed an advanced understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Third, I believe I have most of qualities the community is looking for when I comes to getting the mop. I listen to consensus, if another editor feels I have done something wrong, I examine my actions and make corrections if necessary. However, while my account is very old, I have blocked a long time ago and have been unblocked in 2019, I have shown that I care about the encyclopedia and willing to do what is best for the project. My tenure could also be an issue, but that can be fixed by editing longer. By editing longer, I develop more experience which is good for adminship. I feel the tools would be useful because I would like to help out at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV and possibly at WP:AFD. Other than that, I would like to hear some honest feedback about my chances. If I have no chance of passing an RfA, I am absolutely fine continuing to edit without the administrative tools. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer not to rate myself and would to see what others would say.
• I won't give a rating, but my thoughts are that it's a good idea to continue to edit for a while longer before going to RfA. From what I can tell you have been on the right track for being a successful candidate at RfA since your unblock, but the block and the situation surrounding it is going to be a big issue for voters. My suggestion is to continue to edit the encyclopedia for a while longer and then reconsider. It would be a good idea after this while to contact an administrator privately for a rating. I'm not able to see much on your talk page about your successful unblock request due to oversighted edits on your talk page, so I have not been able to assess that. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't planning on going for an RfA just yet, just seeking some feedback on my chances. I could try editing for another year or two and asking again by then. The reason why those edits on my talk page are suppressed is because I have private information regarding those edits that I prefer not to disclose publicly. I could ask an oversighter to reverse the suppression, but still hide the private information so you could see my unblock request. I hope this isn't an issue voters are looking for when voting in an RfA. Best, Interstellarity (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think the oversight will be an issue to voters as long as they know why its the case. I don't think it is right to reverse the oversight so that I or any other user can see the unblock request, so perhaps an oversighter posting the relevant information which was not the target of the oversight is best. However for me I don't necessarily need to see the unblock request as the most important thing about it, which is you being unblocked, can be seen in your block log. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Going from the information available as of this edit, I would imagine that you'd get some blowback since it's a fairly substantive block (not the original vandalism block, but the repeated sock-puppeting). That said, 2 years (+6 months SO) is a good bit of time. Since your return you've been a big positive: your top two edited wikipedia pages are the Teahouse and the Helpdesk; your most active article page is the ultra-sensitive Covid-19 pandemic; 350 patrolled pages after passing NPP school; and I've interacted positively with you myself. If you're ultimately looking at becoming an admin, I'd suggest working to create some more articles yourself. Other minor areas like your AfD stats are mainly driven by poor early participation, which is the same for all of us. Otherwise carry on as you are - I don't have a specific timeline to suggest (I wrote down a bunch of things, before deciding I couldn't be more helpful than "when looks good"), but if you want to drop me a line at some stage in the future let me know. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think you've come a long way over the last two years, and have been a credit to the corps of active editors who are clearly committed to Wikipedia. I'm proud of you for that. Yes, I do think you do have admin potential, but I would also agree with the comments above, and advise you to keep on doing what you're doing for a couple more years yet. You've sometimes been quick to drop in a suggestion to make changes but then left others to sort things out, rather than getting stuck in with the fine details yourself. Your own surprise and unannounced submission of an RfA nomination for me last year perhaps reflects well on your enthusiasm (and clear judge of good character!), but not necessarily on your judgement on the best way to proceed. I certainly don't hold that against you, but the rationale for this recent AfD nomination was stunningly poor, though you did immediately learn a valuable lesson on notability of biodiversity and rapidly made a WP:NAC to keep it, which was right. (I've made similar mistakes in the past - so it's no big issue, except for an administrator) So, keep on listening, learning and assimilating policy and guideline information, and definitely include in your task list a focus on content creation. I'd like to see you put in the editing work yourself to get a low quality article up to or near WP:GA standard as this would be an invaluable learning experience. All the best. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)  
• I think the comments above are a reasonable assessment of my chances of passing an RfA. I certainly will listen to the advice above and hope that I can be a better editor which is more important than being an administrator. I'll keep learning and editing and maybe in a few years' time, I could become an administrator. Interstellarity (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

NASCARfan0548 (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 on IRC with Oshwah and I was told I have to start another poll. I feel like I have improved since my last poll in April 2020. Let me know what you think. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 06:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Why do you want to be an administrator? That's a key question. In the last poll, you indicated a desire to work in XFD discussions. If that is still the case, I have to question the need. Since that poll, you've participated in just three XFD discussions. Only one of those closed with the recommendation you made, and two of those were discussions you started. You're going to get asked about your article creations. What do you think is your best article creation? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Hello NASCARfan0548. Thanks for seeking feedback on becoming an admin. I've just done a quick fly through a few areas of your work, but haven't looked at your previous ORFA as you failed to link to it. Nor did you say anything about your administrative interests and rationale as to why you are thinking about putting yourself forward, which I might have found handy. Most noticeable, perhaps, is that you've made over 18,500 edits in just under two years here. That's really impressive activity. You've produced a lot of new articles (mostly stubs) about racing drivers, and have a few similar pages put forward for GA and DYK. At a quick glance at a couple of those GA's suggested you're very good at finishing off articles to a high standard, but not that you've worked on one from near start to finish - something that a few of the pedants at RfA might comment on, and perhaps even the narrowness of your editing fields. But really great work, anyway, and I see you've been doing a fair bit of vandalism reversion. I did observe that your experience at Articles for Deletion is very limited, and has not only related solely to racing drivers but has also not been hugely successful either. So, my suggestion would be that focussing on some more of the wider, behind-the-scenes administrative and policy-driven areas would not go amiss. Doing that at different types of AFD subjects is a great way to get to grips with and to understand notability policies, as is delving in and rescuing an article that others simply want to delete and move on. I'd suggest this could certainly do with a bit more of your attention. You definitely don't stand out to me as someone who ought not to become an administrator, though right now I'm not seeing a huge amount of experience or wider activity that suggests you're ready for this kind of work, or that it would interest you as much as content-creation - an area you are clearly skilled in within your own sphere of interest. So I would conclude by saying you're on the right track, and to get at least another 6 to 9 months of intensive and broad, behind the scenes administrative-type activity before even asking again. Once someone becomes an admin, they're liable to get pulled into all sorts of areas they're not really interested or experienced in, so gaining and demonstrating competence across wider areas of Wikipedia is a real plus at any RFA. Hope this helps a bit, and my apologies if my quick skim through your great work here has missed out some key contributions. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Nick Moyes, It's OK, I would say my best article creation is the David Keith (racing driver) article. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 18:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Most editors would take a dim view if a four sentence stub is your best piece of work. In most successful RfAs, solid article creation is a feature of the applicants. Schwede66 23:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not gonna give a rating, but just some observations. A lot of RFA voters look at AFD/CSD/PROD. CSD log looks fairly good in that it's mostly red, although the G6 nomination of Josh Reeves (racing driver) doesn't really meet the G6 standards (we usually keep redirects from moves unless they're totally useless), so expect some questions about that tagging if you run. Not much PROD activity, and AFD is pretty infrequent and only about 60% aligns with consensus. I'd recommend some additional experience in those core admin areas before running. You can pass with only content creation, but it takes a lot of content creations including multiple FAs generally to do that. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Elliot321 (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'm interested in becoming an administrator mainly so I can more effectively contribute in the areas I currently work with (for example, draftifying without leaving behind redirects, editing templates [but only after seeking consensus and testing], cleaning up backlogs that require administrators, etc). I'd also be willing to work on AfD eventually, though I don't think I have quite enough experience for that yet.

I feel that some people might think I haven't done sufficient content creation, or sufficient work in some other areas, so I'm curious about what people think. The tools would be quite useful to me, but I can understand the hesitancy to give them out. Thanks for your feedback, either way! Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hi! I don't think you are ready yet. You've been *somewhat* active for around 6 months, despite having a longer term account. Generally we'd expect around 18 months of continuous activity to be in a good space. The good news is that I didn't see to much that worried me from a quick pass through, so my suggestion is to keep working, maybe take an article or two to GA and put some work into the areas you'd like to eventually do admin tasks (such as AfD). If you'd like some more detailed suggestions, drop me an email. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• pretty much what Lee said, but also note that you can work towards user rights such as WP:Page mover and WP:Template editor in between now and then. The two I mention would allow you to show that you can do things competently and let you do two of the things you mention above (draftifying without leaving behind redirects, editing templates). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• The RfA voting community will expect at least 12 consecutive months of solid commitment to Wikipedia including extensive experience in the areas relevant to adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• What they all said. Also, while it's not in itself directly an issue, if you're doing lots of editing on controversial articles like 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, you may find your RfA is frequented by disgruntled fanboys, as was seen at this one or that one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Pashute (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)

Vami IV (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)

Whether or not I should begin an RfA has been a question I've been asking myself for a couple months now. I'm an editor of six years' tenure, a time I have quietly spent gnoming, reviewing at GAN, contributing to contests, and occasionally writing quality content. I have only been involved in drama two or three times; I studiously avoid it, as it stresses me out. Why I wonder if I should run for adminship, then, is because of my commitment to Wikipedia. I believe in the project and have given it years of my time; I have over 200 reviews at GAN and am active at CCI. I want to note here that I have read WP:WAIN; I do not see adminship as something owed to experienced editors, but something a suitable, experienced editor owes to the project. Hence this ORCP. Should I run, and if yes, do I stand a chance? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• 8/10 - I really appreciate the work you've been doing at GAN and CCI. Personally I think you've been very helpful in reviewing my GAN's. You're also fairly active, which is a plus. Here's the thing, though: some voters may look at your stats and think differently. You only have 29 all-time AFD edits, 4 RFPP requests, and 0 AIV requests, and people do get hung up on that type of stuff. Your edit summary usage is sometimes the default summary, which can also be a drawback, and you only have 29-30% article space edits as a total of your edit count. I also don't know how recently you started CCI work, but if you can show people that you've been doing it consistently for at least 3-6 months, I think people can overlook that. Epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• 9/10 (I hate the numbers bit) Not a jerk, has a clue, clear use for the tools, over 10k non-automated mainspace edits, FA, 4 GAs, knows about other namespaces, precious since 2017, and perhaps most importantly you want to do the work. Would it be contentious? Doubt it but it might be similar to MoneyEmoji's. I'm seeing the most common support reasons checked and no real red flags that would cause significant opposition. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Numbers are a meme If I were looking from the perspective of someone picking to oppose, I would call out the namespace ratio -- which is explained by your extensive participation in GAN -- and having unusually sparse experience in some forms of administrative work, with one AfD !vote ever (a keep where the AfD closed no consensus) and no PROD/CSD log. Moneytrees had the same need for the tools as you, so the recommendation to study that RfA is reasonable, but what really stands out to me as comparable is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ergo Sum. As it happens, both Moneytrees and Ergo Sum are admins. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Expanding a bit, after some further thought. I think Ergo Sum and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing are probably your two most comparable RfAs, moreso ES due to the shared emphasis on content. Both got the bit, albeit with opposition, and GR got it at the crat chat. Good nominators will be big for you, because having impressive, trustworthy people say "Vami would be a fantastic admin, and any concerns you might raise don't trouble me" would go a way to shore up criticism. You have a very clear, defined need for the tools, which is good and would also help to brush that off. Additionally, the big reason people often blanch at little deletion-discussion participation is "lack of empathy to content creators", which is obviously not a concern for you. (The most recent RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TJMSmith, seems reasonable to look at here -- way more AfD experience than you, but not really into deletion per se.) There would still be a subset of people who find those issues insurmountable and consider you a NQY in lieu of more work not directly related to content. I have some rough guesses on potential ranges of support and opposition, although all are in the 'gets the bit' range. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• 8/10 - I'd say you'll probably get a couple of opposes based on lack of experience in AFD/RFPP/etc, but you've got tenure, the right attitude, and clear competence. Might be some opposition, but I think you're likely to pass. Hog Farm _Talk 02:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• 8/10 - in a few of months - after you have shown your hand at a few more administrative tasks but with the caveat that you should not appear to be doing it as deliberate preparation for RfA. With all the current RfCs and Arbcom cases to get rid of as many admins as possible, let the climate abate first, because those discussions will have been heavily subscribed which may result in increased voter participation at future RfAs. I do not see adminship as something owed to experienced editors, but something a suitable, experienced editor owes to the project - I like it, use it, or get one of your nominators to use it and preferably find a strong nominator. Read this again, because people will look for the slightest chink in your armour and when they find it they will prise it open with a tyre lever. How ever high your support score will be, there will always be at least one user who will find a sophism to spoil it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment We are starved for admins working in CCI who can do revision deletion, and if necessary G12. (I might speculate some of that is because of the desysopping of Fram, but that's another conversation for another time) I think with a good nomination, and a clear and obvious place you want to use the tools, the lack of existing deletion tags is not necessarily a deal breaker. The problems that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji faced - content creation and maturity - are not an issue for you, so I would expect an RfA some time this year to pass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - If you want to run, and you need a nominator, hit me up. I think Ritchie is bang on the money, I can't forsee any particular issues that would flood you to not being able to pass. Probably get some opposes, but that seems par for the course now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah (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 editing Wikipedia actively for the past 3 years now and making my way around the different areas. I have never been blocked/sanctioned, despite dipping my toes in areas of controversy, particularly Israel/Palestine and Dalit related pages. I always keep my cool and seek consensus building over warring. I primarily enjoy editing in main space, but am quite active in Template/Talk/Wikipedia namespaces and I care just as much about the community, and supporting new users, while deterring toxic behaviors. I think there are many areas I can gain more experience in, but generally I've had exposure in nearly all areas of Wikipedia. My immediate uses for a MOP at this point, would be for page protection, complex merge cleanups and sanctioning users per community discussions (and eventually) my own judgment. Shushugah (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• 4/10 I had a look through your contributions, and the problem that I've got is there doesn't seem to be much clear evidence of what voters like to see at RfA. You've got a handful of edits that are adding content and sources, but they're difficult enough to pick out that you're likely to get a bunch of "No content creation" opposes. You've participated in a few AfD debates, but not enough to be able to get sufficient support on working with deletion. You've made a handful of comments at the Teahouse, but not enough for people to instantly know you're kind and helpful. Complex merge cleanups are best taken on by experienced editors who have written a lot of content and witnessed a topic spin out into a fork or otherwise need non-trivial maintenance. Asserting you want the admin toolset to sanction editors (backed up with ANI threads like this) will guarantee you will get comments like "Strong oppose - no content creation but wants to block content creators. No thanks." and I would advise you to distance yourself from that as much as possible. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your critical and fair feedback. In the ANI report I meant to clarify Sandstein blocked the user; I am missing the word by. Shushugah (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Edit count of 2k seems low. Maybe I'm way off, and others can chime in here, but isn't the realistic minimum around 10k? Lack of perms also stands out to me a bit. Those are two areas I'd recommend improving in order to improve RFA chances. Good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• I would also register a "not wise to run now" view - Novem's point is correct in that edit count alone would be sufficient to stop an RfA bid either now or in the near future. Admins are expected to have significant activity in the fields they note - for example, if you talk about sanctioning users (a phrasing that will promote concern), you'd want significant experience in AIV, RFPP as well as some closing experience of discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: per Ritchie333. Keep working and consider RFA in abut 12 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment You have no real chance of passing an RFA in the next 6 months. I see you've applied for (and received) pending changes reviewer; that's a better way to try to contribute to the project at your current level of experience. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Drm310 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

I have been a Wikipedia user since 2006. I have created a few original articles, but the bulk of my editing has been centred around WP:UAA. I look for users who are in clear violation of the username policy, in particular the WP:ORGNAME and WP:ISU provisions.

I frequently patrol the recent changes log, where I look for users that have edited for promotional purposes and/or committed copyright violations. I frequently nominate inappropriate pages in the article, user and draft spaces for speedy deletion, most often for WP:A7, WP:G11 and WP:G12 criteria. I also look for editing patterns that can result in me filing sockpuppet investigation reports.

I have also guided users who were unknowingly in violation of Wikipedia's paid editing rules to conform to the policy; by making proper disclosures, username changes, and/or edit requests where they have an obvious conflict of interest.

When possible, I have also attempted to guide users whose first languages are French, Spanish and German about English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the differences between English Wikipedia and their respective language versions.

I would appreciate any feedback on whether my request would be accepted or if any more experienced Wikipedians would help me further along in this process. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've seen you around, of course; I'm sure you usually sign your posts though 😉🙂 ——Serial 08:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Likewise, I've encountered some of your excellent advice to other users around WP:UAA and wondered why your signature wasn't being highlighted to me as an administrator. It was only when I checked that I found you weren't one already, even though you had most other rights. You've made over 76,000 edits, which is quite an accomplishment and I can see your focus in recent years has increasingly been on the administrative engagement with users, which looks to have been excellent, and is a sign of a budding administrator. At an RFA, I think your lack of article creation experience might be picked on by some. Whilst it might not be a gamechanger, it would almost certainly be questioned by some. If between now and an RFA you could show evidence of working intensively on bringing one article up from Start/C class to GA, that would be most helpful to your chances. People want to know that admin understand the finer pints of editing, and that's one way of showing it. I've not looked further into your contributions, but I feel at this stage you'd be a very welcome addition to the admin corps, and would get a lot of support (assuming there are no dark secrets lurking in your recent past). Delighted you've taken the plunge to ask here. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• 8.5/10, 9.5/10 with more content Your presence in adminny areas is felt and a boost to any prospective RfA, especially in relatively niche areas such as usernames. Also of note is your extremely high (>99%) use of edit summaries, which is also great. There is going to be one person who will note your 86.2% delete !votes on AfD (the "average" is about 66% delete, IIRC); this shouldn't (emphasis on "shouldn't") sink an RfA since his views aren't necessarily shared by others, especially since you have around 90% prediction of the actual result. Per Nick, the only problem I have is your rather lackluster content work. Despite having two Four Awards myself, I won't hold it against you, but a few people will. Nevertheless, I don't think that alone will sink an RfA; heck, even having only content work can land you a narrow pass in the high 70s. Overall, RfA is one of the funner parts of Wikipedia in my experience (albeit not necessarily for the candidate) and it's a shame it's been dying down for the past couple of years. Therefore, I exhort you to find a nom and go for it whenever you feel ready.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• 5/10. It's really hard to judge at this point. Lyell Gustin (your top article) would possibly not do well at an WP:AFD discussion because I'm not seeing a clear claim of notability; so there may be some WP:GNG issues. After that there's a few Saskatoon articles, but nothing I'm seeing beyond a stub or start level. Not that FA, or even GA is required (IMO), but you may want to get some reviews and work with others at improving articles. I also see that you're currently at 15% in article contribs while you're at around 55% at User talk. I also see that in the past year, you haven't exceeded 2% article work, and yet you're at 60+% in user talk. While there's a lot of things an admin. can do beyond article work, I prefer them to have at least a solid background and effort in contributing to the articles that our readers tend to be looking for. I'm sorry, but at the moment I would oppose per WP:NOTYET or WP:NOTNOW. I do applaud you for taking this step in being reviewed, and I think that is something in your favor if you're willing to take advice onboard in future efforts, then I'd be very happy to support a future RfA. — Ched (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  A somewhat tangential comment, but [1] by itself satisfies WP:ANYBIO and other coverage such as [2] and [3] makes his notability pretty clear, imo. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  Eddie891, Fair enough - thank you for pointing that out. — Ched (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• 9.4/10 When an editor with this much experience thinks they're ready to be an admin, they normally are. If you plan to patrol UAA, it shouldn't matter that you don't frequent WP:GA. There's plenty of "content creation" here by any normal sense; it seems like he's improved every article about the Saskatoon region. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I will partly concur with some of the other comments. I think your content creation is more than good enough to pass today, but if you want a 130/2/1 pass, you should do a GA first. If Saskatoon were raised to be a GA I can't imagine any good-faith contributor opposing. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• I won't give a numerical rating, but I'll add that I've seen your username around a lot when looking into username/self-promotion issues, and I can't remember ever seeing any actions you've taken that I disagreed with. If that's the area you want to work in, you'd have my support for sure. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• 7/10 To coin an old phrase, I thought you were an admin. I agree about the suggestions to write some more quality content - it will mean the difference between sailing through with pile-on support, and being asked lots of tricky questions that you need to get right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• 10/10 Go ahead with your RfD. You'd make a great admin!--JTZegers^Speak
  _Aura 16:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If Drm310 takes any notice of your advice whatsoever, I'll oppose them on principal. And also at WP:Redirects for discussion. ——Serial 16:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RailwayJG (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 think I would make a really good admin for geographical and railway related articles. I have good knowledge of both. I always check sources and if I am wrong I happily discuss them.

• 1/10 I'm sorry, but 3,000 edits is far too few for an adminabile such as yourself; most !voters will want to see at least tens of thousands of edits. More importantly, admins are for the maintenance of the encyclopedia, rather than (much) of content (although content is always a plus), something your statement seems to not understand.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I think you'd be very unlikely to pass an RFA. Most RFA voters look for more than 3000-ish edits. Article creation is mostly stubs. AFD participation is minimal, and includes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merger of the urban area, which was never transcluded correctly. Edit summary usage is pretty low. Not a whole lot of experience in the background-type areas standard for RFA candidates; likely 0/10, as I frankly don't think you'd pass. Hog Farm _Talk 22:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• I also think you'd be unlikely to pass an RfA at this time. You have a very low edit count and you haven't demonstrated a need for the tools. Also, having good knowledge of a subject isn't a prerequisite to being an admin: there are many good knowledgeable editors who are not admins. My advice would be to keep working on these articles, and if you run into places where admin tools would help your work, note those and then come back when you have a higher edit count. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• @RailwayJG: There's absolutely nothing to be ashamed of for not being ready yet - that time may well come. But it is admirable that your have expressed an interest in admin work - so please don't be downhearted. Being an admin draws you into all sorts of topics you know nothing about (and often aren't interested in) - the reward is helping others ands sorting out problems, which can give you quite a pride in being involved in supporting such a massive project (well, I see it like that, anyway). One tip would be to start getting involved in some of those 'behind the scenes' places to see how your interest in administrative tasks develops. You might love helping to keep the place running - or you may hate it. Here are a few ideas you might like to think about dipping your toe into:

- One simple task you could explore is to monitor Special:RecentChanges (this is my favourite setting to highlight the most likely 'bad-faith edits' for assessment, and revert vandalism and report bad faith editors to WP:AIV. You should activate Twinkle to help you do this efficiently. Don't just lurk at the top of the SpecialChanges list, but look through older edits from earlier in the day that others might have missed lower down in the list (articles on schools, or edits which say 'fixed typo' always draw my eye for a closer look;

- Another task would be to watch for new user accounts which have already edited, and consider tasks such as welcoming them, watching them, or reporting those that violate WP:USERNAME at WP:UAA for admin attention (but ignore accounts which have not yet edited - we don't act on those as many accounts are automatically created, and never ever edit). See Special:Log/newusers for this list;

- You could consider spending time at WP:AFD and getting experience of defending and improving articles which others have proposed for deletion. Being able to demonstrate your understanding of Notability policies is quite easy to do there, especially if you follow through with a belief in your convictions and improve and save articles others think are doomed for destruction because they didn't do WP:BEFORE. Your AFD Stats don't let anyone see that experience or understanding;

- Start lurking at one of the Help fora - and chipping in whenever you can help someone out, or add to an earlier response there. There's no need to sign up as a Host to begin with - anyone can help out at any time, and it's also a wonderful way of learning new things from other, more experienced editors;

- Maybe consider doing Page Patrolling or, later on, either WP:AFC or WP:NPP work.

So, to conclude: at the moment, with only 60 edits in the Wikipedia mainspace, you really wouldn't get far at an RFA, and putting yourself forward at the wrong time might well put you off for when you have decided that needing and using the admin tool is right for you. That time's not right now, but you are to be commended for thinking about it and for asking about it. I'd suggest doing a few of the things I've outlined above, whilst also finding an article or two that's in poor shape, but which interests you, and working on bring it up to a much higher standard - ideally WP:GA or even WP:FA. That way you'd be developing both admin skills and enhancing your knowledge of the finer points of article creation and improvement, whilst also feeling proud to be helping others and keeping the encyclopaedia free of vandals and mischief-makers. Whether you want to come back later on for a further ORFA, ow would prefer to speak more privately to one or more administrators to gauge your chances, is totally up to you. Thanks again, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

As much as what the above said is true - don't be disheartened. "Not experienced enough" doesn't mean "not suitable". Get some more time on wiki, create some content, get a better feel for the site and if you fancy, drop me an email in 6 months and I'll let you know where you'd need to go. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NOTQUITEYET per above. If you keep doing good work and getting more involved in the project, there's a chance you pass RFA around the end of the year. But not today. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Rockchalk717 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)

Hello. For the longest time, I was certain I didn’t want to become an administrator, however, here lately I’ve considered it. I’ve been editing consistently from this account for roughly 10 years now and have accumulated over 27,000 edits, primarily on sports related pages. I don’t feel there’s enough administrators on these pages. I would lend my hand to help protect primarily NFL player articles who are involved in transactions, as this usually makes the page a target for vandalism and premature edits before the transaction is confirmed as official, while of course remembering not to immediately protect it as soon as the news comes out. I would also help on requests for page protection, as I’ve personally had requests take hours and get handled. I feel like I know policies pretty well, but I’m still learning.

I’m pretty sure I’m not 100% ready because I know I still have room for improvements, I just want to see how close I may be because I don’t want embarrass myself doing a request for adminship if I’m not ready. I appreciate the time! You won’t hurt my feelings if you don’t think I’m ready. Thank you!--Rockchalk717 23:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd agree that you aren't 100% ready. At this time, you may just scrape in or you may not. Biggest issue is that you'd need to make a much stronger case for needing the tools than what you've stated above. You say that Tony Barker is your uncle yet most of the edits to that article are yours, in straight contravention of our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. Many a voter will see that as a red flag. You may have created enough content (i.e. articles started by you) for most voters but I reckon you'd significantly increased your chances if you took a couple of articles and got them to WP:GA. I've had a look through your talk pages and couldn't see you losing your cool anywhere, but it felt like you were getting a bit edgy at times. As an admin, you'll face a lot more conflict and heat, and it's super-important to keep calm and civil. If there are talk-page incidents that have gone out of hand, it's best to be upfront about it and declare it, alongside what you've learned from it and how you'd approach the same situation today. Another area of obvious improvement is your use of edit summaries; I suggest you try and get this up. It's not a biggie, but when candidates aren't clear cut, some voters start to pick on silly little things like that. All in all, if you could work on the above for the next few months, you'd probably increase your chances to a safer position than where you currently are. Schwede66 05:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Just a couple quick questions about that feedback. In regards to my uncle’s page, what can I do to prevent the COI from being an issue? I have tried to be very careful in what I put in there, but I understand it still could scrutinized. I’ll definitely work on edit summaries, I feel like I use a lot, compared to other editors, but guess it’s not enough. I’m definitely working on getting better on communicating with other editors. When I come closest to losing my cool is when IPs and inexperienced registered editors continue to add or remove content that I’ve given a clear reason why it needs remain or be removed.--Rockchalk717 16:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions. Re COI, I would declare on your user page where those exist and state that going forward you will adhere to the guidance. Regarding edit summaries, aim for nothing less than 100% and be mortified every single time you forget. It’s part of clear communication that you let other editors know what your edits are about. Schwede66 17:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Great I have done that and I will stay away from editing it, other than reverting vandalism if it ever gets vandalized.--Rockchalk717 00:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's one further thought. I posted on your talk page. My key rationale for posting was to see how you would react to it, as I was surprised to see this discussion stopping with another editor giving you advise on something that you were doing wrong, and there being no acknowledgement from you (like, "thanks for bringing this to my attention" or "sorry, it shall not happen again"). I wanted to prompt some such reaction. That you initially reverted my post does not bode well. You need to be open to feedback, especially when you want to become an administrator. Schwede66 02:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• 0.9/10 With no WP:GAs and minimal edits in the Wikipedia: namespace, it will certainly not be a shoo-in. There's also minimal talk page editing (250 edits goes back to 2014). And I might personally oppose simply based on the lack of edit summaries for article-space edits. I don't think there's a concern that you will use page-protection to "win" content disputes with IP editors, but some editors will be worried about that. If there are no "controversial" or bad edits that will be used to justify oppose votes, you do have a shot, but not a good one. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@力: So if I started being involved at let’s say WT:NFL, since the majority of my edits are NFL related, that could fix the talk page editing issue?--Rockchalk717 00:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt. There's an expectation that you have experience communicating with other editors before becoming an admin. There's no requirement of a volume of edits in any specific namespace. If you have constructive conversations on user-talk pages that's probably fine on its own; I haven't looked at your user-talk contributions in detail as poring through the vandalism warnings is exhausting. (the 250 edits in 6 years number referred to (Article) Talk: namespace specifically, not all talk namespaces). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• 0.5/10 Part of being an administrator is that you don't use the mop in content areas you are active in, something which your statement seems to contradict. Even if that rule is not rigorously enforced in an RfA I would personally oppose (and I suspect others would join) due to that combined with low edit summary usage (which at less than half is not quite a "silly little thing", although to your credit it's not frighteningly negligible) and low content creation, things which individually aren't that bad but combined make an RfA harder than it needs to be. The rest of energy over time's advice is solid and I suggest you take it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Got it! Thanks for the tips! I certainly appreciate it. I’m already trying to take the tips from the 3 of you that have responded so far to heart and start doing it.--Rockchalk717 00:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to go against the flow slightly and point out that in the latest successful RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Less Unless, the candidate had never taken any articles to GA, though they are working on one. So by all means give a GA improvement a go, but do it because you want to improve the encyclopedia anyway, not because you're more interested in the back end of things and just want it as a "fast track" to RfA. The association with Tony Barker, however, could be a real showstopper per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greenman as even a vague association with a COI could bring out opposition in droves. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I’ve declared the COI on my talkpage, what else could I potentially do to prevent that from being an issue? I also wonder if the fact that I was high school teammate with Tim Elliott and learning kickboxing from Marcio Navarro would be an issue since I have created and edited both pages.--Rockchalk717 22:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I would make those COIs much more prominent and yes, if you went to school with somebody, that person is on that list. Have a look at how I've dealt with it on my page. Write a few words and then list them all; don't hide them in amongst a few dozen user boxes. There's nothing you can do about things that have happened; just state that you've become aware of COI and from now on, you won't touch those pages unless it's reverting vandalism (or some such). Schwede66 04:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

I'm coming up on 16 years of editing; spotless block log, decent record at AFD, good CSD log. Very little drama. 32K+ active edits. Failed AfDRfA ten years ago. I mostly perform vandalism reversion from a large watchlist using automated tools available through Preferences. My field of interest is 19th century American biography, though I've branched out a bit. My oldest articles are not that well-formed or cited, but everything I've produced in the last few years I'm quite proud of. Jane Douglass White is my current project; I have it up for a triple article DYK at this time (first time I've attempted that). Several DYKs, two GAs and several other excellent works to which I've contributed significantly. Last year I wrote William Longshaw Jr. of which I'm proud. I'm also fond of John Hoskins (officer) and Samuel Escue Tillman, both of which I wrote by myself. I've disagreed with folks but over time I tend to make wiki-allies out of contributors with whom I've disagreed. Today someone I admire suggested I look into mopping. I said I'd provide myself for a look. BusterD (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• You are certainly a viable candidate. Your profile is a bit different than many who go through RfA but I'm not sure this would stop you from passing at the moment. I'm reluctant because of Streisand effect reasons to say too much more here but would be happy to say more confidentially if you'd like. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• And I will gladly throw in my support. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've seen you around, your basic stats look good, the first RfA is ancient history. With a good couple of noms behind you (quick wave to Barkeep), I'm hoping we can get a repeat of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red Phoenix 2. Let's chat. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I would support in a heartbeat. A solid history of undertaking laborious fixes. BD2412 T 17:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Add me to the list of folks who would support this. — Ched (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I would support, per content creation and mentoring. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• 9.5/10 I would also support, given a couple of GAs to fill in the content work and nothing concerning otherwise.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• 9/10. Agree with the above. I see nothing untoward here. Good Luck.   Aloha27  talk  23:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• 9/10. Good, but given what just happened in an RFA with a decent candidate, I recommend being upfront if you have any skeletons in your closet to avoid an avalanche of opposes if they exist and are discovered.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• 9.5/10 Great writer, editor, reviewer and overall contributor. 10 years ago is ancient history and was a time when RfA was becoming incredibly hard to pass, maybe even more so than in recent years. I will gladly support. I do not go 10/10 simply because I have seen a few good candidates get blindsided by a few explainable and minor mistakes or other trivialities in the context of a great overall record over the years; then withdraw or even fail. I am sure you have seen that as well. So I won't jinx it with a 10/10. I seriously doubt any problems would arise in your candidacy, however. I would expect great overall support. Donner60 (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi, I’m Patient Zero - I’ve decided to add my name to this poll, as I’m strongly considering running for adminship in the next 1-2 months (I would be willing to wait longer if I am advised to do so).

I’ve been an editor here for a few years. My work here predominantly comprises anti-vandalism (using Huggle and Twinkle), patrolling newly created articles (and CSD tagging them if appropriate; I mainly find A7s and U5s), and occasionally dealing with LTAs, learning their editing patterns and behaviours and identifying them in practice. I also enjoy copy-editing, normally on articles concerning subjects I am interested in. More recently, I have taken to assisting at UAA; in particular I have suggested strings for the DeltaQuadBot’s blacklist and identified false positives.

I do have some stub articles to my name, but I must admit that article creation isn’t really my thing (I do enjoy adding to articles, though, and as a younger editor, I reviewed an article for GA status following my History studies as a GCSE student). I’ve always preferred behind-the-scenes work here, and would continue working in the areas I enjoy were I to receive the community’s support at an RfA, albeit with a few additional tools and privileges that would assist me in the tasks I frequently partake in.

Finally, I am on the list of users willing to make difficult edits (have only recently added myself to this, but only because I wasn’t aware of it before; I would’ve done so sooner otherwise).

My question, therefore, is: what should I aim to do in the meantime? Is there anything glaringly missing from my “wiki-CV” (if you will) that I could work on before I run? Thank you in advance for your feedback, advice and comments. Patient Zero^talk 05:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• I just did a quick check, nothing detailed. I definitely see a lot of good signs. NPP perm, a good article, admins offering to nominate on your talk page, and clean block log. One thing that jumps out is your edit count, which is 12k. Someone with 15k passed a month or two ago so that is good news. I'd recommend you get your edit count to at least 15k, just so you're not in the uncharted territory of "lowest edit count candidate at RFA recently". And I'm sure you'll get some very detailed and wise advice here, so don't pay too much attention to me, listen to the more experienced folk who reply after me. Best of luck :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae: my low edit count did cross my mind. If I hadn’t taken a wikibreak due to my university studies, I would almost certainly be on over 20,000 edits. Real life got in the way for a few years, but I’m back now. Appreciate the message :-) Patient Zero^talk 08:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• A look through suggests that between you and Novem, you're aware of the primary sticking points. It's hardly Earth-shattering advice, but using some of those edits to make, say, a couple of longer articles would be using a single stone to take care of two likely camps of opposers - I was also not a great content creator, but I did get an unexpected degree of satisfaction when I worked on two much longer than my usual fare articles. TB supporting your run is clearly a significant plus. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• For Good Articles, the process takes about a couple months if want to improve an article to that status for your content creation; that would probably be a slam-dunk for most content people, but I think improving an article to B-class is fine enough. Otherwise your CV seems adequate, but do mention your WikiBreak lest you pile on some opposes for it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Firstly, great to see you putting yourself forward - and well you should. You clearly have a very strong interest in the 'behind the scenes' work, and thus a really good claim to needing the tools, and are obviously admin material. Not wanting to disappoint you, but I would advise a longer wait than next month. Looking at your monthly editing history, you seem to have come back from your uni studies only very recently, with relatively few edits prior to that. I suspect some would argue it's too soon right now, which could be enough to sink an RfA, though I'm not sure, as you have so many other things in your favour, including a strong advocate. I don' t think creating a new article from scratch is as important as being able to show you know the finer points of improving articles to a good standard. The majority of your recent mainspace edits appear to have been the removal of vandalism, and so my answer to your question above would be to suggest a 6 month or so wait. During that time of building back evidence of regular monthly activity, I would focus on just one or two detailed stub/start article enhancements, as has been suggested above. In addition, focus on getting into the less familiar areas of work, perhaps working back up on your AFD involvement, which is quite thin. I like to see people at AFD successfully working to keep articles or fighting to save them when other editors have put them up for deletion, as this shows a good grounding in policy, plus an ability to find and identify good sources. I would hate to see a good candidate fall at RfA on 'WP:TOOSOON' grounds if they were to end up being put off from running again. Better to get a bit more recent and continuous editing history under your belt and sail through easily first time. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'm probably not the best person to be giving RFA advice as I'm still relatively inexperienced, but I see no obvious issues, and having Tony willing to nominate is definitely a mark in your favor. The one negative that sticks out to me is that you have made the bulk of your edits 5 years ago, so you might want to give it a couple more months of steady activity. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• I would recommend waiting at least 3 months. You have made less than 5 edits in 12 of the past 15 months. I would oppose any RFA in July or August purely for lack of activity, without even assessing the rest of your edits. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• I have to echo what 力 said, and perhaps amplify. Please take this as constructive criticism. From late 2015 to 2017 you were active enough. Since then, you've been extremely sporadic in your contributions, and have been gone from the project for months at a time. People at RFA are going to see this and balk. I don't think that 3 months will cut it. I think a year of consistent activity will remove doubts on that point. You said your work predominantly focuses on anti-vandalism. Yet, in the last 3.5 years you've made just 10 reports to WP:AIV. The activity level just isn't there, and you will garner a lot of oppose votes for it. Similarly, the last time you patrolled a page was over 3 years ago. Your User:Patient Zero/CSD log looks good, but shows less than 20 CSD taggings in the last two years. The primary problem I'm seeing across all of this is the lack of activity. Get a year or more of consistent activity under your belt and your chances will be far, far higher. As of now, I think it very unlikely you would pass. This is in no way a negative assessment of your editing or your contributions to the project. Please take it as positive advice meant to help you. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Finngall (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)

Greetings. After reading much on the various boards about the lack of admin candidates and what to do about it, I've decided to finally stick my neck out for a review of my suitability for an RfA.

I've been editing since 2007, with over 30k edits. My early efforts were in NPP and vandal-fighting--of late I've settled into "admin-adjacent" work like fixing malformed AfDs, completing AfDs on behalf of anonymous editors, investigating possible socking, playing Whac-A-Mole with Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal IPs, and answering the occasional question at the Help Desk and Teahouse. I know I'll get dinged by some for my lack of content creation. On a few occasions I've latched on to a new article with potential and made improvements, but that's not normally where my skills or interest lie. I've generally stayed out of hot-button topics and articles in controversial areas. I have had no other accounts, have very few if any logged-out edits, and will do identity verification if desired.

As for what I'd do with the mop if I had it, based on past history I would try and find and work in some underserved areas, clearing various backlogs, and other un-flashy tasks as needed. Plus I'd probably feel freer to step into areas where I have some experience but where I've shied away from speaking up due to feeling the need to preface with "I'm not an admin, but..."

I'm anticipating some comments on the order of "We'd like to see you step up your level of activity (here) or (there)", and that's fine. But if nothing else, I think my record shows that I could be trusted to not do anything irredeemably crazy and/or stupid if I did have the tools. (And as a sysadmin for a regional health care provider in the "real world", I'm fully conversant with the responsibilities which come with higher levels of access.) Based on what I've seen in other RfAs, I'm sure a nomination (were I to accept it) wouldn't be a slam dunk. But I've been wrong before. At the very least, I believe I pass the "Has a clue, not an asshole" test, and I'm interested in seeing what others have to say. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 18:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• 6.5/10 - more likely to pass than not, you'd face more opposition for your lack of content than for activity level. You certainly pass my criteria (has clue, not a jerk), and working over at WP:SPI wins you points with me any day! Feel free to get in touch if you'd like any more specific pointers, and consider this a standing nomination offer once you've got a bit more content under your belt ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• 6-7/10 per TNT. I would personally oppose because you've only done at most 35 edits(!) to any mainspace article. I'm not one who expects a whole lot of GAs or anything, but that's still "frighteningly negligible", and no matter how the reform discussion turns out you'll still be jeopardized by having such little content. We are, after all, ultimately an encyclopedia and admins need a decent amount of content work notwithstanding the naysayers. That said, not everyone's like me in that respect (although quite a few are even more stringent), so you still have a chance.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Crikey, that is low in the content-creation department. You may pass, or that aspect may sink it. To be on the safe side, why don't you bite the bullet and get that experience under your belt? Nobody expects you to carry on with content creation after a successful RfA. But if you want to be safe, just create a few articles and get them to at least start class. I see you are from Chicago; the list of Chicago Landmarks has a handful of red links. Make some of them blue and you should be a shoe-in. Schwede66 21:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Where did you get Chicago from? I'm a lifelong Oregonian. --Finngall ^talk 23:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Finngall, oops. I ended up on the wrong user page. But you know what I mean. Schwede66 00:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just what is your risk tolerance? The content creation piece is going to be an issue and it will mean some hard questions and likely some passionate opposes. Will that be enough to cause the RfA not to pass? Possibly. You definitely have a compelling narrative and, from my admittedly not exhaustive look into you, some fine qualities that will be attractive to many at RfA. You are a legitimate candidate and legitimate candidates finish above 50% so I expect a majority of the community to support you but whether it's enough to pass is something that will somewhat be determined by luck, somewhat by how you and/or any nominators position you in statements and with the standard questions, and somewhat by how you respond to questions and that's all too variable for me to attempt to fairly guess your odds. But if you have a tolerance for risk and you're you are able to keep the opposes, which can weigh on even the most grounded and stable of editors, in perspective the happier you will be during (and after) your RfA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  If you'd like a bit of content creation experience, hit me up, I'll be glad to help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just what is your risk tolerance? - Barkeep49 poses a poignant question. On the premise that this poll is supposed to suggest what the possible outcome might be: RfA continues to be populated by a small core of regular, trusted voters whose carefully researched arguments cause the pile-ons. However, since the Dec 2015 reforms which more than doubled the number of voters, the RfA space has become a venue for a fickle crowd, many of whom are one-off drive-by participants who vote because they can and not necessarily because they have done any research or even know what they are doing. They are the ones who generally pile on and one or two objective oppose votes from regulars could spell disaster even for an otherwise worthy candidate. The Wikimeme 'we are here to build an encyclopedia' is preciously upheld by the RfA voting community and the lack of content creation would be a serious sticking point. If you go ahead and it fails, at least it probably won't be a dirty RfA, there will be no character assassination and your reputation for being a dedicated, hard-working Wikipedian will remain intact. Possible essential reading are Ritchie333's Why admins should create content, and of course this guide again, this time following through on all the links in the footer. Item #5 of this laundry list, is critical. However, since I am largely retired from en.Wiki, unless something serious needs pointing out that no one else has noticed, I no longer bother voting at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• No numerical vote; there's an entire RFC open because of the point that nobody knows for sure how these types of candidacies will go. On the one hand, the "you must have 2 GAs" arguments are overblown. On the other hand, your most recent 150 non-automated article-space edits goes back to May 2020, and most of those edits are "manually cleaned up AFD". The outcome will likely depend on how well you can answer questions, both policy questions and "what is an article you improved"-style questions. As a final note, I suggest that regardless of whether you pass, it would probably be a benefit to the project if you were to run now. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their comments. No big surprises here, I don't think--6 or 7/10 was in the ballpark of where I would have rated my own chances. No major disagreements with any of the above, except to chafe somewhat at any implication that my relative lack of content creation means I don't know what goes into a good article. I'll see if I can find the space to work on a new article or two to prove my content creation chops. But I won't apologize for being more of a maintenance guy than a creation guy--when some people write, the words flow like water from a pitcher, but my trying to do the same thing is more akin to chiseling something out of granite. That's just me. I've received some good suggestions for where to direct my efforts, and TheresNoTime, I'll see about taking you up on your offer at the appropriate time if/when I decide to follow through with the RfA. Cheers. --Finngall ^talk 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Finngall, ...implication that my relative lack of content creation means I don't know what goes into a good article.: no one here is making such a suggestion, quite to the contrary in fact, but but the purpose of this poll is to prognosticate the RfA. However, I'll just add - for the purpose of providing more background - that there is no denying that RfA is also very much a popularity poll. What could offset the low content would be a lot semi-drive-by support votes from users you have helped, particularly newbies, perhaps at the TeaHoiuse or other help desks and noticeboards, acceptances at AfC, or having spearheaded some important discussions. However, your talk page is not exactly hyperactive and there are significant periods, even recent, with almost no traffic at all; only 493 users have posted on it over the years and without examining their comments, I wouldn't know what they were discussing with you. The edits are also very spaced out with only 70 watchers, 193 page views in the last 90 days, and only 81 edits over the past 12 months. On the surface this is not indicative of a particularly active user who is sufficiently well known to garner a lot of attention to their RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)-

@Kudpung: Fair point. A lot of what I have been doing lately has been somewhat behind the scenes. I don't think I've made enemies, but I haven't noticeably made friends, either. (And having not been to any Wiki-meetups, about the only active fellow editor I interact with in person is my sister). --Finngall ^talk 23:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Finngall: attending meetups and/or conferences is absolutely not a requirement for adminship. It might aid the popularity vote very slightly, but what matters for being an admin is what you do on-Wiki and not off it (there is an irony here, but this page is not the place to discuss it). BTW, if you and your sister still happen to be part of the same household, consider getting separate Internet providers and WiFi in the house, and don't ever use the same computers. It might avoid some unnecessary grief. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Heh. We haven’t lived under the same roof in literally decades. :-) --Finngall ^talk 02:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)