Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 17

DreamRimmer (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 here to see my chances of passing an RFA by the end of the six months. I'm active at various maintenance venues and have one GA and one DYK credit under my belt. As an admin, my focus will primarily be on UAA, AIV, and PERM. Later on, I'll expand into other areas with guidance from admins already active there. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• In Crew (film), your plot summary reads "The narrative revolves around three diligent women whose paths lead them into unexpected situations, ultimately entangling them in a web of deceit.". It's cited to a newspaper article that doesn't really say anything like that. So, I checked the IMDb, which is where most people copy-paste their plot summaries from. Turns out the IMDb says "Follows three hard-working women as their destinies lead to some unwarranted situations and end up caught in a web of lies." Changing "web of lies" to "web of deceit" is close paraphrasing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  I understand the rules around copyright and close paraphrasing, and I'm aware that borrowing more than fifteen words from a copyrighted source can be considered a violation. However, I've sifted through numerous sources for plot information, and they all provided similar descriptions. So, I did my best to craft a plot, making alterations where necessary. Moreover, the source I used merely offered basic plot details, which I used as a foundation for my version, and in my honest opinion, it's enough to support the plot statement. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the statement is correct about borrowing more than fifteen words. Typically, you don't want to copy more than three in a row, unless they are fixed phrases or there is no way you can rephrase at all. When you quote, you can quote 50 without problem, even though WP:Wikivoice is usually preferred. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Femke, In my early days, when I asked a question about copyright violation in the Discord channel, an admin advised me that we can copy a maximum of fifteen words. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  While I'm definitely not the most knowledgeable on the topic, I'm pretty sure that opinion is not widely shared. Typically, Wikipedia is quite strict on copyvio compared to what is legally required. You may want to double check Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#Example, and adjust how closely you follow sources. The reason your example was flagged is that the structure of the sentence is so similar. Mistakes happen (including when you're an admin). The important thing is to learn and adjust :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, it was a great day as I learned something new about copyright. I’ll do my best to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Thank you both for your feedback. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for putting yourself forward here :). I've had a look through your AfD stats. Overall matching is high, no concerns there. I looked at those instances you did not agree with the majority, incl no consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kehkashan Awan was a poor NAC, as nobody but you seemed to have given policy-based arguments. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aina Asif, you don't argue why they met NACTOR. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of roles in the British Army I also don't see a strong policy-based argument. While you don't indicate you want to work in deletions, this will likely be looked at in an RfA, so bringing stronger arguments to the table in AfDs in the next few months may help here.
  You have one GA; a second one can't hurt, as content editors have an easy time at RfA. In 6 months, you'll have 18 months of proper editing under your belt, which is likely the minimum people look for. You are a part of the Indian politics Wikiproject. Given the topic attracts strong opinions, you can expect some scrutiny there. Keeping calm in difficult situation is of course something people look out for :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Femke: I was the nominator for Aina Asif's deletion. I am not at all convinced by Rimmer's argument there. And it was one of the worst AFDs I have ever seen, which was closed as no consensus just because of a few SPAs, banned socks, and DreamRimmer's baseless support. Being someone who is dealing with South Asian spam on a regular basis now in coordination with different admins, it really gave me the impression that I was dealing with one sort of UPE there at that time. That said, he has not even completed his one year of proper editing at the moment, and by digging into his talk page archives, it seems he has some temperament issues too. He is a very newish editor to me, and I regret that I was the one who sent him AWOT at some point, which didn't receive any support either. I think he should work for at least a year or two to even think about RFA. I will oppose. Maliner (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Maliner, I have looked through this user's talk page archives 1 to 3 and checked for two things:

  • whether everything had been archived (that seems to be the case), and
  • whether any of DreamRimmer's responses were of concern

  I could not find any temperament issues whatsoever. Could you please point to any that you managed to find? It's of course possible that these occur in later archives that I haven't looked at. Schwede66 21:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Schwede66: Sure. I am lucky that I got the chance to assist you. Please see User talk:DreamRimmer/Archive 6#Reviewing the reviewers, I don't think his recent interaction with Jeraxmoira at Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat)#Unreviewed is comfortable for me to support a future admin candidate. Although Jeraxmoira is a newly granted page patroller, But in my opinion they have enough knowledge to patrol new pages, and I appreciate their efforts in reducing the backlog. I think with some time and more editing in different administrative areas of Wikipedia, he can learn to deal with such situations in a much better way. Regards. Maliner (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I had to explain the NPP flowchart to him three times, which is literally on the NPP welcome message when an editor is granted NPP permission. He chose to ignore them as well as the flowchart and pinged Joe to 'help me understand the process', then accused me of being inconsistent with my comments. He started the discussion titled 'Unreviewed' and made it about notability. I don't think anyone knew that it was about re-reviewing articles marked as reviewed by other NPPs, [1].

  In the end, DreamRimmer, what was the reason for highlighting my temporary NPP status? Were you implying I was inexperienced? And why did you assume Joe didn't know that I and Dewritech were different users? Instead of getting defensive, you could've just acknowledged you weren't familiar with the flowchart and moved on. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was going to say nothing because this was heading towards NOTYET for DreamRimmer which is where I stand, and did not wish to pile on.
  However, since this thread is going to be looked at every time DreamRimmer pushes for adminship in the future, I feel a need to clarify some things. DreamRimmer was correct about what NPP is supposed to do, Jeraxmoira is reading the flowchart wrong. However, being a high-level diplomat is a pass of ANYBIO#2, so DreamRimmer was wrong about what should have been done with the article, and everyone can evaluate their conduct in that incident for themselves. Jeraxmoira came to the right conclusion through flawed reasoning. Joe Roe turned out to be the wrong person to call for a third opinion there because Joe's opinion that NPP should not check for notability is not the consensus position. It's not necessarily wrong. I subscribe to it too to a large extent, especially when the backlog starts ballooning, and of course, that's the way the most prolific reviewers have to have been working given the speed with which they work, but it's not the consensus position, and it's not what the NPP flowchart that was linked to in that discussion says.
  I have not gone into detail here because I do not wish to derail this thread which has a different purpose, but it needed to be said that not everything is so cut and dried. I am happy to elaborate further on all points, wherever is deemed appropriate to do so, including here. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding, Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat)#Unreviewed, I left a comment at Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat)#Break just now with my opinions on this, and decided to send the article to AFD for further discussion. I think DreamRimmer is correct here that this article doesn't pass notability, and I think DreamRimmer's instinct to ping an admin for a second opinion was also fine. Although perhaps it wasn't an ideal interaction for other reasons. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would only challenge that it would not be unreasonable for another reviewer to think that he may be notable or at least not worth putting through AFD. So, a challenge implying the other reviewer had made an egregious mistake was inadvisable. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Are we going to ignore the accusations and the defensive behavior? Okay. I believe I am interpreting the flowchart for what it is instead of considering, 'This is how NPP was followed over the years'. The bubble box in the flowchart links to credible claim of significance, a WP:BEFORE indicates that Ashok Attri (diplomat) has a credible claim of significance. Reiterating that the initial discussion was about the article being 'marked as reviewed' when it may not have passed GNG or other guidelines. I simply showed that there is another possible way to mark an article as reviewed if it has a credible claim of significance. If you feel the flowchart is outdated, I am happy to help with the design! Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  There are software-related obstacles to updating that flowchart. WP:CCS is purely for evaluating WP:A7 and WP:A9. It is unrelated to notability. You'll notice the CCS bubble on the flowchart leads to some forks that involve placing A7 or A9. Let's move this to Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat)#Break so we don't clutter this ORCP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae. Unless DreamRimmer is lying on your name, I was under the illusion that I was echoing more or less what you said to him privately: that DreamRimmer is still not ready for adminiship. I can paste the email here if required at some point in the future. Maliner (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Maliner. Please do not disclose the contents of my private emails. Please see WP:POSTEMAIL. Even mentioning that I did not think he was ready in my email two months ago is quite rude. A lot can happen in two months, and I'd like unbiased folks to give an unbiased appraisal here, which is why I have not chimed in with a ready/not ready opinion in this ORCP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae. I am not at all posting it since I respect you. Maliner (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• What's the story with your previous user name? I'm sure you'll get asked about it, hence you might as well be upfront and state why you asked for a rename. Schwede66 20:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• I haven't done much digging (I'm sick at the moment) but I will say that this username is somewhat familiar to me. I've seen some of their CSD noms and I remember them being accurate. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• You seem very knowledgeable in policy, particularly deletion policy. I feel that if you get 1 more GA, you will be ready for rfa. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• 9/10 Editing period - 18 months (assuming you wait 6 months) is long enough for most people. Admin need - You show a good need for the tools with your work in UAA, AIV, etc. Content - This is what a lot of people look for, and Femke's advice about a second GA seems apt. Interaction with editors - I wouldn't expect anyone to have a 100% record here, and a small number of instances of non-perfect interaction shouldn't deter too many voters, especially if it is more than 6 months in the past. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am posting here in hopes of getting honest feedback on my chances of a successful RfA. I have been an editor on the English Wikipedia since 2018 and in that time my time has been spent mainly with AIV. This is the area I would focus on should I have a successful RfA, mainly using these additional tools to help with the backlog that occurs often at the AIV, UUA and ANEW noticeboards, while continuing my work with antivandalism, for which no additional tools are required. During my time fighting vandalism, I have shown I have the ability to remain civil in disputes, provide feedback and explain policy where needed. I always take a step back to evaluate the situation before commenting (learning from my mistakes as a newbie of WP:BITE and WP:GF).

I would like to also branch out to other areas, such as AfD and AfC, taking guidance from other experienced admins.

Thank you for time in giving me the feedback I require, and will take onboard any concerns or advice given and use this going forward.

Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• How are you with conflict or stressful situations, Tommi? I am looking at an incident from 25 January where you warned a long-term editor for unsourced addition of content. In response, they posted to your talk page telling you you made a mistake and asking for your response. You archived the content of your talk page including that message later the same day. I do not see that you ever responded to them. Being an admin is a very stressful job. You would have to respond to concerns about your actions even when they are raised in a hostile manner (WP:ADMINACCT). Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Usedtobecool, I understand dealing with conflict and dificult situations are a mandatory part of being an admin. Thank you for bringing this up, I can see how the archiving of my talk page may have appeared to ignore the concerns raised by the editor, but assured this was not the case, on this occasion I fail to remember the reasons behind this specific interaction. I am in no way defending this situation and will work hard in the future to ensure this does not happen again. I apologise and can only assure you I believe in open communication between all editors and accountablity. I am now, as I awlays have been, committed to addressing concerns in a timely and respectful manner, even in the face of hostility. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just making sure you know what you'll be getting into. Sounds good. I will try to look at your editing history later and share my feedback if I have something to say that others don't first. Good luck! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I do not think you would pass. No content creation whatsoever as far as I can see, which is a dealbreaker for many people. Very limited deletion experience, and none at all since last June. 95% automated edits in mainspace. Over the last six months, you've averaged only 100 edits per month, which is well below what I'd expect from a candidate focused on anti-vandalism. The incident highlighted by Usedtobecool is also concerning. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your feedback. So, there are some areas to work on, then. I appreciate the feedback. I will read more WP articles on creating content, and I will attempt to get involved with the AfD after reading up on the guidelines. Are there any specific guides or essays you suggest as the best? Or is there anything similar to WP:ADVENTURE that you would recommend that could help expand my knowledge in these areas? Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 15:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

0/10 I took a look at your contributions, and the first thing I saw was edit-warring at Jessica Matten. Indeed, I think you were about one revert away from me considering blocking you. If I'm thinking about blocking a user to prevent disruption, they absolutely should not be an administrator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this was not edit warring, this was reverting of unexplained removal of sourced content which had already been reverted by another editor. Talk page messages were left for the editor in question in relation to these reverts. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 15:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"My edits were right, so I wasn't edit-warring" is one of the oldest cliches in the book. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hey Tommi1986, thanks for putting yourself forward here! If I had to put a number on your chances, I'd go for 4/10 for now, mainly because I feel like the discussion would lean towards WP:NOTQUITEYET territory at this stage. I've looked at the two examples above, and can see where you were coming from with the reversions you made. The line that you removed at JBS S.A. was: "The company has a long history of engaging in corrupt and dishonest business practices." Without any other context, that is an immensely bold claim to make. Because there wasn't a source and recent-changes patrolling doesn't always see the full-page context for every incoming edit, in a vacuum, I'd also lean towards making the exact same revert! However, that's just all in a vacuum: much further down in the page, there is added context via 10+ subsections for various controversies and corruption allegations, so reflecting this fact in the lead is fair to do even without a source per WP:LEAD. Don't get me wrong though, the initial revert, especially if patrolling new changes, is totally a fair and quick judgement call. Definitely a "safe bet" to quickly undo a seemingly "unfounded claim" that gets added without a citation, and I would not oppose your adminship for making that reversion. Admitting when a mistake is made is a very healthy part of being a Wikipedia editor, (and this is coming from someone who's surely made loads of them :'}). I see you've apologized now, and honestly that's enough for me to wholeheartedly believe it, but what was not a good look was not responding to Horse Eye's Back following the initial undo of their good faith edit. That should've garnered a response and not an immediate archival.

For the Jessica Matten edit, I completely understand where you were coming from as well. After all, you weren't even the first to revert, as it was done just before you when the same IP blanked the entire cited filmography section without consensus! From there they kept blanking cited content without an edit summary, to which your initial reaction was definitely justified. Admittedly the removed citation itself wasn't greaaat, but with the IP's background there was cause for alarm. The IP's entire edit history consisted of blanking content on that page, before they created an account just to (presumably) blank it again. It was definitely inexcusable for the IP to consistently blank with zero explanation, so I understand why you did it. However, there's also a level of "being the bigger person" and taking it to the WP:AN3 noticeboard instead. You personally didn't make more than 3 reverts, so you were totally okay within WP:3RR, but coupled with the blank and reversion that Shaws username made before you, it's probably preferable to take this to the talk page and/or report, rather than continuously engage on the frontlines. The last revert you made of Sjo probably didn't need to happen. But even then, not enough for me to oppose your RfA either. Dealing with disruption and vandalism can become a hectic environment full of reversions and re-instatements left and right, and at the end of the day you've been a big help in combatting that.

What I was hoping to see, and this is why I feel this is a WP:NOTQUITEYET situation, is better communication with other editors. I think you made a totally logical and acceptable judgement call in both instances above, very normal and reasonable to make those reversions in a vacuum, but there's also the side of taking accountability and realizing when a mistake is made. Both of these situations could have been avoided if there was more personalized and personable dialogue used with the editors involved. Template messages are certainly a quick and easy way of giving information behind why an edit got reverted. However, there's also the saying of: Don't template the regulars. There needs to be a healthy dosage of assuming good faith when it comes to recent change patrolling. Plopping down a template when a custom message would be preferable to explain why you made a change, as that opens the door to collaboration and consensus. Per WP:ADMINCOND, communication is an utmost requirement for admins. It may be hard to get right 100% of time, and communication styles are certainly a gray area, but it's a skill that can be gained from experience, which might not quite yet be there. I think if you reapply at the ORCP here in 6 or so months, you'll likely get a much better reception.

As for other categories, and something to work on in the meantime, Ingenuity made a good point re: content creation. The most you've edited a single page is 18 times on Thomas & Friends: All Engines Go, and then 14 times on In the Night Garden... is in second. While you've created an insanely admirable 2000-exactly user talk pages, you haven't made a single page in mainspace; not even one redirect either. We're here to build an encyclopedia at the end of the day, so finding something to write about I'd consider to be imperative. Additionally, your automated edits I think are concerning as well. You have 11.2k edits total on Wikipedia, but 5.7k are automated undoes, and 5.4 more are RedWarns. You only have 300 edits to mainspace that were not automated in some way. (Looking at this stat, perhaps the 4/10 was on the high side maybe...) In any case, while automated edits certainly make Wikipedian's lives easier, one should be cautious to not be overly reliant on them, and sticking to only automation while sacrificing talk page communication is likely to be a no-go for admin conduct.

In terms of where you can go from here, well I'd say just finding places to constructively edit would be a good start! AfD I would suggest is a great first stop. You've only edited in AfD pages twice total, which is another problem that I'd see in your path to adminship, but there's no better time than the present to start! They always are in need of help, so the more hands on deck the better. I'd also recommend finding a topic you're passionate in, and expanding on the associated article and bringing it to DYK or to Good Article status is another way to contribute within admin-associated areas. Hopefully this can help, best of luck in your endeavors! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much @Utopes, this is amazingly helpful! I do take onboard the reverting fiasco, and in future will look for other ways of conflict resolution other than becoming finger-happy with the revert button. I also agree with the Horse Eye's Back issue, for which I fully admit was pretty unacceptable and I will ensure that going forward this mistake will not happen again. I will read through the 'Don't template the regulars' article and digest, and going forward try to use personalised talk page message where relevent.

I fully expected the response regarding my actual editing history (or lack thereof) when reading the advice before submitting, but as I was wanting to continue on the path of antivanadlism I thought I would test the waters here! As I said, it has been my intention to branch out to AfC and AfD as well as start contributing to the building of the encylopedia, which I will begin to do once I have read through various guides and policies to ensure I do not make mistakes.

Once again I really do appreciate the time you took here to give me advice and guidance, I will certainly take onboard everything you have said here and use it going forward! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 22:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help! I suppose my personal challenge to you for right now, or maybe within the next day or so (up to you), is to find 5 discussions listed at WP:Articles for deletion, and weigh in. That could be with a !vote to keep or delete, or just a comment, but it's certainly helpful for the closers who deal with the necessary details and closures on the backend. (I know you were asking for some sort of essay or guide, but there's no better practice than just going for it I think. Maybe WP:ATA could be helpful for what not to do during deletion discussions?) Something that essentially all admins have to deal with is deletion of pages across the board. It's highly advisable to participate in XfD discussions to demonstrate understanding of policy, so if you're free for the time being I'd recommend a batch of 5 or so while on the subject. And even moving forward, just responding in 1-2 a day (or whenever) isn't too bad of a Wikipedia habit, lol 😅. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy to accept that challange! I will do that tomorrow, it's kinda late here now!! But thanks again, what you have pointed me to and advised me will help me greatly and given me some good ways to improve. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

I would like to be sysopped sometime, how much of a chance do you think I would have at it?

Context: I would like to be sysopped to prevent vandalism. I have successfully identified and reported/reverted numerous cases of vandalism.

• Admire your good intentions, but at this point you're quite a ways from being ready for adminship (see Wikipedia:Not now). Read Wikipedia:Advice_for_RfA_candidates#RfA essays and criteria for some criteria you'd be expected to fulfill in order to pass. Maybe in 2 or 3 years you'll be ready, and I look forward to supporting you in that case. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 22:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• The lowest edit count to pass RFA in the last few years was 8,000. You're at 1,445. While edit count isn't everything, in this case it does suggest that you may not have the experience yet that the community is looking for. Please take your time, build additional experience, then look into this again at a later date. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit (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)

Do not consider my pblock from ANI. Am I ready for adminship (not planning until at least 6mo later) and what do I lack. Will work in XfD boards and UAA, as well as AIV & RFPP Read the advice page multiple times. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 19:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Cool you're considering a run, even though it's quite some time away still. Readiness always depends a bit on what you want to help out with. Quite a lot of the toolset is about deletion and notability, and those skills are usually easiest to assess. I see you've got a 90% agreement at AfD, which is good. I'm always looking at the quality and nature of disagreements. Some of the !votes could have been a bit stronger: in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Time Is Gonna Come (2nd nomination); I think you could have guessed a Google Books search would turn things up. For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination), you're statement did not go into that much depth. Ideally, given the BLP issues, a stronger rational was given. More worryingly, in your most recent user talk archive, there are still AfC declines of articles resubmitted by you (but written by others). I expect an admin candidate involved in writing new articles to understand notability better. There is still plenty of time to learn, though. I see you've recently received the NPP reviewer right. The folks there are always happy to help if you're not quite certain. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the positive feedback! Toadette^Edit! 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ToadetteEdit: when you change text people have responded to, please strike removed text and underline new text. Otherwise, others seem a bit silly. As if they can't read your text properly. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• A side issue that you want to certainly tidy up before any RfA run is your signature, as it does not match your user name. You'd get opposes just for that. Schwede66 20:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I have changed the signature. Toadette^Edit! 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note that as per the instructions for this poll, it's [t]o request an evaluation of your chances of passing a request for adminship in the next 3 to 6 months. It isn't intended for people to predict how you will build up your skillset and editing record over the next year and a half. For a better indication, please seek advice when you feel more prepared to make a successful request. isaacl (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Understood, I didn't realised that it is intended for editors who are planning an RfA in 3-6mo. Toadette^Edit! 23:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think one of the most important admin traits is recognizing what you do and do not know about a situation and knowing when to ask for help/clarification; no one wants a cowboy admin who takes unilateral action against consensus or who proverbially "shoots first and asks questions later". I think it was unwise for you to jump in at Talk:K. Annamalai#Idea without knowing what led to the topic being placed on the title-blacklist and WP:DEEPER, even though it is described clearly at the top of the talk page. I am worried that if you had adminship at the time, you would have unilaterally overridden community consensus in this circumstance. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  but how? Toadette^Edit! 23:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Just be smart when you comment in discussions/disputes/etc., and show good judgement when weighing in; it's something that builds over time as you become more confident with the non-mainspace areas of Wikipedia. I noticed you recently became an AfC and NPP reviewer, these are great areas to hone the type of critical thinking that makes a successful admin, and indeed many admins were previously AfC and NPP reviewers. Curbon7 (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I will take this in mind. Toadette^Edit! 23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Telling people not to consider your p-block would be a mistake at actual RFA. Because they will not be following that instruction and will definitely be considering that. This is just a heads up that you will need to handle that carefully at real RFA. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)