Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 9

---

Power~enwiki (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)

Let's see what ORCP has to say, noting that I'm considering a run either in mid-OctoberNovember, or in January.

• Despite my account age, I should probably be considered a new editor as of May 2017. Unless you enjoy piling on for its own sake, please assume that the RfA will be after 6 months of continuous participation. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• I would note wage and cane as articles where I've done "maintenance" , and Government and 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis as articles where I've done "content creation".
• AIV and RFPP have delays probably 75% of the time I'm editing. I'd like to do something about it.

• No chance. Power~enwiki, I have often seen you at some of the pages where I edit. I find your contributions to be solid and you seem to understand WP policy. I respect you and I certainly think you could be an admin someday. But it is way, way too early for you to be thinking about adminship. You've only been active since May. You have less than 6000 edits. Maybe you've read the guidelines that say there is no minimum requirement for adminship. They lie. Everybody has their own standards for RfA, but most set a minimum of 10,000 edits and a year's active participation; many people want to see two years. My advice: keep doing what you are doing, keep your block log clean, and create more articles. And come back here in a year or so. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know I have no chance today. I did figure that 6 months / 5000 edits was a plausible minimum to consider this. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Six months may have been considered enough a few years ago, but people really do want to see at least a year nowadays. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not going to score but MelanieN has said it better than I ever could - 3 months tenure is inadequate regardless of account age, If you were to run for RFA it'd be SNOWCLOSED so it may be a good idea to forget RFA/adminship for the next 2-3 years and just focus on editing and contributing like you have been :), Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• ↑ What they said. I don't want to be discouraging, but if you're asking for the power to make rulings over the quality of other peoples' work and are intending to present this as an example of your own, you'll be ripped to shreds. ‑ Iridescent 23:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The article isn't perfect; after 15 years I wish some other Wikipedians would have tried to collaborate on improving it. Power~enwiki (talk)

• No chance - You do not have enough experience in admin areas to really be considered a serious candidate. I share Iridescent: RfA will rip you to shreds if this is the best example of your own work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Advice, we can't judge your chances based on contributions you haven't made. The wording at the top of this page really should be clarified to indicate that "in the near future" means they are being judged "at their current state of editing as if they went for RfA tomorrow".

To give a bit of advice, at least a full year of decent participation would be considered essential normally, But given you have only really been editing in earnest for 4 months or so, you have clearly put yourself in the "I wanna be an admin as soon as possible" camp, which generally means you'll be scrutinized even more heavily. I'd suggest that you wait at least a year before even considering coming back to this poll. In the meantime I'd suggest that you continue doing work with New Page Patrol, where you can get some solid experience in learning correct CSD critera, and correct PROD/AfD nomination. Contributing in AfD discussions is also an area that needs more editors, and will help you down the road if you intend to go for adminship later on. Understanding content creation up to the process of GA review is pretty good to do for anyone, even a non-admin and even if you don't intend to be a solid content creator, as it helps you understand the intricacies of content creation, referencing, and the stresses and concerns of content creators. Find a stub or topic that you are knowledgeable and passionate about, that doesn't have an article, but which has plenty of coverage to use for references and take it all the way up to GA. You'll learn a lot in the process which will be invaluable to all of your other editing. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 01:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Very little chance right now or in 6 months. It's not possible to speculate on your participation. Please read the 2011 WP:RFAADVICE page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

---

DrStrauss (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 mainly involved in new page reviewing, anti-vandalism and general maintenance areas. I realise that my tenure is quite short but I thought I'd sound out the community nonetheless. DrStrauss talk 16:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 6/10 - I've seen you around on project pages, and while I haven't agreed on things like trying to expand WP:CSD#A7, you're entitled to your opinion and you did reach out to me after I strongly disagreed, which shows me you have the right attitude. Your AfD stats are good, you are getting heavily involved in all the debates so I can see an obvious need for you having the tools in able to close discussions as well as participating in them. Elsewhere, you have got stuck in with closing debates like Matthew_Gordon_Banks and revised your view politely when challenged on them. plus you have done a lot of fiddly stuff like page moves. Content wise I can see you writing stuff like Wetherby Whaler which is fine. The one sticking point is that you've only been around for 8 months, and that'll kill an RfA stone dead. Keep doing what you're doing, with maybe a few more articles and getting noticed as a guy who mucks in with the project work, and this time next year you should be able to pass easily. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• I have always seen you around AfC doing great work, and my impression of your comments have been generally civil and positive, so I do believe the temperament is there. Some brief comments:
  • Almost 2/3 of your edits (18069) are (semi-) automated. In addition, 120 edits per day does not seem to be an sustainable average.
  • Absence of activity in majority of other namespace may also be an issue.
  • Although your AfD votes are generally consistent with the result, almost every rationale that I have searched are just given in one line, which can hardly be considered as meaningful contribution to the discussion. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 17:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 I have my own thoughts on edit counts that may contradict the type of editors I speak of, but with 2,000 non-automated edits, I feel like this could be a deal killer for some commenters at RfA in combination without account age. There's the argument that edit count inflation is going on in RfA "requirements" by some editors, but I get the feeling 2k is pretty low even for the less conservative of these folks. Tough to predict how it would turn out with that in mind. At the least, I'd be ready to comment on how involved you were in your automated edits (i.e., automated but a lot of personal checking of that content vs. mindless auto-fixes by the program). Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Just to confirm, but are you lookng at the right set of figures? It's ~8 / ~12,000 edits (depending on incl. deleted)- going by [1]? — fortunavelut luna 17:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I was going by the non-automated edits link included in the initial poll post. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for that Kingofaces43, apologies for doubting you! I don't really understand the discrepancy between the figures, but. In any case, that means only ~10% manual edits to mainspace? H'mmm. — fortunavelut luna 17:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, my guess is that it's talk page edits that make the discrepancy (X tools aren't working for me right now to double check). I personally don't find that a complete deal killer since I'm in a similar boat from using AWB to do a lot of talk page maintenance, but I think there's a case for saying more direct non-automated article edits are going to be helpful. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 1/10 Fails my criteria. Your best article is B-class Herd of Sheffield. Your account isn't even a year old so you must have skipped reading WP:NOTNOW before posting here. I question your comment here saying "if you insist on not lifting the protection until the restrictions are lifted then I will do my utmost to have the arbitration enforcement consensus on the matter changed." Dear DrStrauss, ARBCOM has restricted editing of Mass killings under Communist regimes for good reason and anyone who thinks they must be allowed to edit an article should not be an admin. Also, you seem a little too eager for tools. You asked for Rollback only weeks after starting here, withdrew, and then applied again shortly thereafter. You requested to be a New Page reviewer with less than a month of editing. You requested PageMover in February and were denied, again weeks later and denied, and once more in June which was successful. This is problematic for me. I don't know if you have too much enthusiasm or you really think you know what you're doing. Even I am occasionally wrong and I've been editing for four years, which isn't long at all. Keep editing as you have been and maybe in a few years you might be ready. Please don't display any more enthusiasm in the meantime. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris troutman, I know it's not generally advised to reply to RfA !votes and the like but I feel like I need to say my bit. I didn't skip not now, in fact, I specifically said that I think my tenure could be an issue. The advice pertains to the RfA process and not OCRP and there is no harm in sounding out the community. Wikipedia was founded on the principle of an encyclopedia which "anyone can edit" which is why protection is generally not pre-emptive. I think a blanket disregard of those who feel they need to edit an article for adminship kind of goes against the very reason we're here: to build an encyclopedia. I know ArbCom rulings are binding but it doesn't mean I can't disagree with their principles. You are however correct in attributing what may appear to be hat collecting to enthusiasm but I think discouraging me from showing any enthusiasm is a bit odd. We've got to be enthusiastic about what we do, otherwise we wouldn't do it. Anyway, thank you for your advice and I shall reflect upon it. DrStrauss talk 18:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• This will sink you for at least the next year. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• 3/10 I have seen your activity numerous times, and interacted with you a few times. In a nutshell, I see a hard-working and a polite editor that can use the toolbox proficiently. But RfA is getting more brutal these days. I think it was after GAB's RfA that an editor sarcastically suggest to rename the process to "request to be nitpicked".

• I agree with most of points by Alex above.
  • Even though I am okay with an editor's short tenure, a lot of editors would use this as an oppose argument.
  • Most of my arguments in AfD, and nominations are usually one liners (I tend to keep them short, and precise); but this is something I (and possibly other editors) dont want to see in an RfA candidate.
• You have touched most of the namespaces, but your activity is mostly confined to article space. In an RfA candidate I need to see a good activity in a few namespaces, or extraordinary (not count, but exceptional) activity in any one namespace.
• This brings us to another current issue: you've a total of ~19000 edits to article space; and ~3200 edits to user, and usertalk. From all the 30,000 edits, we have 18k semi-auto edits; with around 12k manual edits.
  • In an RfA candidate, other editors would like to see a little less automated edits. But this can be easily worked out in upcoming future (before RfA).
• As pointed about your requests for permissions above by Chris, I believe it will be seen as hat-collecting; even if it was enthusiasm or genuine need for tools. I say let it cool off by letting some time pass by, at least an year from now.
• If you continue your editing the same way for two years, there would be no doubt in you passing the RfA.

Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 19:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 2/10 per many reviewer's concerns above, mainly the activity issues. Once you've active for quite some time, your RFA will surely won't sink without problems about your activity. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 19:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Low out of ten I try and avoid the obtusity of numbering here, but I am forced to agree with the points above. And, if there was ever to be a double whammy, it might, ironically, be the aforementioned AfDs. See, what will doubtless come up is episodes such as between 08:36 and 09:10 on 1 August, when you !voted in twenty one discussions in thirty-four minutes ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]). At a rate of a !vote every 1.5 minutes (and that's the average- on many occasions it's two a minute!), it might be asked how much depth of deliberation or weighing of policy has taken place in reaching the decision. And, FWIW, it's not an isolated example; a similar record is continued about an hour later, with another fifteen !votes in twenty-four minutes, and on 3 August, between 1145-1220, twenty six !votes were filed in those thirty-five minutes. But I think we get the general impression. Combined with the fact that many of them are 'tail-end' !votes, when the outcome would have been clear, I'd just suggest that the AfD record might sing in a slightly different key to expected. However, it's easily rectified, and aligns to the fundamental advice given here- tgere's no WP:DEADLINE, of course, and slowing down, taking a bit longer over actions, will only be beneficial to you and the 'paedia. Good luck, — fortunavelut luna 12:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Very enthusiastic, working in the right areas but still with some knowledge gaps to fill. There are indications (rightly or wrongly) that this is a young(ish) user with some heavy committments in RL. Do the maintenance work but be less concerned with deeper meta issues for another year at least while throttling back on the edits - edit count is not everything. At the moment everything will look to the voters as if you're deliberately working towards becoming an admin which of course is the wrong reason to join Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• 2/10 Your account is only 8 months old. Please read WP:NOTYET and focus on improving the wiki. You can reconsider adminship in a few years. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 04:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• 3/10 While RFA has become harsher these days and activity is emphasized more, I don't think that alone will sink any RFA as there are still sufficient !voters (myself included) who had similar "short" activity / low non-automated edit counts before passing RFA and thus will not emphasize it too much. The issues mentioned above, especially the ones FIM mentions, are harder to overcome and will likely sink said RfA. While being active at AFD is a noble pursuit, so many !votes in such a short time cannot possibly be the result of an in-depth analyses of the subjects. Add the fact that your approach to speedy deletion seems a little hasty (cf. this ten-year old article about a Renaissance painter who is covered in a 130 year old book) and any RFA at this point will likely fail. That said, I do see the potential and after some time and some moderation on the hastiness, I think the chances will be quite good. Regards SoWhy 14:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• 1/10 – No GAs or more, been here less time than I have, and the enforced block. Also large number of (semi-) automated edits. Sorry. J947^{(c) (m)} 19:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• 1/10 as per Kudpung and fortuna - The tenure as well as the one-lined AFD !votes are enough for me to Oppose and quite possibly would be enough to sink an RFA, In short (IMHO) you need to be 2+ years and you need to improve on your AFD !votes as well as work in admin areas. –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• 2/10  I don't think this candidate would attract much support.  Caveat: The following are not randomly selected AfD examples, rather they are all examples in which I have previous knowledge of the circumstances of the AfD.  At the just-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DriveU (2nd nomination) the editor posts prejudice against a WP:RS without explanation.  The !vote on Biocom (2nd nomination) (itself a controversial result), the !vote is based on unidentified and thus uncorrectable "peacock terms".  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayumi Shinoda, the editor supports the nomination of a sock puppet, and the !vote argument itself is from WP:ATA.  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Free Speech rally the candidate doesn't show the knowledge of the circumstances in which to apply a non-admin closure as an AfD nominator.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Unscintillating: thank you for the advice, I've updated the last AfD you mentioned in line with withdrawal procedures. DrStrauss talk 17:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, an improvement IMO, but you've modified your post after someone has commented on the post without marking the change.  If you check WP:TPG, you will see guidance on using <ins></ins> and <del></del>.  And last I heard, the delete !votes, while they wouldn't stop you from withdrawing, normally inhibit a nominator from closing the discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

---

331dot (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 approached by Kostas20142 here who suggested that I might make a good candidate for an RfA and that I should take the poll to see what others thought; I come now to do so. I participate at the Teahouse, NPP, ITNC, and making reports at WP:UAA, among other things I do. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yep, I've seen you on the spam userspace circuit, and, although I've had to straighten you out every now and again :p ;) that's mostly good, as reflected in CSD log, tenured, articles created- check, AfD stats pretty good (although quite a few of your own noms seem to have gone south?), but all in all — fortunavelut luna 11:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• 8.5/10: you should succeed, more than sufficient tenure and contributions, clean block log. CSD and UAA fine. Articles not spectacular (on the basis that many demand GAs) but more than enough to swat away any article creation concerns. If I'm nitpicking/playing devil's advocate and looking for areas where people could oppose, it would be things like "only 18% mainspace contributions", less than 99% article summaries (!) neither of them reasons for not giving you the tools but don't say I didn't warn you if they come up. The more substantial complaint would be one of you being too deletionist. In your last 50 AFD votes you've only voted keep once and there have been a few in the last year where your noms were kept: kept on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES grounds, this and this. I don't see any of that being a deal breaker. Might also be an idea to go through articles you have created and deal with any maintenance tags, this one for example. Valenciano (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10: Overall work is fine, but the mainspace edits is not an issue here and the majority of edits are user talkspace. I would support you granting adminship. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10: thought you were one already. DrStrauss talk 17:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Tenure is fine, activity is fine, The 46% user talk / 18% mainspace thing is a slight issue for me but not really worth worrying over, You contribute in admin areas and for me the "deletionist" !votes isn't really an issue, Block log's clean, All in all I think RFA would be successful for you if you chose to go through with it, –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 Please don't run yet. You have a clean block log. Your PROD log and CSD log are appropriately red. Your AfD log looks great and I agree with your rationale even when the consensus was against you. You've created 21 unimpressive articles, the best of which (James Foley (journalist)) looked like this when you abandoned it. You have been spending time at WP:ITN, which is good. You've been active with WP:NPP, which is great. I, personally, would like to see better article contributions but with the right nominator you could pass now. Rather than chance it, I'd focus on impressing the aggregate and getting your ducks in a row and you could be admin by Christmas. You're really close to being ready. Do start developing a statement and answers to the boilerplate questions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Finally, a worthy adversary approaches! Considering you are consistently productive at CSD, AfD, and UAA, and have an adequate time of service, I think you would have a great chance to succeed in the gauntlet known as RfA. If you want to improve the likelihood, find a topic of interest and bring it to DYK. Nothing excessive; I'm not one who believes an admin needs to write a dozens GAs because, let's be fair, not everyone is an avid writer. You have proven you are valuable to other areas of the encyclopedia, and, for that reason, I would support you in your quest to handle the mop.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• TheGracefulSlick, I think you mean "bring it up to GA", as simple start class articles can be DYK-eligible. I concur that having a "GA" under your belt would be helpful. Schwede66 07:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• 7.5/10 Not sure why you removed most of your CSD log shortly before requesting this review, some people might find that suspicious and possibly even consider this an attempt to mask recent mistakes by presenting only parts of the log. The log itself looks mostly fine, mistakes such as this A7 for a subsidiary of Rakuten or this A7 for a newspaper owned by Civitas Media, shouldn't really happen to an experienced editor but that is easily fixable. You will most likely have to explain AFD nominations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Locksmiths of America and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All About Jazz; also, less than 10% keep !votes might lead some people to assume you are an "evil deletionist"™. Lack of significant content contributions will unfortunately get you some opposes but not enough to sink the request. All in all I think the chances of succeeding are well above 75% but the percentage will likely be below 90%. Regards SoWhy 09:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I understand and appreciate your comments; I would only say that I had no idea someone was going to suggest I come here when I cleaned out my CSD log. I had been archiving them in the past but both that and keeping log entries for longer than a few months seemed unnecessary to me at the time. If it was an issue, I would be happy to restore the entries I removed. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Always assume the worst when it comes to RfA, unfortunately. I remember how much problems I had in my RfA for having a particular userbox I never thought would create such a fuss. And removing a huge chunk of entries shortly before asking for comments might rub some people the wrong way. Maybe instead of removing them, in future, archive them using collapsible sections ({{cot}} and {{cob}})? That way they are still on the page without taking up too much space Regards SoWhy 10:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes SoWhy, since WP "has already got enough unchristian admins," I hope you've been genuflecting on that the last eight years  ;) — fortunavelut luna 10:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@FIM: Boy, did I! SoWhy 11:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• 7/10 I've bumped into you at ITN several times. To address the content concerns above, you could find a RD nomination there that you would normally oppose on quality, and fix it so it gets posted. See recent history of Death of Diana, Princess of Wales (it was OTD rather than ITN, but the principle is the same). Your CSD log is mostly okay - I personally don't think Frontiers of Computer Science was a G11 (it's definitely not an A7 as it's print media) but I do think Voyagin was a borderline case (I would have just redirected without comment). I'm not fussed about things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Del Mar Academy where it seems to be six of one, half a dozen of the other. I agree with SoWhy and Chris Troutman that you could have a slightly bumpy RfA with a bit of hassle now, or a smack-the-ball-out-of-the-park RfA in about six months. Up to you really. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - I think you would be well received by the community. I take pause at your CSD Log cleaning but I don't think it would have a significant effect once you explained it. -- Dane ^talk 04:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 is my estimate of your likelihood of passing RfA. RfA is a negative place - as SoWhy says, always expect the worst. Don't look for reasons to delete articles at AfD, base your votes on policy/guidelines, and your closures on consensus. It's quite obvious most articles at AfD get deleted - that's why they are there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• I thank everyone for their views and good feedback. I'm honored that anyone thinks that I would merit having "the mop" as I just focus on helping out Wikipedia where I think I can do so. I have told the user who suggested I come here that I would like to wait until much closer to the end of the year before proceeding on a nomination. I don't believe this is something that should be rushed into even if I might pass now. Thanks again, and if anyone has any further advice, I would be willing to hear it. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - You seem like a strong candidate, but from what I have seen at RfA it is brutal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• You are one of the better participants at ITN. You don't seem to let your own biases get in the way of your !votes and I would have complete confidence in your ability to close discussions with consensus. I do not think you should feel obliged to wait 6 months. Sure you could use that time to create a few decent articles and breeze through, but you shouldn't feel forced to change your editing habits just to become an admin. AIRcorn (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Bobherry (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 am mostly involved in vandalism fighting. I have been on Wikipedia since 2011 and currently have Rollback and Pending Changes Reviewer rights. My edit count is around 2,700. If I was given sysop I would mostly watch RFPP and AIV logs.

• Not a full review, but I suggest that before you go to RfA, you need to create a bit more content than the two contributions that you've made so far: this from November 2011 and this from February 2015. Many reviewers are rather intolerant of such little content creation and will oppose you merely based on that. Schwede66 01:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I took a wikibreak to finish up HS. I just started college so I now have much more time to edit. Bobherry Talk Edits 01:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 Your re-lists such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Wenzel were very strange, and your request for New Page Reviewer permissions (Special:Diff/800795862) was declined. Also, your edit count is too low. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 - If you ran for RFA tomorrow or even next year it'd be snowclosed without a doubt, Your edit count is rather on the low side (Sure you hit over 100 in Oct 2015 and 365 Sep 2017 however inbetween those dates it's been exceptionally poor), You've also managed to rack up 1,055 edits / 42.6% in User talk whilst only hitting 543 edits / 21.9% in mainspace, The content creation isn't an issue for me however you contribute more to user talkpages than you do articles which is an issue for me, You've contributed at AIV however judging by the Xtools piechart Id say it's been very minimal work, Your CSD log looks fine although after 2015 it's pretty much empty, Your AFD record leaves a lot to be desired for - It's not completely bad but it's not brilliant either, As I said at the start your RFA would sink so as such it may be a better idea to focus more on mainspace editing and the admin areas and perhaps retry in 3-5 years time. –Davey2010^Talk 03:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• As a friendly sidenote it might be a better idea to change your signature colours - Red on black and most certainly blue on black don't work ... –Davey2010^Talk 03:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• 0/10 - As shared by others here, your low edit count would be a problem with the community at RfA. Your edit namespace breakdown would also be a problem. I'd suggest working on your contributions and contributing to more spaces around Wikipedia. -- Dane ^talk 04:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Sir Sputnik (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've been on Wikipedia just shy of ten years at this point, and have been considering adminship for some time now. Given my involvement in SPI, and the current backlog of that process, I figured now would good time start down that road in earnest. If appointed I would also make a point of involving myself deletion and anti-vandalism work. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• 6/10 Your AfD is good. Your CSD is red but you have a bit much blue on your PROD log as of late. You created 205 articles, 15 of which have been deleted. None of your creations look impressive. It would appear you've never taken anything to WP:GA or WP:DYK. In fact, you've created a bunch of poorly-sourced stubs. How is Marc Carbonneau notable? For that reason, I give you no content-creation credit. Most of your deleted articles are players of Magic: The Gathering, with this flimsy excuse for presumable notability. That's pretty poor judgement, to my mind. You are using your reviewer flag. You have a clean block log. I don't think the aggregate will oppose you much. I wouldn't support you. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

To answer your explicit, Marc Carbonneau participated in the kidnapping of James Cross. This makes him one of the co-perpetrators of perhaps the most significant terrorist attack on Canadian soil. (See October Crisis for more detail). Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. Carbonneau fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. I have doubts he could pass WP:GNG. That you didn't address any of those criteria is proof you have a flawed understanding of notability, in my opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm with Chris troutman on this one. A redirect is best there. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Now that's hardly fair. Making assumption of what I think, based on what I didn't say. If you want evidence of knowledge of WP:Notability, I need only point my deletion work. A quick word search of my PROD log reveals over 1000 PROD's based in part on the fact that the subject "fails WP:GNG", with most of these resulting in deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

But if we're going to make a big deal out of the article on Carbonneau, then perhaps a more detailed explanation is in order. I wrote the article because I wanted to try my hand at translation. I deliberately chose a stub to keep things simple. The work being done, I found I didn't much care for it, nor did the subject of the article I translated hold my interest, so I left it as is. I knew who Carbonneau was from high school history. The man is quite literally in the history books (or textbooks at least.) Of course, I didn't cite it, since I don't have access to that textbook anymore having left school many years ago. But notability is not based on what sources are cited in the article, but on what sources exist. I figured it wasn't unreasonable to assume that someone covered in a history textbook for their involvement in an event of national importance would also have been significantly covered elsewhere. That being said, the is an definitely is an argument to be made about the lack verifiable evidence of significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sir S, take it easy--you're not under attack. I'm just talking about the article. I assume he wasn't the only one mentioned in that section in your textbook? Anyway, it's an opportunity to improve the "main" article and send those redirects the right way, merging some of the content (it would be nice if you found some more so you can give him a juicy paragraph), and show the nay-sayers that you are actually a content editor too. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Drmies on this. I'm not attacking you. I'm giving you honest input so you hear it in a smaller forum instead of getting embarrassed at RfA. The point here is that you made some editing decisions you were fine with and probably didn't think anyone else would take issue with it. This is my expression of disapproval. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You gotta love text only communication. I never thought your comments were anything else, but apparently my choice of words sounded more defensive than intended. Thank you both for you input. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Undecided It's not clear if questions are "allowed" here, but if they are, an important question that is frequently asked: For what purpose(s) would you use the tools? It would be important to demonstrate considering limited content creation in 10 years, focus on AfDs and notability essays ref as well as your interactions with other editors related to these realms.Hmlarson (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 - Your CSD log is quite big however you only have 9 total A7 noms which might dissuade some voters, with 1 being rejected and taken to AfD (Minko Zhilkov) and another without a clear resolution as having been A7 deleted (Delta Orebro IF). You have a 92% overall major edit summary usage with 96% of your last 150 major edits with edit summaries. I think these issues would cause pushback by the community. If I were going to give you some advice, I'd say work on tagging A7's and use edit summaries consistently on every edit. Overall, once these issues are addressed i'd say you could be a 7/10 within 6 months to a year of demonstrating improvement. -- Dane ^talk 01:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dane: I'm curious, why the particular emphasis on A7? Also please don't mistake the lack of use of A7 for a lack of evaluation under A7. It just doesn't apply all that often in articles I evaluate for deletion, given that my primary subject area is football and that involvement in professional sport is usually a credible claim to importance even when it is insufficient for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: Based on recent RfA's I believe that the community at large wants to see regular successful A7 CSD's being marked for newer admins. I don't think you'll find many who will make the distinction between lack of tags and lack of evaluation. I'd expect editors to followup and challenge that. I could be wrong though, I'd obviously weigh all the votes you receive here to see if anyone else thinks these would have much of an impact as I believe. Either way, I wish you luck :-). -- Dane ^talk 02:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik and Dane: I dont mind lack of A7 as long as the candidate has shown understanding of BLP policies through other means. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• 6/10 is my estimate, based on my experience of voting on 100s of RfA, of your likelihood of convincing the community to pass RfA. I do not know how I would vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Undecided I took a look at three random articles that you created, and all were players of Magic: The Gathering. I have deep concern about whether these card players are notable, and I find this deep focus disconcerting. I could be convinced that you should become an administrator, but only after I had a much better understanding of your rationale for creating these strange biographies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 - Usually the article creation side of things don't bother me - Some like to create articles some don't, Anyway having looked at 3 random articles you created (Wolfgang Tillich, Marvin Knoll (diff) and Thomas Tuchel (diff) - Out of 3 2 of those were unsourced upon creation and one still is unsourced today, The other had a pretty crap source, IMHO most of what you create doesn't even come close to being notable (The Marc article being the shining example), Your CSD log and your PROD log contains quite a lot of bluelinks for my liking, Your AFD's fine, Tenue is fine, Recent activity is fine, Overall If you ran for RFA I think it'd be 50/50 and FWIW like Kudpung I have no idea where to !vote neither. –Davey2010^Talk 11:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not really familiar with your work at SPI, perhaps because a lot of my time has been focused on specific cases. If you got a CU, SPI clerk, or patrolling admin who's familiar with your work to nominate you, that would help a lot. I think one reason I passed my RFA was because I had a long history of content creation to offset the heavily deletionist-leaning history at AfD. Some people want to be reassured you won't go on crazy deletion sprees. Get a good nominator, flesh out some of those stubs, and I think you could pass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• 5.5/10 Prolific editor (100k+), long been around, obviously WP:HERE. Plays nice with others. Issues are as noted above, I'm afraid you'd get dinged, fair or not, for notability issues, and that the articles you have created are mostly stubs, some starts, and only 2 at C, nothing higher, and several have been deleted. The fact that 60% of your edits are in article space may offset this. You'd have my vote, but if you could show you've brought an article to "B", or "GA" status, it would help, and if you could show where you've added superior sources to a poorly-sourced BLP article (other than FOOTY, where you've already demonstrated your value) I think it would raise your chances. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10: seen you around quite a lot, A7 and content creation seem to be the trendy thing to talk about at RfA these days and as other users have pointed out, some may oppose on this basis. You've got my support though. I'd say go for it. DrStrauss talk 20:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Zawl (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 love the project a lot and learnt so much during my time here, thus, want to become admin so I can further my contributions in the administrative area and perform tasks that I'm unable to do without the tools such as deleting, protecting and blocking. I've been blocked 2 times for edit warring and sockpuppetry a long time ago but I'm a productive editor now and really hope to do more for the project.

• Hi Zawl, I'm sure I speak for everyone many when I say that we appreciate your enthusiasm to help, and your re-dedication to the project, but unfortunately it is less than a year since you were last blocked (deliberately), and that is, I regret to say, fundamental. I have no idea how long the hivemind takes this into account- but I would frankly suggest another year- and probably two- of productive editing to clear the record. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 15:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see you were User:TheMagnificentist. Aaahh :) — fortunavelut luna 16:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• To start off, you might want to ask to be unblocked on Commons to release yourself from the past. I have read through only some parts of the extended history. I think it's fair to say you have been productive for the most parts since the block, and I am impressed that you have managed to stay relatively calm in some of the contentious situations and in face of many editors still questioning your ability to be productive. I am afraid to say that the chances of you passing RfA anytime soon is probably next to zero. I think many of the reviews in the poll from DrStrauss can be applicable here also. Having 70.1% of your edits being (semi-)automated is not encouraging; to convince other editors, you need to participate in more extensive discussions (VP, RFC, AfD etc.) across the project to demonstrate your sense of judgement. That's probably the only advice I can give now. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 16:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• 1/10: The most recent block is too new, and the language used by the admins at the time was quite strong. I would agree with fortuna velet luna that at least a year of clean and useful editing, would be needed given past events, and with Alex Shih that more experience in the areas he mentions and others would help other edits gauge your judgment as it would relate to administrative matters. I personally would not vote for any candidate who archives all posts after eight hours or even a day; it discourages interaction and transparency, forcing other editors to search for current activity and issues, which is not what I'm looking for in a potential admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• 2/10 - I agree with many others that your block is too recent for the community to support you at RfA. In regards to your editing history, you have recent participation in administrative areas which is good. Your CSD log is also good when I do a quick spot check. I'd continue to work on discussions in RfCs, AfD and admin areas and let some more time pass between you and that block. -- Dane ^talk 16:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• 1/10 - A good mix of article to maintenance work, but that block log will tank an RfA. Particularly a WP:NOTHERE block; 3RR blocks for years ago can be excused, but not that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• 1/10 - is my estimate, based on my experience of voting on 100s of RfA, of your likelihood of convincing the community to pass RfA. The blocs are too recent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 Total non-starter. Failing my criteria is just the tip of this iceberg. Two blocks within the past year. There are plenty of comments like this, less than a year ago, too. There's an argument to be made that you shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia, let alone serve as an admin. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (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)

Have been around 3 years counting to this December, have been active on Military history related topics, and I execersie a several rights, planning for adminship, and looking forward for the same. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Modified: I started contributing to en Wikipedia in December 2014. Though initially I committed some newbie errors, later I studied the guidelines, and worked accordingly. At the very beginning, I concentrated on creating articles, but later realized that quality matters more. So I started picking articles and developing them GA status, getting them to DYK section, and if possible to A-class and FA/FL level. Playing my part, I reviewed a good number of GA nominations (>100), and a few A-class, featured content nominations. Through all this time, I have been active on WP Military history and WP India. I also did a few deletion sortings, and have been involved in AfDs, requested moves, counter vandalism, new page patrol, and pending changes review. During the past few months, owing to my involvement in outreach events, my online activity has gone down, but however, I plan to do well in the coming months. Between, I wish know my potential for being an admin. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong content creation, prolific contributor to Indian military history. You would likely have the support of WP:MILHIST and WP:INDIA easily. I haven't be able to locate any evidence of past conflicts (very rare for editors working with potentially contentious topics), and your interaction with other editors appears to be consistently courteous and friendly. Your extensive work with deletion sorting would tick the box of "having shown good understanding of deletion policy". Unless if I am missing something (some early mistakes from 2016, perhaps), I think you are in really good shape. Alex Shih^Talk 04:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seen you around, and had a generally positive impression. You've some experience with deletion (though I haven't reviewed the tags), suggesting you have a need for the tools. You also have some experience with content creation, which is a positive. Some folks might wonder why 5 of your creations were deleted, but if you can explain that properly it shouldn't be a big deal. Others may wonder at a drop in activity, which, IMO, shouldn't be a problem so long as you commit to being accountable for the actions you take. I seem to recall some disagreement over splitting articles to take them to FLC; if this recollection is correct, this is a conflict you would need to address. My vote would hinge on what admin activity you would be interested in participating in, whether you have the skills for that, and whether you know your limits; if you only wanted to work with PROD and CSD, folks' assessment of your record would be quite different than if you expressed a desire to deal with dispute resolution and behavioral issues in India politics, for instance. None of these are issues that could not be sorted out by a thorough nomination statement and detailed answers to questions. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I will admit I am slightly concerned by the commons RFA. Folks at en.wiki RFAs are mildly allergic to hat-collecting, and correctly or otherwise, such a request may leave such an opinion. That said, there isn't much you can do about it now; just think this through, and if you are clear as to what your motivations are, you should be able to convey that to the !voters. Vanamonde (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• My personal experience with you has been neutral (tending very slightly towards negative); I recall not receiving any response to a request I had made on your talk page. A majority of your Afd participation has been in nominating articles for deletion; and with just around ~66% success rate (specially being the nominator), you would stand a very weak chance at clearing an Rfa currently, given the expectations' level these days. Your mistagging of CSDs like this A10 on Banque Nationale de Paris (July 2017) or this one where you quoted an incorrect CSD reason ("With just two citations, 90% of the content is unsourced. MoS is violated all through the article") (September 2017) would also hold you down. On the other hand, with your standing in MILHIST, you would get at least some dedicated supports. I would suggest sprucing up the Afd participation and CSD nominations for six months or more and coming back here for more views and guidance. Thanks. Lourdes 09:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10: Majority of edits are content creations to military history topics. CSD and PROD logs are fine, and most AFDs are noms which some resulted in "Keep". Overall work is good. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 I don't see any red flags. With a strong nominating statement, and a clear answer to "what admin work do you plan to do" that is supported by some experience in that area, you will have a very good shot. As a reply to an earlier point; I think that a 80% success rate (ignoring "no consensus") for nominations at AfD is more than good enough; if a person's success rate is 95%, they should probably be using PROD more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 - Your recent activity has been extremely low and IMHO you're on the verge of inactivity (I don't expect anyone to be here 24/7 365 days a year but I do expect more activity), You don't really participate in any of the admin areas (XFD, AIV, UFAA etc etc), Your CSD long from November '16 is more or less empty aswell, Being absolutely honest there doesn't look to be any reason as to why you need the tools and I could be completely wrong but as your RFA failed at Commons I'm getting this feeling this is nothing more than WP:hat collecting (ofcourse if I'm wrong then I do apologise but that's just my honest opinion), In short because of the low-activity, next-to-none edits at XFD etc and the no real need of the admin tools I personally think it'd be snow closed (ofcourse this is just my take on it and who knows I may well be wrong and it could closed as successful), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 - I think this lands firmly in the "could go either way" realm. I tend to agree with Davey2010 that your recent activity (or lack thereof) could present a problem at RfA. I spot checked your CSDs (grabbed 5 random ones) and only found 1 problem (A7 nom declined). Your AfD noms are overall good with no significant concerns. I honestly feel the community could be split if you were to go now. In terms of recommendations for improvement, my only takeaway would be to increase your activity. -- Dane ^talk 16:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 - is my estimate, based on my experience of voting on 100s of RfA, of your likelihood of convincing the community to pass RfA. I do not know how I would vote. Voters would question this year's activity as not necessarily being a demonstration of a need for the admin tools,Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 2/10 - I believe the above comments have ignored the elephant in the room here. Having said that, I'd like to preface my comments by saying that the remarks I am about to make are not designed to intimidate you or to hurt you. This is my honest appraisal of one of the issues that could sink your RfA attempt. I believe that your English, while better than most Indians who grace the English Wikipedia is still at an unacceptable standard. Nobody is perfect when it comes to this area but I believe that anyone who puts themselves up for ORCP with this statement: "Have been around 3 years counting to this December, have been active on Military history related topics, and I execersie a several rights, planning for adminship, and looking forward for the same." Will be picked apart at their RfA. 'A several rights', 'execersie', 'looking forward for the same', unneeded third person narrative in 'have been active on Military history related topics' - that's four errors (some more blatant than others) in one sentence. Am I nitpicking? Perhaps and your user page doesn't seem too bad in regards to this issue but you will have to answer questions at the RfA which will no doubt provoke additional scrutiny on this issue. My suggestion based on what I have said so far would be to improve the standard of your English and then come back. I look forward to seeing your RfA attempt in the near future. Thanks. -=Troop=- (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose one could argue that, if KCV's orthography will only take a period of time between now and "the near future" (my emph.) to improve to such a level whereby they should lodge a RfA, then it can't be that bad can it :) otherwise... it would take that much longer to improve. — fortunavelut luna 19:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• 5, maybe 6 out of 10. Your English is good enough to write a featured article, so I'm not concerned that you can't communicate effectively in English, but perhaps when you're in a rush you don't come across as clearly. Admins need to be able to explain themselves clearly and concisely in all sorts of situations, sometimes to angry mobs, so my advice would be to make sure you communicate as clearly in project space as you write in mainspace. The only other likely line of opposition I can foresee is that you haven't articulated a need for the tools and you don't generally specialise in admin areas, so some might infer that you're more interested in status; a good nomination statement and answer to Q1 would solve that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• !Voters at RfAs often refer to this page when people have participated in an ORfA. Trooper has made the exact comment that I was going to make. Your approach to this poll is much too casual and the word "execersie" is so mangled that it makes me dubious about your competence to perform administrative tasks thoughtfully and diligently. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Trooper1005, HJ Mitchell, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for comments. Actually sorry for making a casual statement. I've posted a more formal and tweaked statement above. Kindly have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Your new statement is a substantial improvement. That said, it does not answer a central question; what do you want to do with the admin tools? Please remember, adminship is not status. It is the technical ability to do more work. Most reasonable voters will evaluate whether you have the skills for the work you wish to do. If I had said at my RFA that I wanted to delete files and place rangeblocks, odds are I would not have passed. Vanamonde (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

---

HistoryAlight (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)

Seeking adminship in the near future; want to be able to contribute more on British politics with administrator tools (for example, I recently created the page For Britain, which has been vandalised now five times since its creation. I have to request protection from administrators when I believe I should be able to already - with the experience I have).

I have read the Wikipedia:Not now page and I am open to opposed comments rather than shying away from constructive criticism as I strive to be the best Wikipedian I can be.

Regards,

HistoryAlight (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• ...rating and optional brief comment...
• 0/10 not a chance with less than 200 edits and not a single edit in any administration areas (except one request for page protection). SNOW close. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Jon Kolbert (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)

My primary area of work is in file maintenance both here and on Wikimedia Commons. I have been actively going through maintenance categories to check that media on the project are free of copyright violations and non-encyclopedic material, as well as ensuring that policies such as WP:NFCC are being respected. I also have experience at both WP:UAA and WP:AIV, and feel comfortable working in those areas. I frequently nominate files to files for discussion, reasons vary from being a licensing issue or simply a discussion to determine whether a non-free file is below the threshold of originality and eligible for transfer to Commons.

My participation at WP:AfD is minimal, I generally only nominate articles at AfD that I have come across in my file work. I don't really have much interest in participating at AfD, there's more than enough work to be done with files on the project.

Recently I have started working on tickets in the permissions-en and permissions-commons queues on WP:OTRS. The admin bit would be useful to view deleted files referenced from old tickets so we can add useful, freely-licensed media to the project.

I also run a bot which updated certain domains from using http to using https. I'm currently working on a solution with an issue on certain domains, as such, the bot is temporarily inactive.

I think that covers just about everything. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to give a score, but just tell you my immediate thoughts. You have obviously demonstrated a clear need for the tools with 1000+ FfD nominations, most of which were honoured successfully. However, image copyrights are one of the most misunderstood parts of Wikipedia by the general public (if you can remember the Article Feedback tool from a few years back, it seemed every other comment was "this page needs a picture") and so communication to newbies about why you just speedy deleted their copyright-violating images has to be excellent. With that in mind, sticking two Twinkle copyvio tags on Giano's talk page (User talk:Giano#Exploding palazzo) is probably going to come back to haunt you at some point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  That's a fair point. Usually I just use Twinkle for ease of tagging - in the future I'll try to disable the "notify editor" checkbox for experienced editors and leave a personalized note instead of a template targeted for new users. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

...Giano hasn't edited since. I hope the events are not related. — fortunavelut luna 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope not as well. I think there's a lot of room for discussion on how people are notified for on article/file issues. A possible solution would be including a feature in Twinkle where you have the option of leaving a message in place of a template. Another feature that would be useful is grouping similar notices. Whether it's a new or experienced user, no one wants 10 big warning sign notifications on their talk page. There's a tool on commons that groups nominations for deletion with the same rationale (see here for example).

This should be part of a larger conversation on how we communicate with other editors regarding content issues and how it affects editor retention. I do think I should have handled that differently and will avoid a situation like that in the future. Is the village pump the most appropriate forum for this issue? Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Definitely; Technical pump I imagine- probably need a Phabricator ticket as it would require a change to the Twinkle. I think. — fortunavelut luna 17:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @Ritchie333: I've started a discussion on the topic on the village pump here. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Time stamp for bot archive per consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

---

J947 (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 maybe start an RfA in April next year, and although I don't expect to get a lot of positive ratings, I would like constructive comments here. A few minutes ago a year of my account registration passed. If I become an admin I would work mainly at AfD, but also at UAA, PERM, MfD, CfD, RfD, and TfD. Cheers, J947^{( c ) (m)} 05:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't the time to review the rest of your record. However, if you express a desire to work at CfD, RfD, and TfD, I think voters would like to see more than a total of 3 votes in those three areas. The few AfD votes I've looked at seem okay, though this nomination was decidedly ill advised. On the whole I might suggest you spend slightly less time relisting discussions, and more time researching and voting on nominations. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• I will be taking a detailed look soon but, at a glance from your records, I would want much more AfD participation, since you self-declare to be active in those areas.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 Your account is still too new for my liking. Clean block log. PROD log and CSD log appropriately red. Edit count is ok for what the community will accept. About half of your edits are semi-automated so you'll need to emphasize countervandalism work. You edit an awful lot in the wp namespace for a new account. Please explain. Your article contributions are unimpressive; you have no GAs but you have a couple DYKs, so I recommend doing more there. This tool says your AfD stats are low but this tool says they're fine. You're patrolling and reverting vandalism, using the userrights you have. There are a few instances where you draft-ified an article from mainspace and it was subsequently deleted and the notice landed on your talk page and you seem to not understand why. That's a competence issue. You should know why you got the notice. I'm not a fan of that practice so be prepared to explain your rationale. Keep editing as you have been for at least two more years and try to get just one GA and I think you stand a fair chance. Please ratchet back some of that eagerness. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 Having 90% of your AfD participation be re-listings or NACs isn't terribly impressive. You'd have no chance of passing today, but could have a good chance in 6 months. I agree with the GA recommendation, ideally on something other than New Zealand politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 13:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 Logs look good. Good CSD log. Active on AFD. Good edit count. Your account is just to new. Try again in 6-12 months and you will most likely pass. If you had more experience I would say 8.75/10. Bobherry Talk Edits 14:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• 2/10 - Your tenure, activity and CSD log all largely fine ... but then it all goes downhill from there - You state you wanna help with UAA, PERM, MfD, CfD, RfD, and TfD however 136 AFD !votes from Aug-Oct isn't really great and then with MFD you've not reached 20 !votes and then the rest of the XFDs haven't even reached 4 !votes, You also barely participate at AIV and UFAA and so with all this in mind there is quite clearly a lack of experience with XFD as well as AIV/UFAA and so in my eyes your RFA would probably sink, Probably best to focus less on adminship and more on editing and helping out. –Davey2010^Talk 15:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Not yet. J, I think you are a net positive for the project and I find your enthusiasm inspiring and motivational. I have no doubt that you will be an administrator some day, but I would not support it yet. It was only about a fortnight ago that you were making totally unnecessary relists at AfD. You were also a regular culprit at Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times, artificially extending the life of banal debates for no apparent reason. This could be interpreted as poor judgement or a weak understanding of WP:RELIST, but I'm inclined to think that it was a product of your zeal. You are charging hard at being an admin, but you need seasoning. Build some good articles so you can have greater empathy for editors on the other side of your deletion decisions. Go volunteer to mediate disputes at WP:3. Being a good admin is about three things: exercising good judgement, understanding both the letter and spirit of WP's guidelines and policies, and empathy. Come back this time next year with a greater diversity of experience. A Train^talk 09:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Well, just today you closed an AfD request for an unsourced BLP (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anait Isahanova) as keep without providing comments. If you go for AfD soon, you may be sure this will show up at and will most likely sink the AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• 2/10 is what I rate your chances right now with the voting community at RfA. I don't care to speculate on 6 months hence but many voters will still consider it too soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• 3/10 In the instructions for this page it says "in the near future", which is open for interpretation, but from past discussions is meant to be something along the lines of "in the next month or two". In any case, we have to judge you based on your current contributions, not extrapolating into future edits. We can't speculate on what you may or may not do in the next 6 months. Currently you have little chance of passing RfA in my assessment, due primarily to the short tenure of only barely 1 year, as well as to lack of participation in key areas you have expressed interest in. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I won't contribute to the toxicity of this place, but if you want my assessment, email me. In terms of numbers, I'd agree with Kudpung. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - Could you please explain how this place (and specifically this thread) is toxic ?, Also the fact you wont say anything here but will via email doesn't make much sense ? ... Everyone's entitled to their opinion and as such you're more than welcome to say your opinion here ..... –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: For transparancy? I agree. — fortunavelut luna 15:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is true actually, FWIW I have nothing against it but I just get the impression they'd rather not say because of what other people might think of them which for me is wrong - Everyone's entitled to their opinion regardless of what other people think. –Davey2010^Talk 15:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I think ORCP discourages good candidates from coming forth to actually stand at RfA, because it can only hurt your chances there. I've criticized it openly here, on this talk page, and at the RfA talk page. I only comment here when I am familiar with the candidate. In this case, I'm willing to provide feedback to the candidate, but I don't want my remarks taken out of context and used as a reason to oppose the potential candidate in a future RfA. I'm also not going to email them unsolicited private feedback. My comment here is simple: I think they don't have a good shot, and I'm willing to give them feedback privately if they want because I don't want to discourage them or potential future poll participants from trying at RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Time stamp for archive. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

---

DatGuy (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've had a few people now and then tell me that they thought I was one already and others suggesting me to run, and wanted to hear my chances. FYI, see User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2016/July for some dumb stuff, which I want to disclose here already since I don't want it to be a surprise factor if I do go for it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - DatGuy can you explain why you need the tools, for anyone unfamiliar with your work (like me), before I rate your chances? The process is much easier when we know what strengths we would have to look for in relation to your area of interest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• @TheGracefulSlick: Sure. I'm probably going to stick more to AIV, UAA, maybe deletion, and the rest of the anti-vandalism stuff. I might pop in at ITN/C every now and then if there's something that needs attention. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• 6.5/10 - I think you would probably pass in mid-70s but Rfa has become a hostile environment. The block is not a huge deal to me but anyone looking for even the smallest flaw will pick up on it. Your content is both good and bad -- good in that you have improved articles to GA status, but bad in that you have created many one-sentence stubs that occasionally have unaddressed tags. Your AfD stats are okay but I noticed your votes tend to be brief and sometimes list policies without explaining how they apply to the nomination. Without a doubt, your greatest strength lies in your vandalism work. It depends really: do you want to improve on your weakenesses and pass easily later, or go for it in the near future and possibly fail. The choice seems rather clear to me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• 8.5/10 (with a good nominator) Your work is well spread out. No worrying issues (unless I've missed anything spectacularly bad). Your discussions are mature and you have evidence of procedural skill in your past contributions. Best of luck. Lourdes 05:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment rather than numbers :) -DatGuy: I suggest running sometime next year; make it after after July. Good luck — fortunavelut luna 08:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I've seen you around a good deal, and I've had positive impressions. The GAs and DYKs will help, as will the bot work and the good edit distribution (52% mainspace). The block will cause some issues, and you should definitely make your rationale for the tools clear. ITN/C is a good one, because it stands out (i.e. many, many candidates cite AIV/UAA). If you intend to get involved in deletion, you should expect to see your CSD record and AFD !votes scrutinized closely - you never know what the community will jump on. I'd also recommend sometime in the middle of next year; in the meantime, you might want to polish off whatever additional content work you can, and maybe try and expand some of those stubs. I think your chances are quite good, and I wish you all the best in your run. GAB^gab 16:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 - I assume that your work in AIV, RPP, and UAA is where you intend to use the tools, as I don't see a ton of activity in CSD or AfD. However, I'll comment on these areas, as they are the areas that I am generally involved in and leave AIV, RPP, and UAA to others.

You seem to be a WP:NETPOSITIVE to me. Your CSD log is a bit light, but reasonably clean. The worst I could find was this decline which seems borderline to me anyway. Your AfD record isn't amazing (a few noms that you got wrong, and not much recent activity), but it is ok; most of the ones you were wrong on were ones where you were the first voter, or were 'weak' !votes, which shows that you aren't afraid to vote first, or against the pack, which is good.

Overall your AfD and CSD show me that you seem relatively competent in this area, with no major problems to tank an RfA, but that it isn't your main area of focus. I think your content creation is a actually fine; I think it is most important for admins to understand the basics of stub creation and new articles, so as to understand and have empathy for new editors. You have created a great many short articles, which from the few I checked, seem to have been created with citations from reliable sources. Others might demand DYKs or GAs, and you might get a couple of opposes there, so you might consider taking an article through DYK just to understand the process (which doesn't take a ton of work, or even an exceptional amount of prose skill). Your recent activity level over the last year is not very high (especially compared to your previous editing), but not worryingly low either.

The edit warring block was quite a while ago (a year and a half), but you will be required to be adequately explain it at your RfA (what you learned, not 'why you were right').

I'm saying 6/10 for AfD and CSD alone, though I suspect it is closer to 8/10 including your work at AIV, RPP, and UAA (again I'll leave analysis of these to others, as it isn't my area of specialty) Cheers and good luck. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• 6/10 is what I rate your chances right now with the voting community at RfA. I don't care to speculate on 6 months hence but many voters are not too happy about block logs of any kind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I placed the block, primarily to show you that our edit-warring policies apply to you too - and it's done the trick as I think you've improved greatly as an editor since then. Still too soon for adminship though in my view, but I personally won't hold the block against you. In general, I think a minor EW block from a couple of years ago is excusable as having "a bad day"; it's things like WP:NOTHERE and vandalism blocks that are absolute no-nos. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Closing this after 7 days. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Joe Roe (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)

A couple of people have suggested that I consider requesting adminship, so I thought I would ask about my chances. I've had this account for a long time, but only really actively edited between 2010 and 2012, and then again in earnest since last year. I try to focus on content creation, mainly articles about archaeology, and academic biographies, which I tend to find through AfD. My other area of activity is new article and new editor work: I do some patrolling at WP:NPP, reviewing at WP:AFC, and answer questions at the Teahouse. That's the area I see myself using the admin tools in. I think I've also spent enough time at AfD to be able to help close discussions there, particularly from the academic biography and history lists.

• I'd personally be inclined to support based on work like Margaret Ursula Jones and the AfD record - you don't just turn up and follow the herd, you actually have something to say. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood you talked a fair argument and although I closed it with "Keep - WP:HEY", that was very much reporting back what everyone else had said. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Douglas P. Hill you gave much better arguments than everyone else who said one-line variations of "Keep - it's notable, here's a link". Still, that's the way it goes sometimes. I spotted one duff CSD A7 tag this year out of not very many, but if anybody opposes on that they can probably expect short shrift. If you ran now, think you'd probably have a similar trajectory to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Primefac 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ansh666 - there would probably be a bunch of "not enough GAs" and "only one year of solid editing with a big gap" opposes, but hopefully not enough to sink an RfA. I'm not going to give a score (in fact I'm going to take TonyBallioni's advice and stop giving scores here altogether as it will force people to read what I write instead of just look at an arbitrary number). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Full disclosure: I was one of the people who encouraged Joe thinking about it privately. My only comment here is that I agree that it'd likely be similar to Ansh666 or Primefac's RfA but that's okay. They both passed and I think you would too. I know Ritchie333 did not mean that as a negative, but some people treat ORCP/RfA like a final exam where the marks count rather than looking at it as pass/fail. An admin is an admin is an admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Some editors are impossible to please at RfA but I think you will easily pass. I was most impressed by your nom statements and !votes, even when they went against the herd; believe it or not, sometimes the herd is wrong and I value editors who have the courage to speak their mind -- with an understanding of notability guidelines of course. I do not have a rating, just my support for you to take the plunge.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. Joe, you strike me as a very accomplished, clueful editor. I trawled through your AfD contributions for a good while and the only reasoning that I quibbled with was your argument to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History?. I especially appreciate that your involvement at AfD includes returning to the discussion and reassessing your position based on other users' arguments. I would feel entirely comfortable with you assessing consensus at AfD, and I would turn up to support your RfA. A Train^talk 12:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Closing after 7 days. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Bakrbinaziz (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) Bakrbinaziz

• @Bakrbinaziz: You know, even a small thing like having an edit-summary usage of less than 50% is enough to tank an RfA; It would be interpreted as demonstrating a lack of transparancy in communication, which is not a quality the community desires in its admins  :) And the same goes for not having read any of the copious instructions at the top of this very page. Good luck here today all the same though. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 19:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC
• 0/10 - You've been inactive since registering and you've only made 62 edits this month - in some respects you've pretty much been on hiatus the moment you arrived - We need active admins who want to help in various ways - Not admins who take 5 year gaps and then come back to edit for a month or so before disappearing for another 5-10 years. –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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

I'm putting myself here as I am considering running for adminship next summer (Northern Hemisphere), so I want to know if there is anything I need to work on before doing so. I want to work with CSD nominations, AIV, a bit of clear-cut UAA, RfPP, and maybe some AfD. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Based on a quick look around, you seem to be in a good position; you're that rare mix of editor who has done FA work like Grey-necked wood rail and Black-throated loon and has done lots of AfD and CSD work without too many mistakes. About a year ago you filed a run of AfDs that you then withdrew or otherwise closed as Keep - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artikal Music UK, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Halgamuge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwadwo Nkansah and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistake (album), all of which had boilerplate variations of "does not meet WP:GNG", so you'll want to distance yourself from that lot. CSD log is looking pretty red, not too many mistakes - out of 47 A7s, only two are blue, and only one, Yharaskrik is an actual error (A7 does not apply to fictional characters) and that was six months ago. Plus I see you trying to explain A7 to other people on the helpdesk who don't understand the stock essays. Elsewhere, at ANI, I see SchroCat accused you of talking "complete fucking bollocks" and you immediately retracted it and apologised, which is good. Similarly, here, jcc misunderstood something, and you apologised for it. I am more tolerant over outbursts like this than most, but other admins aren't - so avoid the "f" word on the run up to an RfA, regardless of how appropriate you think it is. I'd have to have a more thorough look around to do an actual RfA nomination, but from a cursory glance, the signs look good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• For the record, I will strongly oppose anyone involved with this incident until at least a year after it has passed. It is the worst example I have ever seen of the IRC crowd circling the wagons. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I do regret my tone there, and I do think that I was irrational there. I do think, though, that I have gotten better in those situations, and that I would not lose my temper like that again. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Riley, we've run into each other at FAC once or twice and I've been impressed with your work. That being said, not having known about the above incident, having read through this discussion, I agree with Tony's assessment above me. ceranthor 21:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni and Ceranthor: In that case, what could I do to improve my behaviour so I could fulfill your standards and become a better editor overall? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: I understand, of course, the instinct to defend a friend. But for me it's not part of a common thread of behavioral issues (at least as far as I can tell), just that this seemed like a bad lapse in judgment. I think you should just do your best to keep a level head in future conflicts. ceranthor 20:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Your edit history looks surprisingly like mine, with similar edit counts, both participating here, at AfD, and at CSD... You started editing slightly before I started... But I'm rating you a 5/10 in comparison with my self-rating of myself at 1.5/10. J947 ^{(c · m)} 18:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – You've been around for barely 12 months. You have made a lot of edits for only one year of activity and your editing pattern demonstrates that you are either possibly in school/college or have a daytime job that does not afford access to a computer and/or time to edit the Wikipedia. This is absolutely not a criticism - everyone edits where and when they can - but it seems as if you are cramming a lot of Wikiwork into the space of weekend evenings. That’s a lot of work while 44.3% of your edits (4,913) are (Semi-)automated edits and 5,062 (45.6%) are minor edits (possibly vandalism reverts). Within 5 months had requested all the minor rights. Some RfA regulars might interpret these patterns as having joined WP with an express intention of reaching the dizzy heights of adminship. Participation at drama boards does not however demonstrate such a trend, but does reveal a temperament that is irreconcilable with adminship. RfA voters have a knack of picking on these things and causing pile-ons from them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: I'm one of the folks who is allergic to hat-collecting; but in this case, I personally would not attribute that motivation to RB, mostly thanks to his work at FAC. Working there is not a short cut to adminship, and it indicates to me at least that the candidate is fundamentally HERE. Vanamonde (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93:,I did not attribute, infer, or say anything of the sort. As a regular contributor to this page, I said exactly what consensus on its talk page requires us to do: evaluate how we think the community would vote on RfA and why. I have not expressed any personal opinion nor have I inferred either how I would vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: I recognize that, and if I did not phrase my response appropriately, then I apologize. I think my comment applies to the community's assessment in general as well. There are certain behaviors that the community is likely to see as evidence of "hat-collecting", but I think that activity at FAC is not one of them. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I'm very objective when I vote at RfA (or I try to be), although I know it's not always easy be. Many participants are not. What discourages candidates of the right calibre from running is not the friendly support, but the nastiness that often develops in the 'Oppose' section. We can help pre-empt and reduce this by making the enquirer here aware of what the opposition is likely to attack. There's not much to be gained by discussing the plus points - they will be described by the RfA nominator. GA and FA are of course a bonus, but they won't compensate for lack of activity in other areas.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Your AFD stats are good, Your CSD log is fine, You seem to have a good knowledge of the various policies however like Kudpung my main concern is the fact you've only been here for a year (I personally believe no one comes here and then after a year knows this place like the back of their hand but anyway I want candidates who have been here longer than a year) and again the other concern is that you only seem to edit at weekends for the majority - Now I will say this here and now I don't expect admins to be on 24/7 365 days a year but personally I would like you to be on more than what you are, I think if you ran for the mop it'd be 50/50 and I have a feeling there could be questions raised over whether you've had another account beforehand (I obviously don't think you have but that's what could happen), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• AIV accuracy is 93.51% (77 blocks requested, 72 issued) - pretty good! SQL^{Query me!} 20:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Time stamp for close. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Usernamekiran (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)

Given recent ORCP polls, and conversations at ORCP talk; I was wondering where do I stand for an RfA.If given the sys-op rights, I would work on with priority in urgent requests like AIV, and rev-dels. I would also work on unblock requests, RFPP among many other areas which only sys-ops can handle. I would also be active at ANI in non-drama incidents. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• 0/10. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#Harassment. As soon as someone posts that link, 50% of the support votes are going to flip over to oppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. User_talk:Usernamekiran#Crowdfunding is another link that came off the top of my head. You are a good person, Kiran, but if you are ever considering adminship, you should adjust your approach/temperament accordingly. I would suggest maybe work for several months to build up diffs that would demonstrate your maturity against potential opposition in that aspect. Alex Shih (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I was about to close this myself, but Davey2010 was quicker than me. I am not thinking to run for RfA, but i was curious about my chances. NinjaRobotPirate is fast. Although these are the only two "incidents" that took place, they are very serious ones. I am sure nothing is going to happen again, and not the RfA either. And the "crowdfunding" is not going to be archived either
  Thanks for the feedback guys. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I originally closed this but Alex Shih asked me to reopen it so more helpful comments can be added, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Since the OP was happy enough with your close, and about to do the same themselves, I don't see the necessity in prolonging the OP's turn in the dentist's chair  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I can't but ah well if you wanted to reclose I would have no objections :), Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: (edit conflict) Thanks Davey, and Lex. I am sure if there is an RfA, it would definitely be unsuccessful based on these two incidents, but can I get feedback assuming these two (actually, two + half + half) events never took place?
  Like, how should I improve my work to contribute better to the project? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  @Serial Number 54129: It is fine, at the end, I will get a candy for my patience. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Thanks Dave! Let's see if we can have just a couple more comments. Kiran, if you would like some constructive criticism, it would be helpful if you can provide some evidence of your relevant works so other editors can know where to start. Looking back at this, you have been wondering how you would do in RfA since August; have you done anything in response to the suggestions? That would be a good place to start. On a slightly mean note (don't take it personally), if you have no interest in RfA at all, then perhaps posting here would be seem as wasting people's time, and I would agree that this should be closed again if that's the case. Alex Shih (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• No worries! :), Thanks all, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• No worries Dave. I've already given the OP a rundown on the thing, and everything I said still stands, notwithstanding the incidents mentioned above, just over a (longer) timeframe. Pinging User:Alex Shih out of courtesy for their original note. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Timestamp for closure. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Insertcleverphrasehere (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)

Well, its been about 6 months since my last go at this. Since my last poll, I have worked hard to improve my previously sloppy CSD tagging, which was rightfully raised as an issue. However, my reasons for requesting have changed a lot with the start of ACTRIAL; CSDs are now pretty rare, so I don't do much of that any more, though I still participate at AfD from time to time and have helped out over there closing discussions (only the 'keep' ones obviously) and would intend to do some work over there with the tools. My main reason for requesting is to help in my duties as a coordinator over at NPP, where many of the tasks require administrator privileges; particularly being able to view deleted content, as well as helping out at PERM, sending out the NPP newsletter, etc. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Experimental AIV Stats SQL^{Query me!} 21:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that I was defending Baljeet Bilaspur and arguing for the re-blocking of the guy that nominated him (who was subsequently blocked), so that's a false negative caused by me striking the other entry. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Linking stuff to a comma is a strange affection. I hope this isn't something you do in mainspace. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It's just a rather unobtrusive way to ping other users to let them know that I have replied to their comments. I'll generally use a more visible ping when it may not be entirely clear who I am replying to, such as @NinjaRobotPirate, but prefer to use an invisible ping hung off of a punctuation mark otherwise. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

There's Template:Hidden ping (or Template:Hp for short) as an alternative. Lourdes 05:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

​Learn something new every day. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I didn't notice the linked comma, but now that it's being pointed out, it does feel very strange. I actually think it would be better to just ping normally; to defend a strange affection would unnecessarily distract attention away from an editor that is a technically brilliant, hard-working content contributor, with extensive knowledge of policies. My only minor concern at the moment is that based on our only interaction, you seem to have very strong opinions on certain issues; while there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, would you provide an example where you have worked with those disagreeing with you, to find compromise/consensus in the process? Best, Alex Shih (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure Alex Shih. See Talk:Iowa–Penn_State_wrestling_rivalry (and the preceding AfD) for one that happened around the same time. There was also a discussion over at the fringe theories noticeboard regarding an article that I wrote which could have easily escalated into a full blown kerfuffle if I had not decided to stop engaging with the editor in question. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

​Also, while there wasn't much drama, the recent months-long FL review of List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches had an insane amount of consensus building that was necessary with lots of different ideas about the 'best' way to do things. See the candidacy page but especially the discussions regarding formatting the tables. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• 7/10. 20K edits, good AfD numbers, six months past the 3RR issue, good talk percentage. It's hard to know what people will pick at but this go it seems the "strange comma" was the only issue - and now you learned Template:Hidden ping to fix it. I would support. Ifnord (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• I think you have more than 80% chances of passing the RfA. So that would be an 8/10. I don't see any issues, like Ifnord some editors might oppose based on the "comma ping"; I think they would be 5 at most. But some might dig-up the old 3RR thing; and coupled with comma ping, they might say "lack of maturity". But as it was more than six months ago (if there was), I think based on your past 6 months' contrib; a maturity, and clear understanding of the policies can be seen. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Only 27 edits this year. Not active enough 0/10......

On a serious note, somewhere vaguely 8+/10. Even if you get a few opposes that doesn't matter as you'll still should succeed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• You've come on leaps and bounds with your work at NPP and people now recognise you as being a serious contributor to back end stuff. The problem I've got is that your CSD tagging is now under the microscope from previous polls here, and people are going to want to see a complete absence of concerns. It's getting better, but there are still mistakes like Pepe (Alyas Robin Hood), Lélia Pissarro, Soumyabrata Gupta, and a bunch of G12s that were turned down in favour of stubbing and revision deleting. The tempo of bad CSDs is declining to andante, and hopefully in a few months it'll drop to largo, at which point we can look at a nomination. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  I think you forgot to brush your teeth today Ritchie. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Ritchie: With ACTRIAL, there are so few new articles that meet CSD criteria that even if I wanted to, I fear that there is little chance that I will ever be doing CSD tagging in the volume that I was a few months ago. I have also been patrolling the back of the backlog in recent months, which contains more difficult articles to review, but also has very few/no CSD candidates. As one of only a few experienced reviewers willing/able to work the back of the backlog, I can't justify switching to the front just so that I can get a few more red lines on my CSD log. I created the NPP Article Review Flowchart a few months ago, which I hope at least shows that I understand the criteria and process correctly. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I'd probably vote support if you ran now, just want to make sure everyone else will! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I kind of guessed that there would be an intention to become an admin in the back of your mind soon. While your work at NPR is most commendable, NPR is far from the full scope of the work of admins. It also requires a very keen sense of judgement which you may have, but which I do not think you have clearly demonstrated yet. You may pass because many treat RfA as a popularity contest, so there will be a lot of drive-by supports simply because your name has been seen a lot. There will be the usual raft of serial opposers. Some RfA voters would however perceive your work at NPP as over enthusiasm and/or a build up to impress RfA voters, especially as you are not in fact a coordinator - there are no coordinators at the moment because those who were elected never took up their posts, and TonyBallioni, and I (as 'emeritus') have continued to do most of the donkey work, not that I would belittle for a moment your excellent initiative to recruit more reviewers (although you should really have checked out who your were posting the invitations on - there were quite a number of misfires). The next election for coords is due in 4 weeks and is being prepared as we speak. I'm actually not sure that I would support at this time simply because I would like to see you diversify more and demonstrate that you have the required experience in the other areas. I'm really sorry if this comes across as negative, but while I think you might pass, I wouldn't want to lead a lamb to the slaughter either. I would recommend keeping up the good work and waiting waiting at least until till ACTRIAL is over and also until you have had a chance to absorb the current issues that are under discussion about PE and shown your worth at COIN - these areas will become of great importance to the work of admins. I might even nominate you then. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Kudpung. I'll note that following our discussion about nominations, I added several additional steps to background checks. Aside from the nominations I made right at the beginning (a couple weeks before our chat), there have been zero declined nominations from editors that I have invited. It doesn't come across as negative to me; I appreciate your honesty. I had intended to wait at least until the end of the current backlog drive, as I am busy with that, I suppose that means waiting until after the coord election as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I'd be okay doing a nomination in March too, once ACTRIAL has finished and the co-ordinator elections are done and dusted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Dial911 (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 stumbled upon this page and wondered about getting feedback from the community. Dial911 (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed the extraneous header. If you want to receive general feedback about where you are as an editor, this is not the place. One of the most important rules of Wikipedia is that, if you are going to ignore everything, at least read the very top part. Alex Shih (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Reyk (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)

Well, I think I'll test the waters. I've been here quite a while, with 21,000+ edits under my belt as well as some good and featured content. People have asked me before if I'd like to run (see here) but I declined at the time because I didn't think I was ready and had no need for the tools. I'm a bit older, with a calmer head, now and since I'm currently working on a lot of maintenance-related work I can see myself requiring the tools occasionally in the future. Even if this poll goes well, it would still be six months or so before I actually run since I'll definitely want to address any concerns people will raise. Cheers! Reyk _YO! 12:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Reyk. Good to see you here. Just a quick query: which all maintenance work (apart from Afd) are you currently working in? Thanks, Lourdes 16:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I do a lot of work trying to improve some of Wikipedia's worst-written articles, ones that are generally unsourced and of dubious notability, requiring huge amounts of categorisation, trimming, and copyediting. There's been a few times already when being able to see deleted articles would have come in handy. I'm also somewhat more likely to run into copy-and-paste merges and so WP:HISTMERGE is something I can see myself needing down the track, as well as the ability to move pages over any redirect. Finally, I see that CfD has a long, straggly, backlog. That's something I can help with. Reyk _YO! 18:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

People like seeing evidence of that - so say requesting histmerges, requesting moves at WP:RM/TR/getting the page mover right and doing moves etc would help; plus closes at CfD can be done as a non-admin so doing some of that would also help. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• 5/10 currently based on activity levels - only reasonably active for the last 4 months - very inconsistent before that; people like to see evidence that you'd continue to be consistently active. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• I like what I see here, but I agree that current activity level is quite low; another six months of solid work would definitely increase the chances. As you are/have been actively involved in AN/I, do you have any examples of experience in dispute resolution that effectively demonstrates your calmness? Alex Shih (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've drawn back a little from the drama boards so most of my comments at ANI of late have probably been benign and about uncontroversial maintenance. The last major dispute I've been involved in concerns whether or not Wikipedia should have a multitude of very small stubs on obscure sportspeople sourced only to (not 100% reliable) database entries. Opinions differ on that of course, but during this argument I was (IMO) subjected to personal abuse, threats, and taunting. One such conversation is here, and you can find more of the big sprawling dispute over many other locations by searching for my user name and "cricket". In the past I might have let the teasing and obfuscation get to me but I've been determined not to have any angry outbursts over that sort of thing. Reyk _YO! 18:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• A question not a rating, but it's one you'd be well to get out of the way (or at least think of an answer to even if you don't answer here) before any RFA as the answer will likely determine how it goes (Alex Shih is alluding to the same thing above, but I'll put it bluntly rather than couch it in Bradspeak). You have a huge number of contributions to ANI (549 at the time of writing). While that's sometimes the sign of someone who's keen to help in administrative areas, it's also often the sign either of someone who keeps starting or being drawn into arguments, or of someone who enjoys bossing other people around and sees adminship as a sheriff's badge. Which of the three is it in your case and (assuming you're answer will be #1), can you justify it? Part of the reason RFA has such an unpleasant atmosphere is that we've been collectively burned too often by people who fancy themselves as the Wikipedia Police and as soon as they get the bit start rushing around blocking and protecting anywhere they can find a pretext to do so; whether you can demonstrate that your participation has been calming things down rather than stirring things up will be the difference between "likely fail with an outside chance of passing" and "likely pass with an outside chance of failing". (As I assume you know, you won't rate higher in terms of probabilities than "likely pass with an outside chance of failing"; it may have been seven years ago but you stepped on the toes here of someone with a lot of friends and an elephant-like memory for perceived slights.) ‑ Iridescent 18:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That's a fair question, and I'm afraid I currently only have a partial answer for you. 549 edits to ANI might seem a lot, but I've been on Wikipedia for over twelve years. That works out to less than four edits to ANI a month. Even taking into account periods of lower activity, I still wouldn't say I spend an inordinate amount of time there. Regarding which of the three reasons for posting at ANI apply, I can definitely tell you that being the Town Sheriff is not one of them. If anything I have been more likely to suggest moderation with the admin tools. To be honest there may have been a bit of Reason #2 in there in previous years, but dramamongering and wikilawyering never made me happy and it isn't productive. As for the Colonel, I make no secret that I think he's disruptive. More circumspect about it now that he's lost his veil of anonymity, but still supercilious and deceitful. I know he'll have some very interesting and rather harsh things to say about me if I go to RfA. But if I was the kind of person who saw what he considered to be disruptive behaviour, and didn't push back for fear of revenge, then I'd have no business being an admin anyway. It would, or should, do more to disqualify me than a few retaliatory oppose votes. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The nature of the beast is (this particular one, anyway), that it will probably garner you plenty of supports almost automatically, ironically. Put 'em in the bank but don't rely on them  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• 7.5/10 - cautiously. There is a clear consensus that our serial opposer's participation at RfA is a disruptive influence, but there is a consensus not to do anything about it. Even if he had the moral conscience to not drag up a 7 year old RFC/U, chances are he'll think of something and might make a bigger issue of it rather than his usual weak attempts to deliberately cause drama. There is a small core of regular voters who vote objectively whichever way their opinion falls. The rest of them however are a transient pool of participants among whom are many who simply think it's cool to vote on RfA and they generally just look at the other votes and pile on. That said, check out my user:Kudpung/RfA criteria and if you check all the boxes you should be good to go.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yesterday, you have deliberately chosen to join a mob the only purpose of which was to provoke me to incivility (and eventually take to ArbCom). It happened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Discussion (linking to Wikidata RfC), and your comment ended up in a hatted section. You may expect me to oppose your RfA, and moreover you would need to explain the community why this is not a serious lapse of judgement. You might succeed, in the end of the day you were not the main person there, and you might misread their intentions, and there are many people who support the sentiment, but I would reasonably guess that in the next two years you are not going to get the mop.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• 6/10 as my assessment of what I think your chance of success is. My personal rating of you as a prospective admin is a couple of points higher than that, but that's not what we're asked here. In short, I think you would pass, but there are enough things, such as current activity level and other points raised above, that others may see as sufficient of a drawback to make it not quite a foregone conclusion. -- Begoon 09:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Time stamp for bot. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Zppix (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 plan on doing Anti-Vandal work as an admin (if i get it) mainly aswell as other tidious administrative tasks. I plan on staying away from areas I feel i wouldnt be productive on, unless required to. Feel free to ask questions.

• @Zppix:(edit conflict) Hi! I checked (first thing, for me) 'articles created' and it says ten articles. Straight away, bonus points, gets you into the lead. OK, they're stubs or start class, still, it's still content creation; it's all good. The thing is: it turns out that seven of them are now deleted (obviously I can't see the content now- I'm flying blind, somewhat, apologies if this is perfectly clear to others!) and I can't help but notice that one (admittedly years ago, so I don't think it's a major malfunction) was Zppix-Ballee Gaming Studios. Obviously that raises an eyebrow; can you expand further on what was going on there, and with the quantity of deletions generally? I'm asking purely because—as you must know—it's phenomonally unlikely that it wouldn't be notied at RfA, so better be prepared for the question.
  On a lighter note: I've seen you around, you seem pretty solid. Clean block log; tenure since late 2015 probably suffices; AfD !votes slightly wonky- but if you can persuade the congregation that you don't intend getting stuck in there then it might not carry much weight (and with only 5% !votes to keep,the inclusionist "crowd" might turn out against you; having said that, if you carry enough weight elsewhere, it won't matter); can't really count the CSD log of course (only a few days old and chock full of G13s, which are effectively never deleted, whatever the red might say :) ); I think the previous RfA shouldn't be a problem- but tell you what, get youself a (or, better, two) decent nominator (there's plenty out there, nowadays!), and that should counteract any oppositin on that front. On a lighter note, if you'd asked for a nominator back then, this probably wouldn't be #2 now! ;) All in all; I don't think you'd tank. Now, though...? On edit: I failed my own WP:BEFORE; have just noticed you're currently pushing 83% automated edits?! No way, sorry. Combined with 4.5% lack of edit summaries, that'll just give the impression of templating everyone and not explaining for yourself the few edits that are actually your own (i.e. the templates will appear to be the only thing leaving an edit summary). If I'm mistaken, good. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 23:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I don't recall why some of those were deleted, probably just a mistake and wasnt noticed by me, the Zppix-Ballee article, was my first edit(s) and a newbie mistake, now when I look back, I think "Why did I do this? This edit was not smart." Like I said unless its an area im confident ill be fully productive in i do not plan on touching that area in an admin capacity. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Also my csd log is archived :) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So it is  :) Sorry, Zppix  :) My fault. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 23:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• We have enough admins doing AIV stuff, we really need people working on copyvios and files at the moment. AfD stats are all over the place, lots of "Delete (nom)"s closed as "keep". No significant content work of any kind - Talk:Sylvester (singer)/GA1 needed to be done again from scratch, and giving somebody 24 hours (why the rush?) to add citations to the lead when it's not necessary shows a lack of understanding. I went through your talk page archives and I couldn't find much other than stock notices and people saying "please don't do that". I don't think you'll pass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That is why I have sense stay away from GAs to prevent further issues. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Can't help but think that statement might bring more harm than good. The majority of people at RfA look for content creation and GAs are a fantastic way to demonstrate it, even if you didn't create the article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A lot of people would analyse your previous RfA. You ran it in early days of your tenure, so people might think of you as power seeker (also discussed in your RfA). Also, most of the threads from your talkpage archives are either newsletters or notices by bots. And like Ritchie said, there are a handful "please dont do this" type of messages. I am on mobile now, I will soon comment in detail. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 23:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• 1/10: my experience of you is that you get in over your head and do not take constructive advice well. This GOCE exchange is an example of what will come up during any RfA. You've had significant problems in areas of Wikipedia that don't require special permissions; it's unlikely that people will be willing to risk giving you tools that can do major damage if not used correctly and with good judgment. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Just a comment, without any advice about your probable RfA outcome: Be sure you carefully proofread anything you say in a forum like this one or RfA. Your statement above contains multiple errors of spelling, punctuation, etc. That is a real turnoff, implying either poor education (which I doubt) or not caring about such things (not a good way to make a good impression). If you posted an RfA nomination like that, I suspect it would be rejected with comments about your command of English. If you have difficulty in these areas yourself, get a friend to proofread stuff before you post it. Sorry for my bluntness, but you came here for honesty. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I have to concur with what MelanieN said. The amount of spelling, punctuation and other errors you have made in that mere two sentences of your statement is frankly not acceptable. If you cannot spend the time to fix obvious mistakes in your writing, you cannot expect other editors to look deeper into your contributions and make any constructive comments. I suspect this is partially related to being highly active on IRC; when you are participating on the project, you need to adapt to a different mindset. Personally I don't think not having a GA will put off many editors, but it is necessary to have some sort of content work; right now there is practically none. Alex Shih (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Although I was wishing to wait for some comments to come in, if I am honest, my friend, I never thought of you as being an administrator, yet. I had to tell you on IRC to make that little primer -- you didn't do it on your command. I also had to inform you that your original primer here made it look like you had typed it up drunk or something. It still doesn't look great. But I cannot support with that amount of semi-auto edits. You need to actually have some proper editing experience. !dave 08:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• In regards to deleted main space pages you write: "Honestly I don't recall why some of those were deleted, probably just a mistake and wasnt noticed by me". But a quick look at the deletion log e.g. here, here, here, here, and here reveals why they were deleted, and if they were deleted by mistake, why didn't you ask for a WP:REFUND? I suppose the intention was to convey the meaning that creating them was a mistake, but that is not what you write. The ability to communicate clearly is important.

Looking at your remaining three articles, I see that the lack of punctuation carries over into main space: J Thomas Dickinson and Jonathan V Sweedler are the most recent creations, and I would expect most editors intuitively know how to punctuate an initial without even knowing about WP:INITS and MOS:INITIALS. An admin prospect should show attention to details.

The AFD stats leave a lot to be desired. One example in particular is the recent nomination of List of press release agencies that shows a lack of knowledge about WP:CLN; that is a mistake so often made that I once created the shortcut WP:LISTOUTCOMES to the relevant section on WP:AFDP, but it is not a mistake I expect from an admin candidate. Knowledge about the WP:COLONTRICK is something I would expect from any editor helping out at AFC, but Special:Diff/793600900/793601010 at the same AFD is suggesting such knowledge is absent.

In December, an application for the page mover right was filed citing "I find myself always needing admins to help me fix wrongly done page moves or moving over redirects". Looking at contributions made to WP:RM/TR, I see no requests filed, (the attempt to fix a botched {{subst:RMassist}} on 26 November 2016 was well intended, but it should not take four edits to get it right), and looking at the last 1000 edits prior to 16 December, I find no posts in regard to fixing page moves. I could be wrong, and I will assume that the requests were made on IRC. But when the second move performed 14 minutes after the right was granted is Jim Naismith → James H Naismith in this diff - never mind that the discussion was not properly closed - that which worries me is (a) consensus was for moving to the second suggestion, James Naismith (chemist), and (b) the first suggestion was the correctly punctuated James H. Naismith that remains a redlink. And it is no excuse that the template said {{requested move/dated|James H Naismith}}. Any editor let alone admin should be on top of that situation simply by reading the discussion.

Something very similar happened only two weeks ago on Talk:Wallingford railway station (England) where the article was moved to Wallinford railway station (England) despite the discussion among four editors making the spelling error perfectly clear. Somebody else fixed it, and the move was subsequently discussed on your talk page. (User:Davey2010 deserves some kudos for his kindness in that situation.)

Later the same day, 6 January, the RM on Talk:British School of Osteopathy is closed as "Not moved", despite only having been relisted once. The closure was taken to Move review, defended, overturned, and the RM was relisted with a consensus to move the following week. The PMR right does not come with any kind of obligation to perform quasi-administrative duties, rather contrary we are still expected to act in accordance with the limitations of WP:NAC in general and more specifically here WP:RMNAC; a better solution would have been to weigh in on the discussion rather than closing it.

On 13 January, Nick Robinson was moved. A message left on your talk page on 15 January advised that "Your move broke 119 links", to which you responded: I must have somehow managed to forgot [sic] to clean that up... Ill look into fixing that when I get time. You subsequently performed no disambiguation of Nick Robinson → Nick Robinson (journalist).

On 17 January, a RM was closed on Talk:Planet Earth (1986 series) as "Not done". No explanations as to why it was not moved were provided. Reading the very short discussion it should be clear that the two editors agreed on the alternative year disambig instead of country disambig. User:Woodensuperman leaves a message on your talk page the next morning at 10:37 UTC asking you to reverse your closure and move to the alternatives suggested. When you came online, you did not respond on your talk page but started reverting vandalism at 13:33; WP:ADMINACCT springs to mind, but I like to think that we are all accountable for our actions. Planet Earth (1986 series) as well as Planet Earth (TV series) were both later moved by User:Netoholic.

Forgive me for being blunt, but the above errors are so boneheaded that in my book you should not close any RMs before you have gained more experience by participating in RM discussions. Let alone think about RFA any time soon. By May 2016 you had 188 non-automated edits to main space. Today more than 20 months down the road you have 467 non-automated edits to main space. I would still recommend getting started with manual editing in main space. (One place to start is your article Dochub that could do with better secondary sources.) Manual editing also offers an opportunity to reflect upon the millions of man-hours that went into building content, something that may evoke a sense of humility and an awareness about one's own role here. Sam Sailor 22:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those article titles without a period after the initial, Sam. I have moved them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• 0/10 at present. Please consider closing this now; quite aside from everything pointed out above and the fact that you have less than 500 mainspace edits, admins are de facto the users whom other editors and the broader public judge Wikipedia by, and your userpage alone would be enough to get your RFA WP:SNOW-closed. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Iridescent: not commenting on this ORCP overall, but just was curious about your 500 remark? xtools shows a bit over 7000 mainspace. Are you discussing non-automated mainspace contributions? Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes. When looking at edit counts, always discount automated and semiautomated edits at they have no relevance to anything—anyone can run a search for a common typo like "targetting" and then sit there mashing the "save change" button all night, and it won't say anything about either the editor in question's editing abilities or their social skills, which are what needs to be assessed at RFA. ‑ Iridescent 09:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Iridescent and TonyBallioni: yes, this is true in most cases; but when it comes to NPR folks, this rule of thumb sort of doesnt apply properly. I mean, they review an article without editing it. Notability, links, refs and whatnot. At the end, either through page curation tool, or twinkle; they add maintenance tag(s). Both of them are semi-auto. And then there is refill for refs. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• All of which tells me nothing when I'm assessing a candidate for adminship. What I want to know in the case of RFA is "has this candidate written enough that they'll understand why people lose their tempers in content disputes rather than blindly warning and blocking?", "how does this person behave when speaking to people expressing a viewpoint with which they don't agree?", "are their opinions generally in line with consensus and if not, do they rationally and reasonably explain why they disagree with consensus?" and "is their spelling, grammar and vocabulary at least adequate such that their comments wouldn't show Wikipedia in a bad light if and when they're made public?", and a big stack of automated edits tells me nothing about any of those. ‑ Iridescent 11:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• hmm. (a very thoughtful reply.) —usernamekiran(talk) 12:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Nope per every editor in this "poll" - The recent activity is poor, Your AFD stats are poor, Your spelling and grammar is a bit of an issue, If you ran for RFA it wouldn't last 5 seconds so as a friendly suggestion I would suggest you focus less on RFA and more on editing, I would suggest someone snowcloses this. –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• 0/10 Sorry but you have no content creation, while that may not be a killer for me the community demands it these days. Also Davey brings home a lot of good points. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• 0/10 On your previous RfA which was less than two years ago, you said you had read WP:RFAADVICE. I find it hard to believe that anyone who had read that and reviewed a lot of RfA to see how they are structured, would have gone ahead and transcluded a RfA. More to the point, If you had read it again recently I don't think you would be considering adminship any time soon. Your use of scripts which contributed to a massive 5,000 automated edits shortly afterwards had misfires that were neither too serious nor of a high frequency given their number, but you still have to demonstrate your powers of critical thinking in areas that are not basically button mashing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)