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

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

Vanamonde93 encouraged me to do this again, not that it has been over 2.5 years since the last time. After some thought, I thought I'd try it. I'm curious what people think. Last time there were some stated concerns about history and lack of content creation. I've worked some on the latter (though it's not my forte to be honest). I am hoping my overall lack of drama and troll starvation will assuage those concerned about history or my frequent contributions on socio-political pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• 8/10 - 4 years is generally enough for problems in the past to be discounted by the vast majority, so long as nothing of a similar bent appears. UAA and counter-vandalism work looks really good. I've gone for 8 because I there will be a few who want more content, but generally I think you'll be okay. I would suggest specifically covering the Eric issue just below your acceptance of a nomination - owning problems saves problems (at least in my view). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• If you have a trusted admin telling you that you're probably ready, you're probably ready. --Izno (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• I was going to say something and decided not to but since Izno has - my firm belief is that if you have multiple respected sysops telling you that you're ready (and especially if they do so unsolicited) then you're ready. I can't find the conversation wither Vanamonde directed you here but I think those sysop endorsements are the single best indicator of whether you would pass (or not) a first time RfA in the current climate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• 9/10 - I have always found you to be a voice of reason, and someone who is knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and practices. Being upfront about and past drama would be advisable. I don't think average users would penalize you for relative minor skirmishes from years ago. I think you have a good Wiki-reputation.- MrX 🖋 18:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• High opinion of the prospective candidate. El_C 18:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• I was invited by Vanamonde to think about a co-nomination a few months back. I was a little concerned about a few things; not that I don’t think you could do a good job as an admin but rather that somebody could throw in a difficult cross-examination that might make an RfA unpleasant. However if multiple respected editors are saying you should go for it, you should probably go for it. As somebody who appears to have a reputation for being “chums” with Eric, a nomination from me might carry significant enough weight to knock those concerns on the head, for what it’s worth. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: (and @Izno and Barkeep49:, because you mention me above); the reason I asked EvergreenFir to come here is that while I think she'd make a fine admin, I am less familiar than some of you with respect to old conflicts surrounding the GGTF (with which EF was only peripherally involved, to be sure). Also, I have my own opinions about those conflicts, which aren't shared by everyone. I'm not sure I have a good feel for how much opposition EF can expect based on old conflicts; so while I appreciate the confidence expressed in my judgement, what I was hoping for was some independent assessment of older interpersonal interactions before I ask EF to endure seven days of hell an RFA. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's possible that could garner some opposes. However, my thinking, at this point in time, is that someone needs to be reasonably motivated to oppose a candidate. Good noms mean will decrease that motivation for some editors who might otherwise recall somethingg like GGTF. So I stand by my original assessment of "If you have multiple respected sysops telling you that you're ready (and especially if they do so unsolicited) then you're ready" but having this extra context was definitely helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If I'm honest, what comes to mind is this RfA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

And in retrospect, our concerns were for naught. Good choice as food for thought, Ritchie333. Just look at the wonderful admin he turned out to be. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• 9/10 - I feel you'd pass RfA. I wasn't concerned about past conduct at the last ORCP and I remain not concerned, especially with the time that has past I think the community (overall) will let it go. I gave a 9 because you will still have some hard detractors no matter how long has past, but I think you would pass an RfA. -- Dane ^talk 20:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yes/10 per my previous encouragement to run. I'd be happy to nom/co-nom. Sam Walton (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• 5/10 - ok, I’ll play the role of Christmas Grinch. Your success will weigh heavily on your demeanor, your reasons for wanting the mop, and whether or not you can overcome your past behavior toward editors whose views you opposed in the socio-political arena. The latter may be a difficult obstacle for you to overcome because of what some may perceive as aggressive tendencies and an unyielding POV. Neutrality is the temperament of choice in an admin candidate as is level-headedness, kindness toward other editors, understanding, and trustworthiness. Right or wrong, this is the kind of response that raises a red flag and makes others think that if you’re like that without the tools, what will you be like with them? You have excellent support from trusted admins but it doesn’t hurt to be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best. I wish you luck. We need more admins. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Replies and comments - Thank you all for the input and comments. I do appreciate the feedback, especially given the GGTF history and that there will likely be some folks who are wary. Ritchie333, I greatly appreciate the comment and would gladly accept a nom/co-nom from you if you are willing.

Atsme I appreciate the "grinch" visiting; I need to hear that sort of thing if I want to be prepared for this process. FWIW, I'll give a short reply to the points you raised. As for that edit, I agree I was not exactly kind or gentle with that user. But I don't think I crossed any red lines as I kept my language PG(13?) and stuck to citing policy when confronting an editor running an ad hoc SPI. I am not immune to emotional responses, though I do my best to laugh at those who try to provoke. I've learned to not take Wikipedia's drama too seriously and to view this as a hobby/volunteer effort and not something terribly personal.

That said, I can understand how someone would see that and wonder what I would do if I had the admin toolkit. I know that I would do, the same thing Drmies did and take them to ANI. For cases that are remotely personal to any admin, the input of other admins should be solicited for multiple opinions and to counter balance any emotional response. I know, though, that I cannot convince others of my own mindset other than through my action. As such, my message to skeptics and grinches would be if you're worries I would misuse the tools, watch me and report me if you think I am. I would expect that for any admin and I would do the same for others.

I acknowledge my POV and I know not everyone shares it. But, just as admins who disagree with me, it would be unacceptable for an admin to use their tools or status specifically to bully or push a POV. Like I said above, I've seen good admins who can manage their POV while soliciting outside admins' opinions to check themselves.

To all folks, again, thank you for your input. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Most of my work is with redirects, templates, page moves, and linguistics articles. I can already do a lot of work with the tools available to me, but I've found more situations where admin tools would be useful both for my work and for helping fulfill more requests. The ones that come to mind immediately are moving over history, geonotices for edit-a-thons, and full protected edit/move requests. Two people I respect have nudged me to consider an RfA in the near future. I thought getting wider input would be useful before I invest more time into the idea. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• You may remember my email about this, but FWIW I think your record is solid. At the moment your activity levels have been high only for a few months; a few more, and passing shouldn't be in any doubt. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• 3/10, but not much to do. I'm with Vanamonde, I suspect your tenure length might get disputed - about 2/3 of your edits are in the last 6 months. A few more months, even 3, would help both with that and get you another 1 or 2 thousand edits. You're an active template editor, so a lower edit count is fine - particularly given the sheer breadth of areas you've demonstrate heavy competence in. It's certainly possible you could run now, but I just think that a bit of time will let you have a much smoother ride. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• 4/10 I have not done a forensic examination of your editing record but what I have looked at suggests you have a reasonable chance of passing an RfA if you wait another 12 months or so and maintain your current level of editing. As noted above your lack of heavy editing until recently would IMO make an RfA in the near future problematic. But assuming there aren't any skeletons buried in your history, I think in a year or so you might have a good shot. You may wish to peruse my criteria for RfA. Thanks for your interest and good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello, I'm Iazyges. I mostly edit articles on Roman Emperors nowadays. My core area of admin-related work is patrolling the new users, and reporting/CSD tagging any username or user page policy violations. Almost all of my reports result in block/deletion, so I would like to be able to shorten the process by actually doing it myself. However, I understand that it is far from a critical field. I asked for a poll in July, which was mostly positive, with most suggesting that more time actively editing would improve my chances. Wanted to see if my current chances have improved. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Iazyges. 3/10 right now. If you filed an RfA at this time, I would expect that many editors would zero in on this comment you made on your own talk page less than two weeks ago: "I would be happy to take you on, but I would warn you, I have been far less active as of late, so I might not always be available for quick help." In my view, that comment does not indicate the level of commitment to the project expected of candidates for administratorship. You are entirely free, of course, to devote as much or as little time to this volunteer project as you wish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I meant that more for that specific time period; in my experience adopted users generally ask questions for the first week or so and then only come to you with big issues/questions; at that time I was unavailable to respond within a timely manner (within the day), but now am free, hence my recent rise in activity. I can definitely see your interpretation, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• 4/10. Right kind of candidate, wrong kind of editing track record. Voters look for consistent commitment to Wikipedia. The past 12 months do not demonstrate this. An edit count to cover these issues would need some work over the next twelve months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• 3/10 - Agree with Kudpung and Cullen - I don't think you'd be likely to succeed at this point due to activity levels. -- Dane ^talk 04:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• 4/10 - Friendly interactions at talk page & otherwise from what I can see. AfD: stats are okay but stuff like this might invite scrutiny. Activity, as mentioned by everyone above me, is the big issue here. Enterprisey (talk!) 10:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

SouthernKangaroo (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 just curious to see how I'd do in an RfA. I haven't been thinking about adminship otherwise. ☶☲Senny☶☲ (☎) 19:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• 0/10 - while you are reaching the stage where you might do more backstage work that interests you, you are far from the edit level that admin candidates usually have. More concerning, just in the last month content was supressed off your talk page for you outing other editors. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll admit I could be a little more active in editing. And I also realized I messed up bad with the whole outing thing. That's the one time I've gotten really opinionated on WP as well. ☶☲Senny☶☲ (☎) 20:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• No rating, but a similarly round figure to Nosebagbear I'm afraid. Obviously the suppression would be an instant no-no, but, more broadly, in terms of apparent "need for the tools"—well, there isn't one. While haunting the drama boards is frowned upon (and you don't, so that's a plus!), a degree of participation in admin-areas is expected, whether at the various deletion discussions, policy pages or other backroom operations. At the moment, your most-edited project page is Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
  You might also garner some opposition arguing that you've only really been editing solidly for a few months, although tenure is the easiest thing to resolve. ——SN54129 20:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I figure I should be more active in deletion discussions - I've been considering it a lot. I also have a gap in my contribs from late May to late Aug./early Sept. because of summer break and no way to log in to WP to have steady contributions. ☶☲Senny☶☲ (☎) 20:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the above comments, but will also add that editors may oppose due to only having only created two articles (one now deleted) in mainspace. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• It's great that you're interested in the idea of taking on the responsibilities of adminship, but you would definitely need to gain a lot more experience first. At an RfA, everyone expects strong evidence of content creation. One or two GAs and a fair number of lower quality articles would serve to demonstrate that you know how to put well-sourced and well-written articles together. You might then look to pass on some of that experience you've gained in content creation by helping at Peer Review. Or you might find yourself lurking at the Teahouse or Helpdesk, perhaps chipping in when you can assist others with something you know about, and learning from others when you can't. Watching and then participating at AFD is valuable experience, especially if you can present sound arguments, based on our policies, as to why an article should remain or be deleted. (But don't rush to show how clever you are by nominating lots of articles - try defending them against deletion is a good starting point.) You first AFD contribution here was not quite what I had in mind! Start using Twinkle, and it's not a bad idea to enable a personal CSD and PROD log from within its settings to keep a public record of any future nominations. Becoming an admin is not something you pick up and quickly put on - like a coat - it's a long, slow evolutionary process of learning and understanding. A good potential admin will probably know when they're ready to stand, as they'll find they now get as much satisfaction in helping others and protecting this amazing encyclopaedia as they do from adding content (and they'll see that most of their actions are going with the consensus, not against it). A good potential admin will be an editor who can do both, and who never - or at least very rarely - looses their cool. (BTW: others have mentioned it, but your signature is terribly pale and almost unreadable to me, and your display name serves to confuse, as its not your username. I personally find both rather annoying whenever I encounter it.) Best wishes for your future editing, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• 1/10 Hi SouthernKangaroo. Please read my criteria for RfA candidates. I don't think there is much there that most experienced editors would consider to be outside of the mainstream line of thinking within the community. I am sorry that at the moment you don't meet most of those criteria. However one day you might. Maybe in a couple of years you can come back if you are still interested. Mistakes made as a new editor are often excused after a couple of years of solid contributions. We were all new once. Anyways, thanks for your interest and your various contributions to the encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

1989 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

Hello. I was wondering what chances I would get if I attempt to become more active in the next months. Previously I received not so good feedback due to my very poor activity in 2018, and no AfD participation. While I managed to get a few votes on there to demonstrate my knowledge of policy and guidelines, I haven’t really been at AfD a lot as that’s not my interest. As of activity, I feel it was an improvement, but in regards to being very active here, I’m not sure I'd be able to provide more time than I previously had. As for the low mainspace percentage, as stated previously, I’ve help contribute to having two articles becoming FA, and have around 5? GAs (see now deleted statistics to confirm), with my important one being Steven Universe, as I’ve helped significantly to expand the article to where it is now, so I feel in some way the low percentage shouldn’t matter. If it does for some reason matter despite my contributions, please state why. Thanks. 1989 (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• You were still mostly inactive through the year of 2019. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• 1/10 - Too little recent activity; it's best to contribute more [added with reply] to the encyclopedia rather than posting requests here IMO. J947 ^(c), at 22:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  I’m confused by this comment, you make it as seem I don’t, in which is false. 1989 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Generally requests here help no one and you would be better off reading through fairly recent RfAs that failed and getting an idea of the likelihood that you will pass. Also, some people take ORCP requests as a bad thing when they are evaluating a candidate's chances at an RfA. After the previous ORCP you should have had a good idea over your likelihood to pass already; I believe that these requests aren't really what you should be focusing on right now. J947 ^(c), at 07:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• 0/10 right now. Sorry, 1989, but thank you for considering adminship and for asking for some feedback here. It takes courage to do that. I feel you've might rather have misjudged the timing of your question, and maybe also by what you've said here about future activity levels. I think, had you spent the next 6-12 months showing a regular return to editing and some serious admin-like activity, and perhaps then asked your question, you might have got a different answer from me. I took a quick look at your contributions and, to be honest, there hasn't been that much continued activity since mid-2017, except for the odd month here and there. Whilst I'm not an admin, I feel your recent contribution history over the last couple of years, plus your statement that you don't think you're likely to become much more active than you currently are would undoubtedly sink any RfA right now and probably for the next 12 months or more. You've clearly got a lot of edits under your belt (37k+) and have made some good contributions and some good CSD nominations, but I'm sure an RfA within the next year would gather a lot of oppose on the grounds that you haven't demonstrated any need for the admin tools, nor that you would be active enough to merit having access to them. That might be a painful experience for a keen and willing editor to hear, but I think that would be the likely outcome. So, even though I think your chances in the next few months would be very low indeed, that shouldn't stop you thinking about it in the longer term. But adminship is not just a badge to collect - there are plenty of brilliant non-admins who contribute greatly to this project, as you have done. If you really want to help out 'behind the scenes', focus on some backroom areas that do interest you and stick at them- though I would suggest that contributing at AFD is an exceedingly good way to show your understanding of policy through reasoned argument, especially if those arguments help sway others who might have voted differently. I don't know whether having a user-deleted and salted user page would be held against you, but it might raise a few questions. That could be something you might want to consider sorting out. Many thanks again for your interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback, appreciate it. I’m well aware that adminship is not a badge nor should it ever be, as I’m one on another project, and I actually use the toolset. As for my user page being deleted and salted, it was done per my request, so I’m confused how it’d be held against me. 1989 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Well, perhaps I meant to say that you might be asked why you chose to do that. I suspect it's quite unusual for an admin, though someone is bound to put me right. You wouldn't believe what people are suspicious of at RFA, or on what dubious grounds they'll settle upon to make an oppose !vote. Just a question: would you be happy for your question here to be closed now, or would you prefer it to remain open for further feedback? (I'm not sure it's actually your choice, but I see no reason why you shouldn't have a say in the matter. Just let us know.) Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  As I had a global user page, I’d prefer that showing instead and not having someone recreate the local one by accident. Given what I have already disclosed to ArbCom in regards to myself, there’s nothing to be suspicious of, and I’m sure conspiracy votes are given no weight if a bureaucrat chat is opened. As for if I want this to remain open, I’d be happy to hear what I need to improve before considering, so far it’s my activity. 1989 (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the spirit of "not piling on", I am not going to assign a number. But I agree with others that there is very little chance that you would be approved as an administrator at this time. The most obvious problem is your extremely sporadic pattern of editing. You edited lightly for years, very heavily for about six months in 2017, and there have only been a couple months of active editing since. Yes, you had major contributions to one FA and some contributions to some other articles. But your content contributions are quite low overall. So, I recommend that you start editing consistently and regularly, with an emphasis on solid mainspace content contributions. Your other edits should be largely at quasi-administrative areas where you can show your knowledge of policies and guidelines. AfD is the classic example, but participating at venues like the Help Desk and the Teahouse will also allow you to demonstrate your deep knowledge of policies and guidelines, and your capability to be helpful to other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Your editing history is indeed extremely sporadic and voters might be inclined to assume that there is little overall interest in being a regular part of the editing community. There is also the fact that reading instructions and guidelines is quintessential to adminship. Based on empirical knowledge, I would say you would need to edit regularly and significatly every month for at least the next 12 months - sort of like starting over - and with a heavy focus on content building. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA (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'm not thinking of running an RfA. All criticism is welcomed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 04:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• As you're not thinking of running for an RfA at this time, I won't offer a x/10 score, but it can be worth asking about now if you think you might interested in standing in the future. It gives you time to work on any issues that might be identified (I waited two years before going for the full RfA after coming here). You've been active since January 2019 - which is not a huge amount of time - and have now racked up around 27,000 edits, of which 10,500 are in mainspace. You've clearly been very active in antivandalism, with over 400 edits to WP:AIV and 300 to WP:UAA, which is briliiant. You have successfully balanced that contribution with quite a lot of content creation, and have five GAs to your name which you clearly contributed to throughout their lives, from creation through to GA nomination. So you will keep many people happy at your abilities to write good content. (As a total aside: did you know you used the same word ("group") eleven times in the single paragraph in one of your more recent creations - North West Hebephile Hunters? - so maybe that could be worked on a bit to make it less clunky to read). You have very good AFD stats, and a quick check shows me that you do give valid reasons and dig around for evidence to support your views. (Beware of being too good - or somebody is bound to not bother checking, and simply accuse you of fiddling the system!) I did spot that you'd made a WP:NAC as a 'speedy delete' which surprised me, especially as you were also the nominator (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BiKi RoasTer. I think that contravened WP:DPR#NAC, so you might be asked about that, as you might also about a reverted BLPPROD on Joanna Foster which did contain a citation. Maybe that still cries out for an AFD! Enrico Cruciani Alibrandi might also be raised as a PRODBLP templating error. A very quick glance through your CSD log doesn't look bad at all - no obvious A7 errors, except a tiny handful right at the very start). The one thing I did notice was that in November you signed up as a host at the Teahouse though as yet you've hardly contributed there. Maybe you have been doing the sensible thing and have been lurking and learning, but I would encourage you to build up that evidence of an ability to help and interact sensitively to other editors, as it is a great 'tick' in my book at RfA. All in all I think you have the makings of a very good adminstrator, so maybe you might like to keep that target in mind over the next year or two ahead. That would allow you to focus on ensuring you get fully to grips with the various deletion processes and procedures and to build up good evidence that would move the more erroneous recent ones into the far distance. There's little point me saying you're not quite ready right now for adminship, as you've clearly have the self-awareness to realise that, and simply want some pointers to consider and to work on for the future. That to me is the sign of a mature and steady approach. I hope I've given you some, and I certainly would want to encourage you to stand in a year or so's time. You might then want to think about lurking at WP:ANI to get a sense of how the consensus of editors and sysops comes together to implement administrative decisions, and contribute when you feel you have constructive ideas to offer. I wish you all the very best, and thank you for seeking some critical feedback. I sincerely hope to see you around as an admin at some point in the not too distant future. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)  
• Nick has pretty much said everything I want to. I disagree that lurking around ANI is a good idea, unless you are very careful. You could try and break up a conduct dispute and calm people down, and that will stand very much in your favour at RfA, but a lot of disputes there are best left to highly experienced admins with a track record of diplomacy and dispute resolution. Nevertheless, improving your communication skills is always a good idea, and writing articles and putting them through GA / DYK is one of the easiest ways to do this. One small point I want to make (and I apologise if it sounds like nitpicking) is at User talk:CAPTAIN MEDUSA/Archive 6#Kink.Page you said "Site ranking don't matter in Wikipedia." - this should read "Site ranking doesn't matter" unless you are deliberately trying to sound like Rodney Trotter or Vicky Pollard. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Nick has done an excellent coverage of all the main facets - indeed, you'd meet the vast majority of non-tenure aspects in most people's criteria lists. @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: - out of interest, how have you been doing in ACC? I know it's one of the more backlogged areas, and is a great area to see. Looking through your talk archives, I had been a bit concerned by one page that seemed primarily full of individuals requesting your overturn various actions, with you concurring and doing so (though that avoids one common concern about never admitting mistakes), but the rest seem a more normal mix. I know one reason I struggle to do much at Teahouse is that there just aren't that many unanswered questions when I look - if that's factoring in, perhaps take a look at some of the other help pages? Some controlled lurking is beneficial in my view - absolutely bad interjection can cause problems (it did in a single case for me), but reasonable control can minimise those issues, and that doesn't seem an issue I can spot with you. tl;dr (not that wikipedians really suffer from that) - I agree with Nick, you look like you're on the path to be a good candidate. Feel free to drop me any questions you might have in the future. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Before I start, I want you to run. However, I can imagine at least one person complaining your username is in all capital letters. If that happens, you should just ignore that concern outright. Everyone above already gave you the legitimate reasons someone would oppose your candidacy, so I figured I would offer some insight on some of the more petty reasons they could. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• ...rating and optional brief comment...

NASCARfan0548 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · previous RfAs)

• 6/10 - I kind of feel like I should become an admin on Wikipedia: I have been participating in XFD discussions and I have not been blocked, as evidenced on my block log, but I needed a lot of help on editing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NASCARfan0548 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• You have the edit count and the tenure that people now expect, though not by huge margins. Your edit summary usage is not great, admins are expected to communicate well so I would suggest going to preferences and opting in to "prompt me if i leave a blank edit summary". I have just made your account autopatrolled. I haven't looked at your XFd discussions but if they are accurate you should probably pass RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 17:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  WereSpielChequers, Thank you! I hope I become an admin, but I think the chances are low. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 17:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• No rating, but I'm afraid it's pretty unlikely at this juncture. You don't state precisely what admin areas you would intend to work in, but since you mention XfDs it's fair to take that as a point of reference. Your CSD log has only one entry, and that is a rather bizarre G7 for your own user page, while your AfD log shows only ~20 discussions participated in, and that with a success rate of 55%. Mind you, the XFD tool is down for me atm, so perhaps that brings better news. But I'm afraid, just on the AFD/CSD stats, an RfA would have little chance of passing. On the other hand, your article creation is pretty good, particularly as they're BLPs; although it's ashame that there are so many stubs. Try and get something GA, and do some solid work in those other areas. ——SN54129 17:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• 3/10. I don't think you have the experience necessary. Participating in XfD discussions is a great standard, but there is a lot more that you need to pass an RfA. If you can't write articles, you'll really struggle convincing people that you are here to work on an encyclopedia. I'd work on getting a few GAs under your belt and you'd be better off. (If you want any help, drop me a message). Increase your edit summary usage, and keep activity levels the same for another 6 months and you'd be much closer. As above, I'd decide on what areas you'd like to work on and get some non-admin experience in those areas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Hey, NASCARfan0548! What is it you want admin tools for? Generally, if you don't have some actual task you want to do that requires the tools, you won't get much support, and people want to see that you're doing work that you could probably do better if you had the tools. —valereee (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I want to block vandals and trolls from editing Wikipedia and have the option to delete in XFD discussions. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest doing some non-admin closures. According to your AfD voting record, you've done around 20 votes, but I'd want to see a lot more for someone interested in closing such things. If you are interested in working on RVV I'd suggest reporting vandals that you see. When the time comes for an RfA, the community wants to see that you know what to do, and have experience working with the fields. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• 3/10. Unlikely to pass. While there are no formal minima, voters will claim too little experience, and a tenure too short, Although they won't mention it, some will possibly perceive a slight lack of maturity (demonstrated perhaps through excessive enthusiasm for wanting to be an admin) and they'll use another reason to oppose. It doesn't sound as if you have read all the advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Kudpung. If you want some more experience, I recommend getting the PCR permission. It's the easiest to get and it shows people that you are able to distinguish between good and bad edits. If you want it, just reply here or leave a message on my talk page or at WP:PERM/PCR. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Anarchyte, Could I please have the right now? NASCARfan0548 ↗ 21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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

In my last poll 3 years ago, maturity issues were pointed out as a potential impediment to any future nomination. My strengths probably are my content creation (with over 100 good articles and 5 featured articles) and anti-vandal work, and should I ever be nominated, the latter would be my focus. My weaknesses are probably my past block log and appearance on drama boards (pre-2015), as well as my paltry deletion logs. Prior to 2015 my edits weren't that high-quality in my view, but I think a lot of these issues have been resolved since then. I'd appreciate honest feedback on any weaknesses and strengths that RFA !voters will point out. epicgenius (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• It should be noted that I've spoken to you in the past about this, but you already know what things may be brought up. My question would be, if given the tools after an RfA, where would you like to use them? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Lee Vilenski, if given the tools, I think I'd use them at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. epicgenius (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Your contributions to Wikipedia have been outstanding. I have come across you in the WikiCup through examining GARs in which you have been involved, as nominator or reviewer, and you have impressed as someone who is knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies, level-headed and reasonable. These are the sort of qualities we need in administrators and, unless you have any skeletons in the closet that I know nothing about, I would expect you to succeed at RfA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• While Cwmhiraeth's endorsement is extremely positive, playing devil's avocado for a moment: if your stated reason for needing the tools is for patrolling AIV and RFPP, then I'm afraid it won't be long before someone points out that you haven't reported to the former in over 15 months and only five times since 2016, and similarly at RFPP, where you have filed less than 10 times in two years. This suggests either a need for the tools in other areas, as yet unmentioned, or that there is a perceived need for the tools without an actual need. Food for thought perhaps. ——SN54129 09:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• I would say go for it. You have been very active at DYK. We would appreciate your work at Template:Did you know/Queue, the area is mostly backlogged. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Has epicgenius filled preps? Without significant demonstrated commitment to filling preps, in my experience running on 'helping at DYK' seldom results in an admin who actually ends up helping at DYK. :( —valereee (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not a rating, but I'm curious why you want to work in counter-vandalism instead of at DYK. You have lots of experience at DYK and they always need admins. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Quality content creation, edit count, tenure, DYK participation - all of these are huge ticks. SN is correct though - your stated reason for wanting the tools doesn't stack up well with your recent activity. If you got back reporting vandals/requesting PP for a bit that rationale would make more sense, but it also occurs to me that this and this passed fairly uncontroversially, based largely on a desire to use the tools to work on DYK. Perhaps that might be something to consider? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129 and Girth Summit: Thanks, that is a very good point. Iff I had the tools, I would probably most likely use them at DYK. Counter-vandalism was just the first thing that came to my mind, since that was what I did when I first started editing WP. epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

    Epicgenius, have you filled preps? —valereee (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

    Valereee, no, I don't think so. But I will try to gain some experience doing so. epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

    Epicgenius, I'd like to see you fill one every ten days or so for at minimum a few months. If you don't, you won't have done it enough to get good at it and figure out whether it's something you'd actually like to do. It's practically the exact same toolset as adminning at DYK, with the added challenge of putting together the puzzle of a balanced prep. If you don't like filling preps, you're never going to like moving preps to queues (because it's the same as prep-filling only without the fun of solving the puzzle), and that's where DYK really needs admin help. —valereee (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

    Valereee, thanks, that makes sense. I will try to do it at least once a week for the next few months, just to get the hang of it. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've seen you around, and your content creation is excellent. I think the ongoing discussion at VPP makes it clear that to any reasonable !voter, promoting main page content is a sufficient need for the tools. If DYK is the place where you'd like to use your tools, though, I'd suggest getting a little more experience building preps before you run; it doesn't take much work to get familiar with the process, you could be quite comfortable with it in a few weeks. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  +1. We've seen multiple RfAs recently from people who haven't built preps, and those new admins haven't ended up doing many moves to queues. —valereee (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891 (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 Dweller on my talk about running. An in-depth explanation of what I view as my past mistakes is visible there for anyone who's interested. They recommended I file a poll here, so I am. I'll reiterate part of what I said on my talk here: Although I'm primarily involved in content creation, I could see myself of use as an admin at NPP and AfD, perhaps other places across the wiki; I would consider myself a general net positive. I've progressed a lot since joining in 2016, but of course, there are things I can improve upon.

• I don't really believe we should have the ratings but here's my thoughts. You have content work, which is great - what you need now is experience in things that would require the tools. So, do some more AfD non-admin closures (and participate as well). Dweller's ccomments are pretty spot on. Being honest about issues is the first step towards explaining them in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Speaking personally if you're interested in working AfD as a sysop don't do non-admin closures - there are few articles that can be closed by a non-admin and even relists present issues. Participate instead. And I don't think you have enough of a track record at NPP to use that as a basis for the tools. Finally I'll conclude with my general advice that the best sign that you're ready for RfA is when respected editors, especially respected sysops (and especially respected sysops with a track record of nominating people) tell you that you should do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Edit summary usage is good. I looked at all AFDs in the past year, which look fine; especially noms accompany well-thought-out rationales. A couple of iffy ones from 2017-18 (I only looked at the ones where results didn't match), which are generally considered too old to be relevant, but 11 in the past 12 months don't really give much to evaluate without going back to them. I would recommend three more months of rejuvenated participation at AFD before you run, 40-50 that give an indication of your original analysis should suffice, i.e. not counting the "per nom"s and "as above"s. Do note though that I am speaking from much less experience than others. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• I don't have my finger on the pulse the way I used to (I was away for nearly a year and I try to keep out of project space as much as possible these days), but I was planning to ask if you were interested in running after we got Fabian Ware his star. I've seen you around doing gnomey things in various places, but the cordial collaboration we've had going on at Talk:Fabian Ware, to me, is exactly what Wikipedia is about and demonstrates all the qualities I look for in an admin: patience, playing nicely with others, listening to feedback, understanding and implementing core policies, etc. It couldn't hurt to gain more experience in adminny areas. Voters like to see a strong record of CSD nominations from editors who want to work in that area, and only a handful of sloppy tags can sink an RfA. Userspace CSD logs were fashionable a while ago; I don't know if they still are. And I agree that participation at AfD is better (for the project, as well as for your chances at RfA) than non-admin closes and relisting. A few more edits at AIV/UAA/RfPP certainly wouldn't do any harm. But you've got the proven track record in mainspace; an FA on an important subject like Ware would stand you in even greater stead. Successfully navigating FAC with an article on an influential figure like that takes many of the same skills we need in admins. If you get Ware through FAC, I'd be more than happy to nominate you (or co-nom with Dweller; if you'll have me of course!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello all, I'm Iazyges. I edit mostly around the topic of Roman and Byzantine emperors but dabble in a lot through GAN. Most of my admin-related work is in patrolling the names and user pages of new users, and ARV and CSD reporting as necessary. I would like to be an admin to cut out the middle man, however, I recognize that this field is far less urgent than most other admin tasks. It seems like RFA has been unusually active this last bit, so I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to put my name forward. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think you'll receive an enthusiastic reception based on your content contributions. You should receive a fair few CSD-related questions since you have showed an interest in that area while your track-record only reflects userspace and mainly G11s and U5s. The likelihood of success might very well depend on how well you answer them. Increasing your participation at AFD wouldn't hurt, same with the use of edit summaries (you can set your preferences to remind you to add one, when you try to publish without). Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • You might want to do some content creation. Only 209 GAs, Eh? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Lee Vilenski: The 209 number is actually for Good article reviews I've done, I only have 59 GAs as of now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

    • • Oh... In that case, butter pump up those numbers! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• 5/10 5/10 - Your CSD log looks fine however your XFD participation is on the very low side and your PROD log is full of blue links akthough those were in 2018, There hasn't been much AIV/UFAA work either, On the edit count side > 9,018 (30.1%) for mainspace and 8,174 (27.2%) for userpages (although I would assume this is due to the userpage-CSD-tagging and not your todo list?) which to me isn't ideal - I personally would like to see a lot more mainspace or Wikipedia space edits,

Overall personally I don't think you'd pass given the things I've noted above and I think many would be questioning as to why you'd need the bit just for userpage-CSDing, Ofcourse this is just my opinion and others may disagree and or will have their own preferences, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like you're suggesting that someone with 59 GAs and 209 GA Reviews is not focused enough on content to pass GA because their mainspace percentage is at 30%. I don't think that's true. No comment on the other stuff which I haven't checked as I simply now this editor through their GA work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, I did unfortunately miss that, But for someone who does this sort of work I would still expect the percentage to be a lot more although that being said editcounts aren't the be all and end all here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

One of the reasons for user page edits being so high is my todolist, which counts 3400 some edits last I checked. I also usually re-write articles in my userspace, before bringing a finished article in to replace the current one, bumping that number up a huge amount. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone with his reputation will need to worry about mainspace % aspects Nosebagbear (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Like I said editcount/mainspace % isn't the be all and end all here however it's certainly a valid criticism and plenty of people have opposed due to the editcounts/&s. –Davey2010^Talk 20:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Based on your content creation, tenure, and general clue, you stand a good chance. Looking at your AfD record, you seem to generally make good nominations and give good opinions so I doubt people would take issue with giving you the delete button. I remember helping at a UAA backlog once and seeing your reports; from what I recall those were good too so I doubt people would take issue with how you'd use the block button. Even if you use the tools sporadically, cutting out the middleman reduces the workload so I doubt anyone will worry about whether more admins at UAA is urgent or not. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Difficult to give a score. You have a stellar record in mainspace, and you've got involved in some behind-the-scenes stuff, though not what some would consider a lot. I think a lot would depend on answers to questions to gauge your knowledge and interpretation of policy (ie not just what the policy says, but how it's implemented or enforced by admins on a day-to-day basis). For example, since you're interested in UAA, I might ask you to explain the difference between ((softerblock)) and ((spamublock)) and which is appropriate to what circumstances. Lists of hypothetical usernames for evaluation are often set as questions as well. A well-considered answer to a question like that could silence a lot of opposition on the grounds of experience in admin areas; a poor answer would probably sink the RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Everyone else above has set out your (major) pros and (much more limited) negatives, so it's all interpretation now. I suspect you're one of these cases where 3 months doing some more admin-ish stuff would make for a fairly slamdunk RfA. I'm not sure if I'd be a weak oppose, neutral, or support at the moment, but you'd be really close. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• You'd pass. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

L293D (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)

Hi all, I'm L293D. I'm considering running for adminship.

Pros:

• I've written 2 Featured Articles.
• I've written 20 Good Articles, and participated in 3 more.
• I have 32,000+ edits.
• I have 37 DYKs.
• 48% of my edits are mainspace.
• I have shown through my anti-vandalism work that I need the admin tools for AIV, RFPP.

cons:

• I was mostly inactive from April to September 2019
• 82% of my mainspace edits are automated (usually rollback, Huggle, or a redirect-creating script I use)
• I was blocked in April 2018 for seriously screwing up using AutoWikiBrowser, although I'used it well since.
• I've been uncivil in the past, although I think I've learned from my mistakes.

Thanks in advance for the feedback. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• As the fella says, "Not a jerk, has clue". ——Serial ^# 16:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to provisionally say go for it - you'd want to put some thought into how you addressed certain negatives (RfAs are absolutely a "own your errors" area), but I don't think their existence is sufficient recent or severe to warrant discouraging a run. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• You're certainly someone who has been around enough and been visible enough to be a legitimate candidate. Have multiple editors told you to run especially the kind of respected editors who might serve as a nom or co-nom? If yes you would stand a good chance of passing and should consider exploring a run in depth with them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A few editors, yes, but no admins. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Go for it. Never in my life used this phrase until today but I agree with SN > "Not a jerk, Has clue". Go for it. –Davey2010^Talk 17:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• People who aren't familiar with you will naturally look at your block, and to be honest it wasn't your finest hour, as you seemed more put out about how your edits were being rolled back than apologetic about the disruption. However it was over two years ago, and if you can show that you've learnt from it I don't think it will be held against you, particularly considering your strong content work.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think you're a decent candidate. I would suggest giving some thought into what areas you would like to use the tools. Having good knowledge of your skillset is a very good place to start. I don't think you'd struggle for creation of content, but maybe in what you might do with them, and you'd likely need a good response with how you would refrain from using these tools like you did with AWB in the past. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have given thought to this. As I said above, I intend to use them mostly for anti-vandalism work and to patrol RfPP, AiV, and UAA, and I feel I've done enough counter-vandalism to prove that I would use the tools well, (and not how I used AWB). L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• 8/10 So first of all, Um.... I won't penalize you for the rollback since I support this, but for the test edit and that AWB incident. Now for your month/year count. You want to be admin to assist in counter-vandalism. That appears to be only from JAN-2018 to OCT-2018. Then after, doesn't seem like much. I calculate this by user talk space edits. Not much of a problem within the last year. Also, if you pass RfA, you will be the 6th youngest human admin (9th youngest account).
  This cadinate is not to be confused with LD235.
  ((reply to|Can I Log In))'s talk page! 02:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer (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'm here mostly because I came across a copyright violation at NPP, it was deleted by an admin, then the article was tweaked just enough to not trigger Earwig and restored again. I flagged down an admin because while I knew it was still a likely copyvio, I couldn't compare the two revisions within Wikipedia. There have been a few other instances where viewing deleted content (specifically in the DRV sense) or being able to do a copyright revdel directly without having to post the arduous template would have been very helpful just in the last month. I don't want the stress of an RfA because I really don't think I'll use the mop that much (except maybe to close AfDs/view deleted docs?) so I thought I'd post here again to test out whether it's worth applying at all. SportingFlyer T·C 17:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• 8.5/10 - what I looked at seems really positive. Your NPP work seems positive, you have a good content history. Your AfD work looks excellent (and with an impressive Keep level for an active patroller). For an RfA you'd probably want to be a bit more specific about uses for the toolkit, but certainly AfD closes and general aiding of NPP and copyvio work would be more than enough, even if you didn't plan on being that active. Looks good to me. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

One thing I did want to ask is if you do any CSDs and if you're logging them via Twinkle? If you are using Twinkle to make CSDs, logging them is a beneficial thing to do. Nosebagbear (talk)

I PROD/CSD pretty rarely, at least recently, but I have Twinkle and I use it. I've just turned on the Twinkle log for everything I use it for, I had to search to find it. Thanks for the advice! SportingFlyer T·C 22:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you'd have a pretty good chance - but I didn't do a huge scour. What's worth mentioning is it's probably not super wise to comment how little you'd use the tools/want to be an admin! If you do decide to run, I found it very useful to spend a couple months getting experience in a few different areas (especially the ones which I'm stating I want the mop for). So, I'd suggest doing some adminy-like things, as it's a little bit of a hard sell to give the tools to someone for them to only be useful. :P Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is more of a fly-by observation, so I won't give a 'grade'. Though you've clearly got a lot of sound contributions to Wikipedia under your belt, it probably doesn't help to say at ORFA that you won't use the mop that much - someone's bound to pick up on that. So having a sound reason you can explain will make a lot of sense. I would suggest that more evidence of participating in high quality content creation will be expected by some RFA voters. Whilst at first sight it looks like you have one FA under your belt for Leek Town F.C., you only actually created it and made the next three edits to it back in 2005; the same with B-class page on Winslow–Lindbergh Regional Airport - so this is something to consider working on. Though not essential, you might wish to show participation at WP:AIV and (a pet favourite of mine) show clear evidence of your ability to support and engage well with new users through participation in one or other of our help fora. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Lee and Nick, thank you for your responses, they're appreciated. I understand that it's not all that smart to say that I'm not going to use the tools that much, but I'm getting to a point where I'm commonly asking for temp undeletes at DRV, situations at NPP where it'd be useful to check to see if/how a page has been recreated, and occasionally working with copyvio. It'd be nice to be able to close AfDs and maybe DRVs as well - I've over 2,000 AfDs and participate at almost every DRV. It does look like this may be a bridge too far, though. I'm generally happy with my current editing patterns and at least right now I'd rather not be judged on the fact I haven't written a GA because that's not the focus of my content creation work, or get involved with AIV for the sole reason of earning the mop as most of the places I contribute don't require AIV all that often - it's just getting to the point where I understand why the mop would be a nice thing to have in order to help the project. SportingFlyer T·C 01:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, the reason editors want to see a GA or two is that content creation is hard, and content creators need admins to understand their problems. Myself, I think someone who is generally civil to everyone can understand and support content creators, but I do get that many content creators have had to deal with admins who just don't get it. Tell me how you'll understand and support content creators. —valereee (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Valereee: I've created or improved a number of articles on a variety of different topics, especially topics from areas where we lack content and on topics where I feel like it's necessary to clearly demonstrate WP:GNG passes. (It's always necessary, but considering a lot of my articles are from non-English speaking countries or from countries where reviewers may not make right calls on what's a reliable source, for instance Nigerian press, I take it rather seriously.) Content creation's difficult and time-consuming. You have potential issues with copyvios from less experienced editors, with sourcing, with a lack of understanding which sort of content you need to create an article. I've offered to review drafts for users and at AfC I will typically comment on areas where content could be improved if the article's not quite ready for mainspace. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an admin who "doesn't get it," but this often comes up in the context of deletion, especially where the article is eligible to be included in the encyclopaedia but isn't up to specific standards, or where a user is having trouble getting a notable article onto the encyclopaedia (this occurs rarely, but my most recent example is helping save a notable article from a mistaken and very convoluted deletion process.) I hope that's what you're looking for in an answer, and thank you for taking the time to respond to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's exactly the kind of answer most people are looking for. Sorry, Isaacl, didn't mean to derail the process! :) —valereee (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  In the interest of keeping this a quick, low-overhead poll, perhaps interactive discussion can take place on SportingFlyer's talk page? isaacl (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)