Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. 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 main page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Sahaib: April 12, 2025

Latest comment: 4 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion

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

I asked to be polled about a year ago but only received one response because I stated that I likely would not attempt to become an admin in the next few years. I disagree with that now because even if life gets busier, I'll still be editing Wikipedia. Sahaib (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• You have NPP experience, your created articles are well-sourced, and you've brought a few articles to GA (Travis Ludlow and Money (The Drums song)), which demonstrates that you have an understanding of how articles work on Wikipedia. You have one block, but it's from when you were a new editor and I think it would be seen as unreasonable to count that against you. Two potential problems immediately stand out to me. First is that your edit count might be padded—a lot of your most edited pages show frequent cases where you made a huge amount of small edits to a single article in rapid succession. I haven't checked to see how pervasive this is, but it might be scrutinized if it's how you typically edit. Second, you don't have a strong track record of using edit summaries. That's a common barometer for how well someone understands Wikipedia's norms and is willing to communicate. I see two instances on your talk page where you've been asked to use edit summaries, in 2023 and 2025. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Thebiguglyalien: Not to put Sahaib down, but personally, I don't consider a patrol count of 115 to be significant NPP experience that would be worth mentioning in most cases. Especially considering most of that was done within a week, as opposed to prolonged activity. With that said, every little bit helps, and I'm grateful for all that anybody and everybody does to help with the backlog. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Could you tell how you plan to use the rights? That is a really important question, and will change how people interpret your contributions and experience. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 03:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I would use the rights to reduce various backlogs whether that be moving pages at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, closing move discussions (I know non-admins can do this as well), checking which pages have been marked for speedy deletion and seeing whether they meet the speedy deletion criteria, checking requests for page protection/unprotection to see if the requests meet Wikipedia's protection policy, blocking users who vandalise after ensuring that they have been adequately warned on their talk page with the warning templates, etc. Sahaib (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Just a thought, if you're interested in moving pages, have you considered getting and demonstrating use of the WP:PAGEMOVER user right? -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I actually hadn't considered this, so thanks for bringing it up. Sahaib (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for exploring this. I don't think you're quite there yet. Did you know you can change your settings to warn you when you've not put in an edit summary. The reason to give an es for really obvious edits is that page watchers would not have to click diff at all to check what the edit is about. I wasn't quite impressed with your response to FarmerUpbeat ([1]), which was not as friendly as might be expected from an admin (hopeful). You may want to consider leaving at least a few messages on your talk page, to make it less intimidating for new users to leave you a message. Your most-edited article is Zerkaa, which has quite a few citations flagged as unreliable; didn't check who added them. Do you have a user script installed already to flag sources like that, like User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter? Having a GA under the belt could help ward off any concerns here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Looking back my response was quite passive aggressive. I've now changed my preferences to ensure that I'm always leaving edit summaries and installed the script you mentioned. Zerkaa was created when I was a relatively new editor which explains why I edited it so much and the article has since been edited by a lot of different editors. I would say that I am now good at identifying reliable sources, see some of the more recent articles I have created such as Tim Johnston (politician), James Smart (police officer) and Emais Roberts. Sahaib (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Those do look much better, yes :). And I didn't see you've got 2 GAs under the belt already (I blame mobile view). You may be able to nominate James Smart as a GA as well.

  Which makes me revise my assessment of readiness. There are still a few weaknesses in a possible run (such as not understanding NPROF a few months back), but I'd be happy to do a deep dive. Looked at your requests for page protection, my sample were all honoured, so you seem to understand that well. Feel free to email me to for a deep dive. If that response is a one-off, and I can't find other skeletons, I'm happy to talk about being a nominator in a few months. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

L$Aiden$L: April 19, 2025

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

L$Aiden$L (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)

Hi everyone, my name is Aiden. Everyone keeps removing it whenever I say how old I am but I think I’m a lot more mature than people would assume. I hope it’s ok if I just say I’m not at voting age yet, and no one will erase that?

Although my account is new, I have edited Wikipedia in my school library in the past and came to enjoy it alot. I did things like report vandals who later got blocked and I even contributed to some articles about politics. Unfortunately, I have cancer now and its not responding to chemo and I decided that what I want most in the world is to be a Wikipedia admin so I will have something to be proud of. I would have edited alot more since I made my account but I was in a coma for awhile. Anyone who wants to know more about me can read some of my other posts on Wikipedia.

As an admin I would block vandals and help decide which articles should be deleted. I read an rfa where someone said that being an admin was no big deal, so I really dont think it should be a problem to help a kid with his biggest lifes goal. I felt kind of disouraged by some of the things people were telling me but I see that rfas usually have hundreds of voters and it was only a few people who were putting me down. So I’m going to start an rfa soon and have more opinions and I hope it will be more fair. The only problem is there’s a step I can’t do because it says I’m not extended confirms so I will need help.

Thanks everyone for your support! L$Aiden$L (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

You have been given your answer numerous times. I am starting to suspect you are trolling at this point. Knitsey (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• [edit conflict with close] (0/10) If the applicant fails do the basic reading linked above and yet doesn't understand why their application is insufficient, they have no chance whatsoever of gaining any but automatically applied permissions at this time. The applicant should come back in a couple of years at the minimum. I'd be happy to apply a partial block restricting them for applying again if necessary. BusterD (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Starship.paint: May 1, 2025

Latest comment: 3 months ago19 comments7 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Starship.paint (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)

Hello! I am looking for potential nominators and feedback. Last year, I ran in the admin elections but did not succeed. My rationale for running is in that link. During and after the elections, I received feedback to work on my AfD record and also articles that I have started. I have worked on both, but more can be done. I will only run again after I further improve in those aspects. After the elections, I have also started reviewing Good Article nominations which I had never done before. Do let me know whatever else I can improve on! :) starship.paint (talk / cont) 09:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

If I look at the screenshot I made back when I voted in the elections, I voted support for you. Looking at the candidate page, I wasn't exactly sure what aspects of the candidacy were the most significant so as to cause a 54.34% support rate.

If I had to guess, here are some points I would make:

[..] start editing in [..] the contentious topics of recent American politics, gender-related controversies, abortion, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. [..] per WP:INVOLVED, I will not use the tools in all of the above topics' disputes (except against blatant vandalism) that's not really nice. People agree to topic bans in unblock requests not when they get adminship. Just editing in those topics does not make you involved, so preferably showing more understanding of what involved really means would be helpful.

If elected, I’ll start by hanging around AN and ANI to gain some experience, and after that I will also try to help out at AE This will also look bad to any voters passing by. These three initialisms give the connotation of drama, and to say that on the very first line of Q1 will discourage a lot of editors. I'd suggest either avoid mentioning specific areas of interest or focus on areas that you have shown a lot of experience in that do not have the drama-like impressions editors usually get. (P.S. To say that you want to help out at AE yet will not act in USPOL/GENSEX/PIA in an administrative manner, to me, is an odd combination) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: - thanks for your quick response. Just a quick clarification regarding your remark agree to topic bans - I’m saying that I won’t administrate in this topic areas. I intend to continue regular editing in those topic areas, which is not a topic ban in my view? Just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding before I respond fully. starship.paint (talk / cont) 10:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but saying you won't act in administrative capacity in those areas just looks like a "admin topic ban" to me. I don't really like it when people ask questions like will you agree to not work on administrative area X if you get sysop? and similar, and I don't really like it when admins voluntarily give up their ability to work on administrative area X either. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing me your point of view, 0xDeadbeef. I have reviewed WP:INVOLVED again, and will be sticking closely to it if I run again. You've given me much to ponder on regarding the other part of your review. I may have to try my hand at more areas of Wikipedia. That will take time, but then again, I am not rushing into another run yet. Greatly appreciate your help. starship.paint (talk / cont) 12:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I had you down as a pretty weak support at EfA. (Of course, there is no option on the ballot for that—I ticked the support box—but it was a weak support.) I think my unease came chiefly from Q3. Not really that you were involved in FRAMGATE: It was almost six years ago, and emotions were running high for everyone involved. However, I think your reflection missed something important. Your emotions are absolutely valid. They matter. But that's not the first thing to talk about; the first thing to talk about is the fact you asked a WMF staffer—a real, living, breathing, human who was presumably trying (and perhaps failing) to do the right thing—to connect an outside profile to a Wikimedia account. How do you think the staffers felt about it? I think it was said best by TonyBallioni (ping for courtesy): These staffers are private persons, many of whom have had Twitters since they were minors. They don't need to have to worry about strangers stalking them on social media and finding things they said a decade ago and using it to embarrass them. That's the main problem, and talking about how the block affected you misses the pain which triggered a block in the first place.

I still supported because the block was a huge part of your editing career (it thus makes sense you would focus on it), you do excellent work in other areas of Wikipedia, and the actions were over five years in the past. But that was my main concern going into the metaphorical voting booth. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, HouseBlaster. Admittedly, I did not think of the matter the way TonyBallioni described it, as you quoted. I certainly did not have any knowledge about Twitter habits of WMF staffers. Nevertheless, you are right that I should have considered more on how the staffers would react to my actions. I did not mean to do harm, but perhaps, from the staffers point of view, I had. This is something that certainly I will have to reflect more on, on how to minimize any further occurrence. starship.paint (talk / cont) 00:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't give a number (maybe later). But, given you were well below the threshold, there's got to be larger concerns. Not meaning to hijack this request to complain, but wanting to shed light; the lack of feedback on the election request is decidedly unhelpful for future runs. Just three editors provided feedback, despite over 400 people voting on your candidacy is virtual silence. A standard RfA would have garnered far more feedback on why it failed. I would advise looking over everything in the standard guides, and carefully consider each aspect of them. It would be inappropriate to try to build your RfA resume, but to find places where you can improve in general would be good. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Hammersoft. Indeed, I felt similarly regarding lack of feedback, and thus I sought post-election feedback (and did receive some). I will be looking over the guides before I run again. starship.paint (talk / cont) 00:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• (I'm being deliberately mean now – please don't take anything personally.) I strongly second everything 0xDeadbeef said. AELECT doesn't provide a ton of feedback, but it's glaringly obvious to me why people voted against you: your nomination and answers reeked of drama. You are a great example of a candidate who would likely do a lot better at RfA, where voters have to explain their oppose votes, than at AELECT, where people can oppose simply because an editor in these topic areas must be guilty by association.

But even so, please try to make your nomination statement and answers to questions less of a laundry list of the most toxic areas of the project. What could be seen as an admission of leftist bias was also not ideal. The "involved" disclaimer looks like an admission of guilt and is contradictory to the purported intent to work AE, which consists mostly of reports in those topic areas.

Question 1 was by far your weakest and I strongly encourage you to find more areas you would like to work in as an admin. Perhaps you could rephrase your interest as something like "I am most interested in working on user conduct issues", which is a broader category that includes AIV, ANEW, unblock requests, RfPP, etc. (which I assume you are also interested in – it would be very weird if your sole purpose as an admin were reading ANI reports).

At a brief glance, your recent AfD participation looks decent. It seems you haven't closed any AfDs since 2022 [2], so I encourage you to do some NACDs to reinforce that you're familiar with the deletion process (this script will help). Your content work is very solid, so really the main area where you can improve is writing/getting a nomination statement and answering the questions with fewer red flags.

After all this, you might be surprised to read that I voted for you in AELECT: My notes were "very experienced, has a clue, even in CTOPs". I encourage you to do your best to convey that impression to everyone else at your RfA, which I hope to see sooner rather than later. Toadspike [Talk] 17:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the reason for your comparatively low support % was the drama flags (and perhaps drama opponents coming in to vote oppose). I don't think EFA is the way forward for you - you need RFA. Get the drama concerns out in the light. -- asilvering (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike and Asilvering: - I detect no meanness whatsoever, thank you both. I hear you two loud and clear on RFA > EFA. Indeed that is what I have already decided. There will not be any future EFA for me. I will have to significantly overhaul my answer to Question 1. Thanks for your recommendation on WP:NACD, I will certainly explore that. I’ve started considering other areas of adminship and right now one of them that I am thinking of is unblock requests. Of course, I will also think about the areas you have raised. starship.paint (talk / cont) 21:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot of good a sensible, patient non-admin can do at unblocks. The spam/promo blocks in particular often need a lot of hand-holding that really does not require admins specifically to do it. There are of course also a lot of ways to embarrass the hell out of yourself, so I'd advise lurking the category for a little while before dipping your toes in. Using Template:NAcmt is a good idea. -- asilvering (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Category:Requests for unblock, I take it. I will be careful. Thank you for the suggestion! starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend against NACs at AFD. I don't think that's usually a good idea. That seems to be an area where admins are expected to do most of the closing. Instead I would recommend policy-based !votes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: - thank you! I will keep that in mind. starship.paint (talk / cont) 23:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'll just throw a wrench in there and say that it's fine to do NACs; I did plenty. There are some obvious pitfalls to avoid: don't relist too early (not necessary, plus this drives everyone crazy); don't relist if you think there's even a marginal possibility an admin might be able to close it (this drives admin closers crazy); don't close if you think there's even the slightest hint of supervoting (write a really clear !vote instead). -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Got it, I'll probably just stick to closing obvious keeps if I do take action. starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fade258: May 29, 2025

Latest comment: 2 months ago14 comments7 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fade258 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

Hi. I have certainly thought about an RfA. So, I am curious to see how the community views me today as compared to last couple of years when I was blocked for sock and comparing my edits to then. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• 5/10 ~ don't take me as an expert, but there are a couple of things i feel the community will be likely to question:

1. A good explanation of your block ~ which may well exist, but you'll need to be prepared to give it;
2. Currently the first item on your talk page is a query about using AI, and it seems to be that the community in general expects candidates to have internalised such things before seeking the tools, which i suspect will lead to a number of oppositions ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

   Hi @LindsayH, Thanks for your comment and for highlighting two key potential issues that I have encountered and ready to give explanations when I opened for RfA in future. Thanks for your time. Fade258 (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't support. At least not without some distance to things like Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser#User:Fade258 (and not as a still unarchived request). I'll nitpick Special:Diff/1290472491, creating TOTN (TV series) where it would have been more suitable to just add to TOTN's disambig page.

People will evaluate your understanding of both procedural and content policies (and guidelines), and I think it would be a WP:NOTNOW if opened. Admins are especially required to know when something is outside their ability to handle/judge, and the AWB request doesn't inspire confidence.

Thanks for asking here though, instead of launching an RFA directly. beef [talk] 10:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @0xDeadbeef. Thank You for your feedback here and it is much appreciated for me. Thanks for your concern regarding the AWB request and TOTN (TV Series). I am currently reviewing more about AWB after the declination and learning more. As for your concern about TOTN, I totally misjudged that and I will be more carefull in future before making those calls. For personal knowledge only, Can you tell me on which areas that I need to improve and to gain trust from community because I lost a huge trust from the community when I was blocked as a sockpuppet in June 2022? Once again, Thanks for acknowledging that I have asked above for feedback here before opening an RfA directly. Fade258 (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me what you would want to do as an admin that is different than what you are doing now (and the AWB request does not indicate that you have a high level of understanding on a technical side) . Taking a very brief look at the background to the blocking issue, some red flags would be raised around maturity (and not making the same mistake again is not necessarily a sign of maturity). I agree with the comments above on use of LLMs/robots for communication; there's large parts of admin work that require fairly high degrees of analytical skill, using robots for editing is contentious at best, having to use it as part of admin work I think would raise very high concerns. Looking at this exchange over a draft at AFC, you seem to be telling the editor they must have four reliable sources with SIGCOV to meet notability requirements. If I've understood that correctly, I'm concerned that this is not in line with the actual text of the WP:GNG which explicitly excludes a specific numerical threshold for sourcing, nor the flexibility offered in WP:BASIC. Moreover, you indicate four references from one news source is not acceptable, but these four sources cover a seven year period. You also don't indicate that some of the sources are interviews. To me this suggests a lack of analytical depth. I would suggest working on high quality content generation - getting a few articles to good or featured status could assuage editors' concerns. Also think about participating at AfD more consistently - bearing in mind a long record of delete !votes may only demonstrate joining in with the crowd, focus on contributions which directly engage with policy and guidelines. Wikipedia does need more admins, especially from outside the Anglosphere, so please don't be discouraged. However, while being helpful and polite (which you are) is important in demonstrating a capacity to be an admin, analytical skills are crucial and these appear to need further development at present. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  PS - FWIW, I made a request for AWB five or six years ago and was knocked back, so don't feel alone! --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hi @Goldsztajn. Thank You for your time to review my request and offer thoughtful candidacy feedback. I would like to take this as an opportunity to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised. I want to clarify on a few points, on how I plan to address them in coming days. If I become an administrator in someday, then I will help with backlog, page protection, AfC, AfD and in counter vandalism. I understand that AWB does not indicate on having technical knowledge. I was blocked as a sockpuppet, a couple of years ago. Since then, I have been contributing in more constructive way. I think I have lost a huge trust from the community and trying to gain it slowly. To be honest, I have used LLM/ChatGPT to improve my english proficiency skill only rather than to edit Wikipedia or to generate thoughts on particular topics. Similarly, I want to clarify you that, I am only telling that user about the references that user have added. At that time, I would likely to use WP:THREE on that draft. As advised above, I will participate more thoughtfully and consistently in deletion discussion, AfC, ANI, help desks or in teahouse too. I will take your feedback seriously and contribute constructively. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  I second this. While I don't exactly have a firm grasp of policies like WP:SIGCOV as I normally don't create articles or anything like that, the LLM concern is very real for me and IMO you'd be best off triple-checking everything you contribute using an AI before publishing it. However that being said, I do think that using LLMs for grammar and proofreading in order to make sure you're being understood is less of a problem. When contributing to Wikipedias in certain other languages I've done that too to double-check myself.
  In regard to your anti-vandalism efforts, I'm actually pretty impressed. It looks like you've been actively involved in preventing vandalism on Wikipedia and I like what I see. Just be prepared to explain why you think you'd need admin specifically. I'm only starting to familiarize myself with the RfA process so I can't say for certain whether you'd pass, but from what I can see you'd have my vote. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hi @Gommeh, Thank you for your time in reviewing this request. I clearly understand the concerns in the use of LLM/ChatGPT. I agree that the AI-assisted tools should be used carefully. To be honest, I didn't use ChatGPT for content creation, generating thoughts on AfC, AfD and other relevant discussions. I only use ChatGPT for improving my grammer and proficiency level of English. Since, English is not my native language. I also appreciate your kind words on my anti-vandalism work. Obviously, I am preparing myself to explain in the need of admin tools and my previous block. I can predict that, regarding my block history and LLM issue, I think chance of pass of RfA in future is minimal. Once again, Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughtful feedback and best wishes to you for your dedication in learning more about the RfA process. Fade258 (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• The additional tools made available to community members with administrator-level access can cause profound disruption; thus, it is prudent to only extend access to them in cases where it can be reasonably expected that the user in question will at least semi-regularly make suitable use of them. This is because the chance of an account compromise for each given person will be non-zero, and so the perceived benefits must be seen to outweigh the perceived risks. It strikes me that Fade258 is a well-intentioned and constructive editor whom the wiki & community both benefit from the presence of. That said, I'm not satisfied that they have a clear goal to achieve which necessitates (or, at the least, is substantially eased by) the acquisition of the administrator-level toolkit.

Having both read the contributions of others, above, and looked over some of Fade258's most recent activities on the website, I have to confess to a concern of this being something of a WP:HATSHOP - although, in saying that, I would like to clarify that I actually don't care for that page in its current form. What I mean is that I think Fade258 has a narrow view where he trusts his intentions (as do I), and essentially views himself unlocking access to these tools as being a positive-sum change where there is no effect on cases he would not seek to use the tools, but that he has the option if he sees an apparent need to do so. As stated in my prior paragraph, while we can all be prone to losing the forest for the trees in this respect, the community writ large needs to take a more global view.

Recent apparent interest in gaining access to sysop tools, AWB, and other utilities besides demonstrates to me an apparent aimlessness - or, perhaps, restlessness - on the part of Fade258. Rather than being an editor who has carved out a niche for himself and identified one or possibly two sets of tools which would substantially enhance his ability to fulfill that function, he instead strikes me as being an editor who's looking for something to do.

I like Fade258, and I could certainly see him potentially morphing into a suitable candidate for adminship at some point in future. At present, I would advise that he allow himself some time to settle into the roles he already has. To-date, rather than showing he has mastered those and perhaps outgrown them, he has seemingly functionally ignored them (e.g. seeking rollback, then subsequently only actually using it twice). Rather than his current roles being an argument in favour of him gaining additional ones, I fear they're the best argument against that - at least for now.

I do believe his commitment to being a positive influence on the wiki and his work ethic are each beyond reproach. ···sardonism · t · c 13:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Sardonism. Thanks for the thoughtful and honest feedback. Regarding your mentioned statement, I am taking it short. I understand the concerns raised about me and having a clear purpose of tools. I will take this and will make focus on making the roles that I already have. I believe in myself that, I will grow slowly and purposefully and become good candidate for admin just say rather than strong. Once again, Thanks to you for your valuable time. Fade258 (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

"I believe in myself"

FWIW, I believe in you, too. 👍 ···sardonism · t · c 03:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PawPatroler: June 28, 2025

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

.

PawPatroler (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) 5/10 - I want to become an adminisor. PawPatroler (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• 0/10. You edit warred with me to try to force a reference to WP:IMDB, an unreliable source, about a month ago. User talk:PawPatroler#User-generated sourcing. I'd recommend continuing to gain experience, to focus on the basics, and to be more receptive to feedback from others. Also, as a rough measure, I don't think anyone with an edit count lower than 7,000 has passed in a very long time. Your edit count is at 717. It takes a lot of editing to get enough experience and build enough relationships to have a good chance at RFA. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• 0/10 Your account was created about a month ago and you only have 717 edits. You will need a lot more experience (both more edits and more time on the site) before you have any chance of passing RfA. The edit warring with Novem Linguae is also an issue. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 00:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• 0/10 You were recently given a final warning and asked to slow down after being the denied pending changes role three times in two weeks. Your best bet is to focus on learning the fundamentals of Wikipedia editing and not worry about adminship. —tony 00:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Banovercheckcross

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Banovercheckcross (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 need to become an admin Banovercheckcross (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest you withdraw this before people start piling on "0/10". Administrators are expected to have thousands of edits and months if not years of experience. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you have 64 edits and I have food in my fridge that is older than your account. Giraffer (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A. B.: July 4, 2025

Latest comment: 1 month ago27 comments13 people in discussion

A. B. (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 started editing in late 2005. I was an admin here from December 2007 to October 2014 and an admin on Meta from January 2008 to October 2011. I became mostly inactive from 2013 to 2022 due to a pressing workload. My admin tools on both wikis automatically lapsed as a result of inactivity.^[3][4] Several editors have suggested I consider standing for admin again, so here I am. I'm not standing for admin in the July 2025 elections since I'll be traveling while they're underway.

Comments:

• Most of my prior admin work was:
  • Link spam removal and blacklisting
  • Blocking chronic vandalism IPs
• I've made about 8,000 edits in the last 30 months
  • I may spend 5-15 minutes between edits looking stuff up.
• Currently most of what I do is try to fix up troubled articles by digging for references in places other may overlook using Google Scholar, Google Books, the Wikipedia Library, articles on other Wikipedias, and search engines in the countries where the article's subject is located.
• I was offline much of mid-2024 due to a family emergency.
• Many editors want to see Featured Article experience. I've been too busy working in the junkyard. I'm just as proud of what I do, though; I enjoy making stuff more reliable.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Using Google Scholar and TWL alleviates most of my concerns about content, but are there any specific articles you would point to that demonstrate an in-depth understanding of best practices? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to articles I've edited or to all articles? As for best practices, are you referring to just sourcing, or everything article-related?

Here's an article, Commercial fusion, I found on the verge of deletion that I cleaned up with about 10 hours of research and 40+ edits. Although I knew some nuclear engineering, I had no idea commercial fusion had "become a thing" before stumbling into the 13-day old AfD. It was in pretty good shape by the end of the AfD. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Direct link to the 40 revisions A. B. made. Looks like it's just adding citations to a table. Important work, I'm sure. But at RFA would probably not be convincing evidence of "content creation". Would be better to provide a diff where you added a lot of cited prose. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. Like I said, an understanding of what makes quality sourcing is really what I'm interested in and I'm not concerned there, but I was wondering if there was something to demonstrate an understanding of what goes into writing the encyclopedia and the more subtle nuances of what distinguishes good editing from mediocre-to-bad editing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd say my prose is best described as "workmanlike". It won't win awards but I think it gets the job done. I haven't started many articles and the ones I started were small - mostly stubs. I did not use inline references and often just left bare external links -- that was typical in the 2005 to 2010 era. If you're looking for examples of prose, here are some articles I started:

• Gordon Johnston (soldier) (my initial version)
• East Tennessee Railway (my initial version)
• James Ernest Karnes (my initial version)
• Calvin John Ward (my initial version)
• Allen D. Candler (my initial version)
• HMS Rorqual (S02) (my initial version)
• Shaklee (my initial version)
• Submarine navigation (my initial version)
• Leah D. Daughtry (my initial version)

This is more recent:

• Broad Sound North Entrance Channel (my version)

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@A. B., I mostly agree with @Vanamonde93's comment below, so while I'm not generally fussy about whether or not an admin candidate has lots of quality content work, I think it is something of a liability for you. I don't think there's any problem with having "workmanlike" prose (that's basically what wikipedia writing is supposed to be), so I don't think that's a barrier to getting a GA or whatever if you wanted to try. If you also don't like writing, well, don't do that - but in that case you'd be able to soothe concerns like mine by fixing up some articles that have serious pov/WP:V problems. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Hello, A. B., it's kind of a fluke that I happened to drop by this page and I saw your opinion request. I just thought I'd add that one thing about you that has impressed me is the extensive work you have done in the past reviewing and handling PROD'd articles. This is an area of the project that gets very little attention, even from experienced editors, and, off the top of my head, I can only think of 3 or 4 other editors who regularly review PRODs to make sure that decent articles are not being tagged for Proposed deletion and, even rarer, you go out looking for sources to improve tagged articles so that they aren't so obviously deletion-worthy. Even though this is not a prominent work area on the project that gets much attention, I think you should mention that the work you do here because it is so necessary and undervalued. One thing we desperately need in future admins is admins who don't mind taking over niche areas that don't get much attention. For example, we have few admins who work with Files and so, should one of those admins retire, it would leave a big hole in our admin corps. I know we have had our disagreements over specific PRODs in the past but overall, I greatly appreciate you devoting some of your time and energy to reviewing tagged articles. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you so much, Liz! A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

My impressions are as follows:

• That you've been an admin before is a huge plus.
• Article creation will be an issue for many !voters.
• Some editors will look at your 2024 activity gap and say "Too soon, there's not been steady editing since coming back".
• Looking at some of your work in the PROD and AfD space, that is good and steady work.
• Overall, I'd expect that it won't be plain sailing, but you have a chance of getting over the threshold with how things stand.
• If your keep up your editing activity for another six months, say, the activity gap issue would be mute, and things would look more promising / safer. Schwede66 21:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Schwede66, thanks for the feedback.

If any regular editor wants the story on the family emergency that kept from editing for several months in 2024, I'm happy to email them. I'm squeamish about posting the details on a pubic web page due to privacy concerns. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

In my view, the only person(s) who you may share this information with could be your nominator(s). Schwede66 01:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Schwede66.

I almost emailed you the (literally) gory details before seeing this - you dodged a bullet!--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• Some basic stats: ✅ >7,700 edits. ✅ Account age >2 years. ✅ >1000 edits in last year. ❌ Good article. ✅ No blocks in past 5 years.
  I've seen you around and have a good impression of you. If you're a former admin that was removed for inactivity rather than drama (arbcom case or something), and then you've gotten back to activity (looks like thousands of edits in the last 3 years), then that's a big plus. I think your weak spots are your lack of a good article (there's a faction of RFA voters that really want to see content creation), and a pretty big recent inactivity gap (from April 2024 to Feb 2025). I think an administrator election would be a good fit for you since it'd be a lower stress way to throw your name in the hat, and it would avoid any possibility of a crat chat. The next administrator elections are in July 2025 and December 2025. Regardless of if you do RFA or AELECT, it is good to have 1 or 2 admin nominators. Do you have some nominators in mind? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae, thanks for the feedback. I don't have any nominators in mind yet. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  At the end of the day, voters want to see familiarity and experience working on content, so a good article, in of itself isn't a requirement, but demonstrated experience with content is what needs to be shown. 3 of the people at WP:RFX300 didn't have a good article when they passed, so there are plenty of ways of demonstrating it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding my editing hiatus last year due to a family emergency: I don't want to post the personal details online. I'm happy to email any established editor the facts. Suffice it to say, those times were grim and I don't ever expect them to happen again. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  It shouldn't be necessary to provide any details to anyone. Taking breaks is perfectly fine, for whatever reason. For those who like to see a record of ongoing participation when evaluating a request for administrative privileges (either by the open viewpoint process or election), it will be of course up to them to decide on how much current activity meets their personal standards. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  Without going into detail, this lengthy episode was pretty serious: blood, machines, SOFA scores, mountains, surgeons, powerful drugs, priests, weeping, foreigners and immigration enforcement. Oh, and very sketchy internet connectivity. It shall not be repeated.

  I'll share the full story with my nominators if I end up standing for admin. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly, I don't want to know, and rather wish you'd have posted this response to someone else's comment. (That being said, I sympathize with any ordeals you have faced.) isaacl (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, isaacl.

  A lot of it is actually sort of funny in a very dark way one year later. At least none of us got a toe tag. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• Aware of you through AfD and my impression has always been that you are considered and throughtful, would second Liz's comments. That goes to demonstrating convincingly a strong awareness of notability standards, which could mitigate somewhat potential concerns around lack of content creation. FWIW, personally I don't believe an editor/admin with a record as long as yours needs to justify time spent away or provide any more detail than RL intervened. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey A. B., good to see you here. You are a very thoughtful contributor at AfD, someone I am always glad to see around. I agree with the others that if you ran today, you would likely pass, but only with much hemming and hawing over content creation and activity levels. Personally I am not fussed about either, but if you wait a few months (three should be enough) and polish up an article to GA (even if it's apparent that you're only doing it for RfA brownie points) you should have an easy time of it. Well, inasmuch as RfA can be easy... Toadspike [Talk] 06:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• I noticed your AfD participation in 2023, and in early '24 was planning to ask you to attempt an RFA, when you went inactive again. I'm glad to see you're back. I've consistently appreciated your AfD contributions, and you've always been cordial even when we've disagreed. I've got to say though that this discussion left me frustrated. I don't want to rehash it, but it as an admin I'd expect you to recognize that G5 exists to protect our content, not just to enforce an arbitrary sockpuppetry policy. Your comments there felt like someone speaking out of the early 2000s, when (I believe - I wasn't around) many sockmasters were passionate editors who went off the rails in some way, rather than bad-faith actors actively seeking to subvert our purpose. Whether this would sink an RFA, I don't know - certainly there were other people who agreed with you - but it's a matter of recognition rather than skill, so you could overcome my hesitation rather easily. All that aside, I imagine some folks would raise an eyebrow at patchy activity and a relative lack of content. I would strongly caution a new editor in your position to address those issues before chancing RFA, but you likely understand the potential fallout quite well, and can judge how much time you want to invest in addressing those points. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
• My impression of your role in another rehash of the intractable disputes about the listings of airline destinations was positive, that you showed sound administrative judgment. Sometimes the role of an admin is to be a voice of reason in a contentious area that is not designated as a contentious topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
• I supported A. B.'s original RfA back in December 2007, and if they decide to run again I would most likely support again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Cloventt: July 11, 2025

Latest comment: 1 month ago12 comments10 people in discussion

Cloventt (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 considering nominating myself for the upcoming admin elections, and despite only so far drafting my nomination page, I've already had some excellent feedback and advice. I'm keen for more before I decide whether to commit to the nomination. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Some basic stats: ❌ >7,700 edits. ✅ Account age >2 years. ✅ >1000 edits in last year. ✅ Good article. ✅ No blocks in past 5 years. The low edit count might be a big issue. No editor has passed with less than 7,700 edits since GoldenRing in 2017. However, AELECT is gentler than the normal RFA process if you do decide to give it a shot. Should probably pay close attention to the other comments here and see what other folks think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  AELECT is "gentler" only in that you get less direct criticism from voters. In my estimation it is less nuanced and thus harder to pass than RfA, especially for edge cases, which with ~3,000 edits I would consider you to be. Your participation at AfD looks solid and skimming your answers on the draft nomination page gives me the impression that you would be an excellent candidate. I only fear that AELECT voters are more likely to vote based solely on statistics. Toadspike [Talk] 07:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• About the edit count: while there is no hard minimum, there is a lower bound below which it is highly unlikely that you would have sufficient experience to pass RfA. Some people can achieve in 8000 edits what others might need many multiples of that to achieve, but 3000 is significantly fewer edits than anyone who has recently passed. It would be very difficult to demonstrate that you have sufficient experience, skill, and reliability to be an administrator with that many contributions, regardless of their quality -- there are people who will look at that figure and oppose because they think it's impossible to be ready for adminship with 3000 edits. Giraffer (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Part of this is that many admin-adjacent areas drive up your edit count very quickly. For example, every AfC draft I decline gives me four edits; I get more when I accept, since I then tend to do some minor tagging or cleanup. Being an AfC reviewer or new page patroller also puts you into a lot of situations similar to adminship, where you have someone contesting one of your decisions and you need to respond to them calmly and helpfully even if they're being a giant dick. @Cloventt, you have an excellent AfD record and you're autopatrolled, so I would grant you patroller rights without hesitation, if you're interested. See WP:NPP. If you'd rather start at the slightly less complicated WP:AFCP, same offer. Just let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Wait, you already are an AfC reviewer. Well. Turn on your AfC log and get to it! -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• I have to agree with my colleagues above. You have a strong record thus far but your edit count is liable to distract from that. GoldenRing was an outlier even in 2017, and standards have only risen since. Keep doing what you are doing, and it's quite certain someone will recommend you run when your edit count is closer to what the community at large desires. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Cloventt: - I would opine that you should not run in the July 2025 admin elections. If you want, run in the next admin elections, five months later, after you’ve done more editing. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
• There's a lot of good advice here already, so I'll just say this: if you ran, I'd vote for you, and I don't think a low edit count should be a barrier for an otherwise qualified candidate. You look like you'd make a fine admin to me and I encourage you to run to push the boundaries of people's expectations for admins. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
• Cloventt, I think you'd make a good admin and I would support you if you ran now. That said, I think you'd lose if you ran today. Get more experience, then run. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much to everyone. The advice and support was extremely useful and encouraging.

For now I've decided to withdraw the election nom and build more experience with AfC and NPP. I might consider doing a full RfA in a year or two when I have more experience. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Just for the record – I've been talking to David about adminship. I know him personally and in my view, he'd make a good admin. When he first said that he was interested in the role, I checked his stats and was immensely surprised by the low edit count, as his editing gives the appearance of much more experience than that. Hence, I gave similar advice to what you all had to say. I was nevertheless prepared to be a nominator and had drafted a nom statement in my head, focussing on the low edit count and why sometimes, you need to look beyond that. Still, running at this point in time would have been a steep ask. I reckon that when the next elections come round, things will look much more rosy. Schwede66 21:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Gommeh: July 9, 2025

Latest comment: 1 month ago22 comments8 people in discussion

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

Hi everyone! I'm not sure if I want to submit an RFA now, but I thought I'd check in with everyone and see where I stand within the community. I created my account in 2015 but only became consistently active in March 2025; I wasn't really interested in the project at the time. Since becoming active this past March, I've focused heavily on counter-vandalism efforts and regularly participate in discussions at ANI to mediate drama, something I view as one of my strengths. I specialize in reverting unhelpful edits, and I try my best to help inexperienced editors who may have broken the rules find their way.

I've created or significantly expanded a handful of articles, including Eichmann trial and Drumeo, and I hold both rollback and AfC reviewer permissions. I have been trying to increase the amount of work I do reviewing AfC drafts as well as XFD. Outside of content work, I've developed templates such as the {{uw-gaming}} and {{welcome-foreign}} series to support user communication. While I'm relatively new to the admin pipeline on Wikipedia, I do bring experience in administration and community moderation from other contexts, having served as a senior administrator on several mid-to-large gaming servers, where I handled pretty much everything from conflict resolution to user management. I'm open to honest feedback about where I stand now, what concerns you may have, and what areas you think I should develop further.

• Thanks for your enthusiasm! You're doing great work, but you're still quite far away from being ready for adminship. People vary in how much experience they like to see, but it's almost always more than a year of serious editing, with some people asking as much as 2 (or even 3?) years. One bit of quick advice is your use of WP:edit summaries: you don't consistently use them, which is making it less easy for others to patrol changes. You can get set a reminder in your preferences to warn you if you've forgotten an edit summary. In terms of experience in admin-related stuff, AfD is usually the first place people look. your afd stats are not yet where people want them to be. Usually people want two things: examples of good understanding of notability in the few occasions you !vote against consensus, and a decent match rate (say >75% or >85%). Learn from what people are saying and have a read in some of the WP:SNGs, for instance WP:NPLACE for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nekkonda. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  That was one of my main concerns actually - I was not planning on making one soon, but when I've got some more experience under my belt (later this year or sometime next year, roughly, at the very earliest). I do not plan on making AFD a priority if I get admin tools, and I do my best to use edit summaries. The only exception is when I'm editing in my own userspace (e.g. moving things around), because I doubt people would care there.

  If I kept on going the way I am though, would you say I'd be ready? Am I on the right track? Gommeh 🎮 19:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  It's a bit early to say. I've not looked at your record at AN(I), but that can be risky business as a newer editor, as interventions without thorough knowledge of policies and guidelines can rub people the wrong way. One fun thing that would really help you grow as an editor is writing a WP:good article. Not all admin candidates have one under the belt, but with a good reviewer (50% chance), you can rapidly become familiar with loads of important policies and guidelines. And it builds the encyclopedia! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah - the problem is, I can't really think of a topic that I'd like to write an article on that doesn't already have an article. A lot of the things I am interested in writing about don't have enough of the type of sources that a GA would need (like Aaron Burr for instance). I have tried my hand at getting an existing article to GA (Eichmann trial) but failed. I am unsure where to take the article if I want to get it to GA status so I've shelved those efforts (for now at least). Gommeh 🎮 19:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  Most GAs are on existing articles, so that shouldn't be a problem. You've taken on a very difficult article with Eichmann trial. Given that Aaron Burr was the vice president of the US, I'm 100% certain there are enough high-quality sources to write an article from that, and probably an entire book series. You can make your life easier and take a much smaller topic to try to write on. Is there a less famous novel you really enjoy? Or perhaps a video game? There is good guidance to writing about both on their Wikiprojects. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  I am considering It (character) as well, but haven't really touched it yet because of scheduling. Gommeh 🎮 20:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  The only exception is when I'm editing in my own userspace (e.g. moving things around), because I doubt people would care there. I would recommend edit summaries for userspace too. Editors like to see 99% or 100% edit summary usage when they run it through the tool. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• (I won't give a number because I haven't done a deep enough dive.) The vast majority of your activity is from the past three months, and you have no assessed (Good or Featured) content and have only created one article. Prior to today, you only had 15 AfD votes and two CSDs both (CSDs are from this week). Your enthusiasm is highly appreciated :) but it really too early to be considering an RfA — the standard is roughly a minimum of 12-18 months experience, with evidence of a strong understanding of high-quality content creation and a sustained track record of reliability in administrative areas. You generally want to stay away from ANI unless you are directly involved in/have something significant to contribute to a specific thread. It's a noticeboard for administrator attention, and having non-admins pseudoclerking is usually looked upon unfavorably by RfA !voters. As an aside, I understand why you think community moderation experience is a plus, but it tends to hold little weight on-wiki — being a English Wikipedia sysop involves working with nuanced policies and guidelines on a scale that is more or less incomparable to any other internet role. Giraffer (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Giraffer is correct that off-wiki experience tends to hold little weight on-wiki, but I wouldn't discount your off-wiki experience in conflict resolution completely. Those skills are certainly going to be useful for any editor, but especially one who is willing to volunteer for adminship here. Working with editors on content can help to demonstrate this in an on-wiki way - putting your work through GA reviews, for example, shows you can handle criticism. You may also be interested in working at WP:DRN. -- asilvering (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. I do have some GA reviews like I said before at Eichmann trial that didn't go very well. In hindsight maybe I should have chosen a different article, but I'm still proud of the work I did on it even if it didn't reach GA. Gommeh 🎮 18:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'll echo what Giraffer and Femke said above. I want to drive home two points:
  • If you take literally nothing else away from this, do not participate at the dramaboards (AN, ANI, etc.). Participation there is only seen as a negative at RFA, especially if your contributions consist of "clerking" (e.g. closing threads).
  • AFD: beware !vote padding. WP:PERNOM is an argument to avoid—not to never use, but to avoid. I see some great contributions (e.g. this nomination of Filming of James Bond in the 1960s is well thought-through and appeals to the often-overlooked WP:NOPAGE), but a couple of per-nom-after-the-outcome-has-been-decided !votes (1, 2). Generally, your !votes should be adding something more than a support for one side of the debate. Usually this comes in the form of new RSes or analysis of previously-cited ones, an WP:ATD not considered by previous votes, or citing some new policy/guideline (Obvious ones like WP:N do not count!).
• Minor but personal pet peeve: Templates and modules should use clear names with standard English spacing, not CamelCase! That being said, you have been doing some great work—keep being awesome, and you get bonus points for the P&F userbox :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Question though - why is participation there frowned upon? I'm confused. I would have thought that trying to help out in those types of situations - trying to help editors see where they went wrong - would be seen as a positive contribution.

That being said I'll cut down on ANI. Gommeh 🎮 01:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

ANI participation is generally perceived as drama-mongering and evidence that someone is not WP:HERE to police rather than build an encyclopedia. Do I agree with that assessment? Not entirely. ANI is a necessary part of the project, and we need volunteers to staff it. But there is certainly an element of truth to it, and too much ANI participation can lead to a very jaded view of what Wikipedia is like. As for clerking, it is simply unnecessary. If a thread needs to be closed with consensus, it will be closed by an admin who can actually enact the closure. If nothing more is needed, just let the thread be archived by the bot—closure is superfluous. Any random article is more likely to need your help than an ANI thread. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense - and to clarify, if you have an issue with someone that requires attention of admins (e.g. filing a report where you've tried to talk to the editor and it's gotten nowhere) that isn't seen as drama-mongering is it? Is it only seen as drama-mongering if you have no good reason to contribute to it or? Gommeh 🎮 13:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Correct. "Clerking ANI" is what has negative associations in people's minds, I think. Simply reporting people (a normal amount, not in excess) shouldn't be a problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Clerking, yes, but also, regularly participating in threads that you have no previous involvement in tends to come off as "drama-seeking" rather than "drama-reducing". The key word here is "regularly". (I would say you currently do so regularly.) -- asilvering (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it - that makes a lot of sense. Now I think about it, it's like butting in on a conversation at school where you don't know anyone and asking what they're talking about. Do it too often and you'll be seen as weird. I guess the same logic (sort of, more or less) applies here, wouldn't it? Gommeh 🎮 18:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't really say, since I'm not one of those people who objects to ANI participation. What I will say is that ANI participation is pretty high-risk if you care about what administrators think about you, and you presumably care at least a little bit about this if you are willing to volunteer as one yourself. Think of it like this: say something stupid somewhere random, and almost no one will notice, and probably no one will remember. Say something stupid at ANI, and at least one administrator is going to read it and think "wtf is this guy's problem?" (Not to mention that, if you run for adminship, at least a handful of people will go digging back through your ANI posts and find that stupid thing you said. And if it bothers them enough, they will post it on your RFA for everyone to see.) Myself, I mostly stayed out of ANI since it didn't seem like it was a good use of a non-admin's time to have much to do with the place. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I only know you because of ANI and have a very positive perception of you because of it. LordDiscord (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Given my past experience in that sort of thing I thought it may be one of the things I could potentially help out on once I was familiar with the policies (mostly by offering feedback and advice), but since starting this thread I have been trying to cut down on participating in the drama. That, as well as modify my approach when I do participate there after some feedback. Gommeh 🎮 13:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll add one more piece of advice: if consensus has already formed in a discussion, only comment if you want to argue against the emerging consensus. A unanimously-supported nomination does not need a 4th participant agreeing with the other three, even if you cite some new PAG. It might be appropriate in some select circumstances—perhaps you found a promising piece of SIGCOV, but then it turned out to be an unreliable source—but in general, focus on discussions with unclear consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Well, you're a great candidate, but my main concern is that most of your edits were done after March this year. Usually maost candidates have at least an year of active editing before applying. (eg:- Leeky)OPHYRIUS ^⚔ 13:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

DreamRimmer: July 12, 2025

Latest comment: 1 month ago15 comments7 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

What do people think about my chances of passing an admin election in this round or the next one? I will proceed based on the feedback. While I do not have any new good article yet, all the other issues from my last RfA have been resolved. If I become an admin, I would focus on technical tasks such as running admin bots and helping with technical maintenance, as well as contributing in non-technical areas like UAA and AIV. My last RfA was in May 2024. – DreamRimmer ■ 03:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• 7/10-- Well, considering locally, you're quite trusted, which is the main criteria of supporting adminship. You're also a coordinator of NPP (only non admin coordinator). You're already doing a lot of admin wirk without being one. Good article efforts are the only issue, as you only have 1. But, considering your global experience as a VRT, Global Renamer & a Global sysop(opted-out by English Wikipedia), you're already familiar with the tools & I think it's enough experience to be a sysop here. (trying my best not to be biased as a friend) Cheers! OPHYRIUS ^⚔ 06:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comment. I understand your point and will spend time creating quality content without serious issues before thinking about adminship. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• I've never felt that content-writing should be a prerequisite to being an admin. You don't have to have a FA, GA, or even DYK to understand and interpret our policies. Many admin actions have little to do directly with article-writing anyway. I say go for it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  I think that's decent advice in general, but since a lot of the opposes at the last RfA were specific concerns about content DR had written, I do think the community would expect to see signs of improvement in that area (whether or not that takes the form of a GA). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, fair enough. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks to both of you for your comments. I have noted your suggestions and will focus on improving content-related issues first. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Please be specific: What have you done since your last RfA that would reassure voters worried about the quality of your content creation and your receptiveness to feedback? In my view you should have good answers ready for both questions before you run again. Toadspike [Talk] 06:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC) (wording changes 18:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC))

  More than good answers, you’re going to need a very tangible track record to support those answers. Editors have heard too many empty promises and unsupported assertions at RfAs to take yours (or mine) at face value. I suggest you go back and check every one of your articles to ensure the references all check out and that there are no more attribution issues. Some of your RfA participants will do this, I assure you. For those articles that are translations, I’d have a native speaker check your foreign language references as well as your translations.

  Finally, I’d create multiple good articles (GAs). I don’t normally expect an admin candidate to have any GAs but given the history of your last RfA, you need to conclusively put content issues to bed. Roughly half the RfA participants expressed concerns about your basic grasp of our content policies and guidelines.

  The most important characteristic of a good admin is temperament. You seem to score well in this area - not too BITEy that I’m aware of.

  Do these things, give it 12 months, come back here and see what people say. If they recommend running, go for it! —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. I have noted it and will make sure to follow your advice. I will address all the issues before considering running again. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I was thinking about running because I often find myself in situations where admin tools could be helpful. These days, I mostly contribute to technical areas and felt I could be more useful with tools. I also plan to focus on content work, as I know that after my first RfA, many people wanted to see more experience with content creation, and I want to earn that trust. Some concerns were raised, such as issues with attribution. Those have now been resolved. I have properly attributed the necessary content, and Mathglot and I have also created a project to help others handle mass attribution violations more easily. There have been several situations where I could have helped by using an admin bot or handling other technical tasks, which is why I wanted to hear what others thought. Since many of you have suggested that I should not run, I will not be moving forward with it :) – DreamRimmer ■ 13:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "many of you have suggested that I should not run" is an accurate reading of our comments. Only A. B. has suggested that you wait; Extraordinary Writ and I simply want you to be prepared to explain how you have improved on the issues raised last time around, while Ophyrius and Ganesha811 seem to suggest you can run now.

Your answer here shows that you have something of an explanation for how you've improved, but it is overly focused on why admin tools would be useful to you (which no-one has doubted) rather than gaining the trust of folks who opposed you last time. People do not want to see "more experience with content creation" – they want to see that you can create content without serious issues. I recommend not starting with "Those [concerns] have now been resolved" – explain what you have done and then let the reader decide whether the concerns are resolved. If you do run again, please find nominators who will help read over your answers to questions and catch stuff like this. Toadspike [Talk] 13:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike: When I said that many of you have suggested I should not run, I meant that the majority feels I should wait and first address past concerns. Apologies if that came across the wrong way. I do have explanations for the improvements I have made and plan to share them in more detail in an RfA if I ever run. I will make sure to clearly explain everything about how I have improved.

I did not have stable electricity where I live due to heavy rain and outages, so I did not have the time to respond with more detail earlier. I had planned to address these points during an RfA. I have also noted all your advice and suggestions and will keep them in mind moving forward. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I think "I recognize that my content creation work is not up to par, which is why I am avoiding it and instead focusing on tech/backroom work" is a valid reply to folks who are asking about content creation. I disagree with most folks here that improvement in content creation is what folks want from DreamRimmer, tho that it wouldn't be too bad to have, but an acknowledgement of how they understand the situation is imo good enough. Sohom (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.