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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jdcomix (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 have had second thoughts about possibly wanting to do an RfA within the next year or so. My main focuses as an admin would be countervandalism/sock puppetry, CSD monitoring, and new page patrolling, but I would be comfortable learning how to do other tasks. Content creation is something that I don't have a ton of time for, but maintenance and counter vandalism would be something that I could take care of easily as an admin. I know the RfA process is changing soon, so I wanted to evaluate my chances now. Jdcomix (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You're at least a year away because you've only been active since June and there's a sort of unofficial expectation of somewhere around 18 months of experience as a rough minimum. Prior to that, it was 3 years with almost no edits in most months. The last time I see consistent activity is 2017. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that is what I figured. I might re-evaluate in a year or so to see how I feel about it. Just wanted to find areas to improve at, which is why I'm here. Jdcomix (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Given how much emphasis is being put on content creation, could you point to your best contributions? I'm asking because the usual tools don't show you as the creator if you started with an existing redirect. What does show is you mostly setting up redirects. If there's not much to show, then getting some content creation under your belt would be most beneficial for an RfA. Schwede66 01:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I helped get some tornado articles started for the 2011 Super Outbreak a while ago, but that was a long time ago. I agree, I will have to start creating more content before any RfA. Jdcomix (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking to run, the two things you need to focus on are consistent activity and content. Like Josh said, most people look for around 18 months of regular activity, without substantial breaks in between. Content is also a must: at least a couple GAs, FAs, etc. Some people can get away without significant content creation, but generally they have some technical experience (for example, Pppery). —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

(0/10) <-- That 0/10 is what you will get in the future if, and I mean this will all kindness and not to dissuade you, you do not carefully read instructions and advice. In the second line of this page, it says"To seek feedback on what you can do to improve your contributions to Wikipedia..." and then when you go to edit this page, there's an edit notice that says"This page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors". Requesting input here on this page when you are, by your own admission, a year or more away from a potential RfA run is not correct. So, please take this 0/10 to heart; read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, and Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship. !Voters at RfA will absolutely savage you for failure to read instructions. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Jdcomix (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Significa liberdade (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)

After receiving comments from multiple other users about when I will run for RfA, I thought it would be worthwhile to look into. My main interest in becoming an administrator would be to lighten the load of other admins. Firstly, through my work with NPP, I often stumble into certain circumstances that require admin support. For example, when seeing a page that has been previously deleted, it would be useful to be able to see the previously deleted page to see if it is the same page or has been improved substantially. Similarly, I occasionally come across potential socks, where the page previously created by the sock has been deleted. In starting an SPI, it would be useful to see the similarities between the pages. As an admin, I may also be able to address other issues that regularly arise, such as CSDs and CV rev-dels.

Although I do not have any GAs or FAs, I have created many articles, primarily focusing on literature related to women and LGBT folks to help address known disparities on Wikipedia. I have also been working with NPP for the past year and am among the top reviewers.

I'm interested in any and all feedback related to my performance and likelihood of passing RfA. :)

• I offered to co-nom you with Leek so obviously I think you have a good chance. As people told me once upon a time, it's a good sign when admins are asking you to run. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)*I've taken a whirlwind tour using many of the above tools, as well as your talk page, and I think your chances are quite good. You've been reasonably active for more than three years, 35K mainspace contribs, very good percentage of AFD votes in agreement with the subsequent result, and you seem polite and well-infomred in your interactions with other users. Plus you've got two excellent Wikipedians goading you into it, perhaps they could also be persuaded to co-nominate? I don't personally think it should be this way but these days self-noms are much rarer and most succesful RFAs have at least two nominators.
  Some users will come after you about the lack of GA content, but if you know that going in and can point to other articles you created that just are not at that level yet I think that's fairly compelling. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's not impossible though, given that I successfully self-nommed back in December with less experience than Significa. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  But if you happen to have something close, it's worth getting it there. Happy to review for you as soon as you nominate something. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• To reiterate what I said elsewhere: I am talking about what I'm talking about. Good luck ;) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• As I said nearly a year ago, I think you'd be a good admin. I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested! —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Not that you need more offers... But I'm also available to nominate :) Hey man im josh (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• 9.5/10, feel free to run at your leisure, from my pov. Thanks for all your hard work over the years. :D Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Thought they were one already/10. No GAFA might bat some eyes (certainly not mine), but you seem to have everything else a good admin has. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 21:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

DimensionalFusion (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)

Obviously, I won't be making an RfA anytime soon tomorrow (only 3,100 edits!) but I'd like your opinions on whether I'm heading in the general direction (I think I am, hence why I'm asking for the candidate poll). Bear in mind most people won't have heard of me because I mainly do DYK/GA without much interaction on centralised discussion, like on RfA's. So do let me know!

• (0/10) Please understand, I am trying to help you with this. Please carefully read this: "This optional polling page is for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges (RfA) in the NEAR FUTURE". If you're not able to read instruction on this page to understand what this page is for, you will never have a chance at RfA. Those very words are at the top of this page. This page isn't for evaluating how you're doing as an editor or seeing if you're on the right track. By the time you get to this page, you should already have an idea if you're on the right track. Look at recently closed successful RfAs and evaluate those editors. That should give you an idea how you are proceeding. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think I worded it poorly as that wasn't what I was going for. Apologies DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 06:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    • When you change a comment people have already replied to, it's best practice to underline new stuff, and strike old stuff. Otherwise, it get's confusing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

      Done DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've seen you around a fair amount at DYK as of late! You're probably a ways off from RfA, but I've really enjoyed seeing your enthusiasm and willingness to dive in. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions – I was very involved with DYK for a while, and still hang around to contribute from time to time, so I hope I'd be able to guide you well when you need it. cheers :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• At the rate you're going it won't be edit count that is an issue so much as tenure. Your account is a few years old, but most of your activity has been in the past few months. -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Just a small comment. Double check if the contrast of your signature is sufficiently high. I think it's probably not (https://webaim.org/resources/linkcontrastchecker/). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback, I've updated it to provide higher contrast DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Cremastra (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)

If I were to, say, nominate myself at the new experimental WP:AELECT, how would I fare? (Just a note: my CSD log can be ignored because I a) mostly use PageCuration to do that and b) disabled that feature on Twinkle.) Cremastra (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

fwiw, I don't think anyone can predict election outcomes yet. All we know is that candidates are likely to receive much less support via this method than by RFA. -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if we can even know that. Surely, we'll likely see fewer >95% support percentages, but pile-on opposes over minor issues are less likely without group effects. Will give some actual feedback tomorrow. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• You're one of the handful of people I've been thinking about giving an WP:AWOT. My main concern is that your activity fell off a little bit toward the start of the year, but it's not an extreme drop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• I suspect that your chances might be better than at a normal RFA given the wave of noms and restricted discussion/question period: The results for your AFD !votes/noms have been close to a coin flip this year, your only accurate Keep vote ever has been for an April Fools joke, and your only other Keep vote stated "I haven't fully investigated the article, but I would agree with this statement. So leaning keep", which is not great. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Your username change makes your AfD stats look worse than they are, with a 74% similarity percentage if you include both usernames. That said, if you want to help out in deletion processes, it may be worth joining a few more discussions with in-depth analysis and see if you can be the one that delves out the missing sources. When you nominate, it may be worthwhile consistently noting what BEFORE steps you took, so that others can more effectively search in more specialist collections. (For accessibility, keep in mind WP:NOHIDE for your source assessment tables). Most requests for page protection are honouned, and the few times it led to a block rather than a protection, both options had merit (there were at least 2 accounts/IPs). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks. I wouldn't plan on helping out at AfD, since that's never been a place that's interested me especially, but I'll take more care with my noms in future. If I were to close deletion discussions, it would be at RfD, where I already do some clerking. Cremastra (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Cremastra. You are an excellent candidate. I will support you. Happy editing! Maliner (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

How big an issue is the fact that I have so far epically failed to raise an article to GA? Cremastra (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You've written a couple of B-class articles, so it's clear you do know your content. I've had a quick look at the 2nd failed nomination at Talk:Banded palm civet, which noted close paraphrasing. I think I'm on a strict side of this, but I'm not convinced by the examples, as there are WP:LIMITED ways of saying these simple facts. That said, this is taken quite seriously by (!)voters, so it may come up again. Also the fact you've got multiple failed GAs may come up. I'm not convinced that GAs are necessary, but in the absence of GAs, people are likely going to be stricter on their other criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Spy-cicle (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)

Hi, I considered RfA sometime ago but did not think I had enough experience. I was wondering if people generally think I have enough experience to become an Admin now after almost 11k edits and 6 years among the various more detailed aspects that I have involved myself across Wikipedia.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• 10k edits and 5 GAs is great. I think your current activity is too low though. According to XTools, you've averaged 24 edits a month over the last 2 years. I think most RFA participants would like to see at least 100–200 edits a month over the course of at least 6 months, or something similar. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I see that's understandable, thanks for the candid advice.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I ran the numbers and many of the folks in the admin elections right now also have low activity. I don't think they'd pass in a normal RFA for that reason, but with admin elections, who knows. Might be worth a shot. Up to you! –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm I see. I suppose if I am in line with others who have also nominated for admin, might give it a go myself. Thank you very much for the further infomation.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  My guess is that people who wouldn't pass in a normal RFA will also not pass in the election process. I don't say that to discourage you, so much as to say that you should only sign up for the elections if you feel pretty ok about failing. My hope is that a fail at the elections won't be seen as a serious strike against anybody who then opts to try via traditional RFA, but no one can predict that yet. -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oops, left out part of what I wanted to say: it is effectively a certainty that some candidates will not be elected, so if you fail, you'll at least have company, which is something you can't usually say for RFA. At least in my opinion, that seems less harsh. -- asilvering (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I understand, thanks for the advice.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 07:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Would largely agree here. I've had a look at your AfD record, which looks good, and at your requests for page protections (usually honoured, but at slightly lower level than requested). Experience-wise that seems fine. Activity levels may be a bit low here, which could give concerns around keeping up with changes. Are you planning to pick up more intense editing again soon? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, yes I do plan on increasing my activity again, just been a bit hectic the past year.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 07:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• (ec a few hours ago) I've had a look at a few stats (AfD votes, edit summary usage, page moves) and generally like what I found. As an admin, you need to be transparent and edit summary use should be as close to 100% as you can get it. Good AfD record. You do move pages. Those activities can benefit from having the tools. I agree that activity is on the low side. But I also think that Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates is a great opportunity; there are so many candidates that anything can happen. I’d be happy to work with you on the 3 answers if you like. There’s not much time until nominations close, though. Schwede66 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do you mind if I email you with my answers to the three questions? I know nominations pretty soon though.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 07:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

I withdrew an RfA a good while ago after a WP:TOOSOON consensus. I'm looking to see what the community thinks now. Yes, I don't do much article writing, but hopefully my other work deems it good.

• Some basic stats: ✅ >8,000 edits. ✅ Account age >2 years. ✅ >1000 edits in last year. ❌ Good article. ✅ No blocks ever. ✅ User talk page has archiving, and all significant messages are archived rather than deleted.
  What do you anticipate your answer to question 1 being? What is your "need for the tools"? Will you end up being a technical admin, content creation admin, backlog crusher admin focusing on DYK, CCI, NPP, etc? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

More a technical admin, along with dealing with CSDs focusing on copyvios and getting rid of shoddy drafts. Also, I would like to "be the change you wish to see" by decreasing time between a report at AIV and action being taken, sometimes reports hang around for too long - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 09:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rich Smith I have a positive impression about you and will support you if you have your RFA. Thanks for your interest. Maliner (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could elaborate or clarify what you mean by shoddy drafts @Rich Smith? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Blantant advertising/promotion, total copyright violations, patent nonesense. Stuff that wastes everyones time at AfC - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 12:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Consider being more clear in your approach and wording when stating your intentions for the tools @Rich Smith. There are a lot of drafts that don't meet our CSD definitions of patent nonsense that a lot of folks still nominate as such (I don't know your definition, just stating this generally). There are also a lot of drafts that waste peoples' time at AfC (I've reviewed plenty myself) that actually aren't CSD worthy that we, essentially, have to wait out the clock on (G13 deletions). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Seconding josh here, I think drafts are way over-nominated at CSD. Any untouched draft will be G13'd eventually, and nominations of most other CSD criteria waste more admin/reporter time than they save in AfC reviewer time. If it's wasting AfC time the problem is usually tendentious resubmission of something non-notable, and a lack of notability isn't grounds for speedy deletion. I'd be hesitant to support someone who expressed a desire to "get rid of shoddy drafts". I suspect that many of the RFA voters who tend towards "anti-deletionist" tendencies would worry about that, especially in light of your relatively infrequent AfD participation. Your stats are fine, but you rarely participate except as nominator, and that might give people pause. -- asilvering (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about your basic stats reporting. You have 25,000 edits and your account is from 2010, with you running for admin a year later (yes, that was a bit premature). Schwede66 08:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

EF5 (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)

Since several editors with lower edit counts (then past successful RfA candidates) passed the AELECT process, I think I have a little bit more confidence. I would love to help out at UAA and AIV, since the UAA board doesn't always seem to get enough love, and sometimes usernames are there for over an hour. I mainly work with content creation, but have recently been working with AfC, NPP and helping out wherever needed. A note about my XfD stats; I recently went through a rename, and for some reason XTools only shows AfDs filed by me, not all of the ones I've voted on. I'm open to criticism, since that's something that I'll obviously have to come to terms with during an RFA. Not planning on using the AELECT process if it's kept. EF⁵ 16:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• 1/10: Note that, per their userpage, they were previously named Sir MemeGod (looks like until just yesterday).

• You're on your 10th month of active editing, which isn't enough tenure to demonstrate the experience required
• If you're going to list NPP work as part of your resume, you'll need xtools to show more than 24 patrols (which were mostly between October 29 and October 31, immediately after you received your trial for the perm)
• You have 28 edits to WP:AIV, an area you state you want to help out at, which is way too few if you intend to run
• Similarly, you have 7 edits to WP:UAA
• At least you have 4 GAs, all of which are articles that you started
• Your CSD log has a total of 6 entries, two of which were incorrect
• You're already on your 4th username, which will give some people pause

I'm going to say way WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m on mobile (and will be throughout the night), can someone close? Josh pointed out some really good things, which I need to work on before continuing along, and as a result of that I clearly won’t be at RfA soon (which eliminates the need for a RFAPOLL). :) EF⁵ 22:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I am an experienced editor, as I have been using previous websites like Fandom for a long time and I understand how things work. Just, I am not editing frequently on here, and I don't what else I would do as an admin, other than try protecting Wikipedia from vandals or fixing typos…and providing information, that's it. Though I think I usually am too busy to go walk to Blackburn Park here in Brookhaven, even though I live on the opposite side of the road of it (just I hate walking), make a page for Blackburn, and provide as much current info as I can, but I can do that, just I probably would never be in the mood to do that. I don't know too-too much about Blackburn's history, but I'm very familiar with it.

What do you guys think? Would I make a good admin?

Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 05:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia admin generally have years and tens of thousands of edits, but more importantly have a solid understanding of policy.

If you wouldn't be in the mood to create a single article, there wouldn't be much of a mood to give you the advanced permission. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

To add, with 105 edits in the 10 months since you joined and a quarter of those consisting of you adding to the forest of userboxes on your page, your chances of becoming admin are currently zero and won't improve unless you start editing more regularly. An unofficial minimum would probably be something like 10k edits over at least 2 years with regular edits every month. People also like to see some content, doesn't have to necessarily be your own articles, could involve adding reliably sourced content to existing articles. Valenciano (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also an expectation that admins read material that's relevant to them. At the top of this page, there is a box with text that starts withPlease read ... It's obvious that you didn't do that. It would be good if you got into the habit of reading relevant info. Schwede66 09:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: (-1/10) This is an unserious request from an account not currently permitted to even !vote for admin, much less run. Such unserious requests are disruptive. This discussion should be speedily hatted and archived. BusterD (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Many months ago, I have had an RfA that ended with an unexpected result. I would like to have an assessment of my chances of passing the adminship request. I will apply as soon as when I successfully appeal my sanction from closing discussions of any sort (I can appeal the sanction starting from February 25th) as I will have understood the guidelines, in particular determining consensus, and learned from others closing them, and my account will be two years old. Since the sanction took effect on me, my activity decreased due to more participation outside this wiki and other real life factors, but I will return back into full activity next month. If given the mop, I would use it to process wp:AIV/TB2, WP:UAA, WP:PERM, and the deletion discussions outside AfD. I would also avoid noticeboards due to its intensity. If I were to go to RfA, I would go to the sysop elections as there are many users that have passed the inaugural administrator elections last October. P.S. I will not start the RfA right after I close this, as I did last time. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for considering this. I strongly advise caution and making sure you've addressed everything from your previous RfA. You've had a block in the past and a no closing sanction. This means voters are going to need assurances, more so than normal. I would wait at least 9 months after a successful sanction appeal, and really write one or more GAs. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• I think you're on the right track. Imo your activity is fine even now. If the availability of appealing the sanction is less than a month away on Feb 25, honestly that would've been a good benchmark to wait for to see how that goes first, before an RfA comes to mind. If the appeal is successful, a successful RfA becomes a lot more plausible. Closing discussions is a pretty big deal for admins, and being able to do so without sanctions seems pretty important imo.

As it happens, I'm not quite in the loop of what your sanction is; could you explain why you were sanctioned and what other things you've done onwiki in the meantime? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey Toadette! Back again. I wasn't aware of all the requests for other permissions you've made prior. This is just an optional poll and I hope you consider the things that have been brought up. Regardless, I've greatly appreciated your help in the NPP drive and all you do as a reviewer! If you ever want advice on areas to focus on from an editing POV, my talk page is open to discuss, and if you want to share some of the topics that you're interested in editing, I'd be happy to give some ideas on areas that could use some improvement! Improving the quality of WP:AFI pages is a pasttime I always find to be worthwhile. I hope to see you around more these next few months, 🫡 Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• I am going to attempt to be kind through being direct with this comment. There have been a lot of requests for permission both locally and globally. I note you were just declined for VRT which is normally easier to obtain than admin. I think you can be an admin one day here. But that day is not going to be soon and truthfully I think you need to show a commitment to just being "heads down" without seeking any new permissions or formal roles for a while. Once you do that I think you can get your editing restriction removed because there is no chance of you getting admin while that restriction is in place. I worry despite all your good faith and desire to help, that you are going to exhaust the community's patience and end up more severely sanctioned. Turning that around - what I called the "heads down" work - has to be your first step on the path to admin, followed by getting the restriction removed, and only then looking at new options. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  I feel the need to underline the order Barkeep has suggested here: "heads down" work first, then getting your sanction lifted. I do not think that appealing the sanction in a month is a good idea. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Honestly, to be perfectly blunt with you, I don't think you have a chance at this point in time. I personally am concerned with how many different places, and how often, you're requesting and failing to get various permissions. Over the last 6 months you've been involved in a lot of permissions requests, including the following:

• Denied page mover in August
• Requested and withdrew for Global rollback in August
• Requested and withdrew for Global rollback in October
• Denied CAPTCHA exemption in October
• Requested and withdrew for MediaWiki Translation adminship in October
• Told to stop requesting autopatrolled for others on Meta in November
• Denied page mover on en wiki in December
• Denied VRT permissions yesterday

On the bright side, you did get the following:

• Granted rollback on Commons in September
• Granted patroller on Commons in November

Your contributions are clearly in good faith, but I think you're being too over eager and often times taking criticism too personally. In short, CHILL! Wait too long to request permissions, because at this point if you ran I think you'd be accused of being a hat collector. It doesn't matter how great you're doing if you can't demonstrate you can slow your roll at times. You've made great strides in your contributions, but I'd say it's going to be at least a year before you'd be able to have a reasonable chance at success, and even then, you might still be accused of hat collecting. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

NGL Toadette, your reputation on Meta is already piss poor with how rapidly you've tried to request so many perms (and failed) + CIR, requesting another permission is only another way to tarnish your already poor reputation and hamper your chances potentially for the forseeable future. But right now there is no way at all I would trust someone with as poor of a reputation to hold a mop – and the fact that you're also aware of your attempted hat collection but didn't mention it once also gives me little hope of any enwiki RfA passing in the next 24 months. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a really interesting oppose of another editor on Meta, considering the issues raised here. Daniel (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Now to be fair, that user in question did resort to personal attacks (e.g. m:Special:Diff/28160972) and their SRP request wasn't free from drama either, but I get your underlying points. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure you are spot on in your analysis there (one of the diffs you linked is revdel'd), but TE opposing for "hat collecting" was the main focus of my comment. Daniel (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Chance of passing any time in the next year: 0%. Izno (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• You missed mw:Project:Requests for permissions/ToadetteEdit (3). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• @ToadetteEdit: I see that, here and in some of the threads people are linking, you're seeking advice on how not to be seen as hat-collecting. A simple strategy I'd recommend is this: Don't request any user rights, here or anywhere, unless it's organically recommended to you by someone who already has that user right. (For a big-ticket right like enwiki admin, make that several someones.) Gaining user rights isn't a necessary part of progressing as an editor. Lots of experienced editors have nothing other than autoconfirmed and extendedconfirmed. I've had more rights changes than almost anyone, but the most important things I've done here have required nothing more than those two rights. And almost every time I've applied for a right, it's been because someone said to me, "You know, you'd make a good X". Just focus on the normal flow of editing, and let permission-related things come naturally. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• At this point you're closer to an indef block than you are to adminship. You're constantly going for new permissions and are declined, then turn around and just try to get different ones. You ask for input and proceed to ignore the constructive criticism that you do receive. If you actually take the criticism to heart here then it might work out, but so far you haven't been, and patience is going to wear thin sooner rather than later. Wizardman 02:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• I would unfortunately say your chances are very low. You originally said you wouldn't reapply for adminship until a "year or two" after your previous RfA, and it's not even been a year yet. You're applying for every kind of permission and being turned down, this should be a sign to take the advice you're getting there and just be really patient. Put your head down and just edit solidly and in a good way for another year at least before reapplying for admin. Applying immediately at the earliest opportunity after a certain restriction has lapsed is not a good sign at all, it signals that you didn't understand the reasoning behind a particular restriction and were just waiting for it to expire so you could do the same thing again. I would also recommend writing some GAs, as voters in admin elections generally value GAs and FAs highly. (But also don't write GAs and FAs just so you can apply for admin! Write them because you want to improve Wikipedia. If you're doing things just so you can apply for admin then you're missing the point.) GraziePrego (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I don't think you're ready for adminship yet and it doesn't look like you're even heading in the right direction. While your involvement in things like AfD discussions is a good start, building trust takes time, and even granting permissions is a significant responsibility. Given that you're appealing a sanction, I'd recommend focusing on steady, constructive contributions before seeking any additional permissions at all. Hat collecting has already been mentioned more than once. Content creation (not necessarily FAs) is a great way to demonstrate commitment to WP:BUILDWP. As others have mentioned, patience is key. Rushing into multiple permission requests comes across as overeager and impatient. I’d suggest waiting at least a year after your appeal before reconsidering adminship. Keep contributing, and things may align in time! -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• (0/10) The purpose of this board is to assist folks who are actually on the admin track. Everyone should expect entirely behavior-based feedback on this board, critique likely to be pointed, well-intended, and within a general range of accuracy. You are asking for opinions, so you should expect sharp language. ToadetteEdit, you are NOT on the admin track. If you were to just work for two years, not ask for any permissions (you have plenty now) and come back we'd have something to talk about. Repeated "am I ready now?" requests demonstrate you have no idea what an admin's work is about. I can't trust your judgement. If you can't predict THIS outcome, you're not qualified to make such assessments yourself. BusterD (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• (post close comment) Thank you for your input. However, I am now giving up from everything. As what I said last time, I will be treated like a poor editor, and the community will block or ban me one day. I see a group of people who will beat me down every day as a dog, and I can't hold the capacity of it. For now, I will resort to my established work and will never see me again because of your comments. Right now, I cannot be promoted to any user group at all because of these people. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

WereWolf (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)

My name is User:WereWolf I have been editing in the background for a while and I just want to make sure things are okay on the site. I’ve created articles that have been on the main page and and I have created featured articles. I started Humanz and contributed to the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members and List of awards and nominations received by Alanis Morissette I’ve been active in this site and I am trusting and worthy of a 10 WereWolf (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

What is your need for the tools? Schwede66 01:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I need to protect people and myself for protection like Alabama Barker WereWolf (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

If I didn’t follow instructions it’s because I literally just got new glasses and I’m just not used to them I have BPES so I apologize WereWolf (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

"Protecting people" is a bit general. Do you have a specific area or two you'd like to do admin work in? And do you have experience in that area? For example, if you want to protect articles and redirects, do you have experience making requests at WP:RFPP, and do you have familiarity with what kinds of requests for page protection are accepted and declined there, and why? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You've made about 130 edits in the last five years. That doesn't give us enough to work with: you'll need to spend a fair amount of time getting back in the swing of things before you'll have much of a chance at RfA. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you may I rescind this then please it wasn’t that just was too quickly I’m sorry I had moved WereWolf (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)