User talk:DatGuy: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) →Adminship: new section |
→Adminship: reply |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
I've been going over the first three years of entries at [[WP:ORCP]] to see if there's anyone interested in RfA that got left out. I think there's only a handful of hopefuls that haven't already had a successful nomination, and you're one of them. The mix of content / AIV / bot work is a good mix of skills for the old mop and bucket, and under normal circumstances, I'd expect a good pass. The elephant in the room is, of course, your block log - one of them was acknowledged as a mistake, the other (which I placed) is ancient history, water under the bridge, rookie mistake that has been learned from etc etc. I'm not sure how I can deal with that, other than hope it's not an issue for other people either. Any thoughts from you (or your talk page stalkers) would be welcome. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 17:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC) |
I've been going over the first three years of entries at [[WP:ORCP]] to see if there's anyone interested in RfA that got left out. I think there's only a handful of hopefuls that haven't already had a successful nomination, and you're one of them. The mix of content / AIV / bot work is a good mix of skills for the old mop and bucket, and under normal circumstances, I'd expect a good pass. The elephant in the room is, of course, your block log - one of them was acknowledged as a mistake, the other (which I placed) is ancient history, water under the bridge, rookie mistake that has been learned from etc etc. I'm not sure how I can deal with that, other than hope it's not an issue for other people either. Any thoughts from you (or your talk page stalkers) would be welcome. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 17:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
:{{re|Ritchie333}} I can't say that I haven't thought of the concept of going through RfA once. If I do it, I'd rather it be a [[wikt:close, but no cigar|1-and-done]], but at least in my opinion there's quite a few reasons to oppose, such as my recent activity, the whole mess with the unblock in July, and that I haven't contributed heavily to any FA. From what I've seen the whole process and questions are pretty difficult. There's currently [[Afghanistan at the 2016 Summer Olympics|two]] [[Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics|articles]] waiting a for a GA review and a [[testwiki:User:SportsStatsBot/footystatsconfig|bot task]] I'm currently working on. Once those are done, I'll shoot you an email about my thoughts of doing/not doing an RfA. [[User:DatGuy|Dat Guy]]<sup>[[User talk:DatGuy|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/DatGuy|Contribs]]</sub> 11:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:41, 2 April 2019
Adminship
I've been going over the first three years of entries at WP:ORCP to see if there's anyone interested in RfA that got left out. I think there's only a handful of hopefuls that haven't already had a successful nomination, and you're one of them. The mix of content / AIV / bot work is a good mix of skills for the old mop and bucket, and under normal circumstances, I'd expect a good pass. The elephant in the room is, of course, your block log - one of them was acknowledged as a mistake, the other (which I placed) is ancient history, water under the bridge, rookie mistake that has been learned from etc etc. I'm not sure how I can deal with that, other than hope it's not an issue for other people either. Any thoughts from you (or your talk page stalkers) would be welcome. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: I can't say that I haven't thought of the concept of going through RfA once. If I do it, I'd rather it be a 1-and-done, but at least in my opinion there's quite a few reasons to oppose, such as my recent activity, the whole mess with the unblock in July, and that I haven't contributed heavily to any FA. From what I've seen the whole process and questions are pretty difficult. There's currently two articles waiting a for a GA review and a bot task I'm currently working on. Once those are done, I'll shoot you an email about my thoughts of doing/not doing an RfA. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)