Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 3 as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 2 is larger than the recommended 150Kb. This is an optional polling page available for experienced editors who intend on submitting a request for administrative privileges in the near future. It can be used to help see what the community thinks of your chance of success. Note that actual RfA results may differ greatly and that opinions given here may be based on only a cursory assessement.

Disclaimer: Although starting a poll here about your odds of passing an RfA can help you determine whether you're ready or not for RfA, nothing can replace reading advice pages such as Advice for RfA candidates and gauging your contributions relative to recent candidacies, both successful and failed. If responders indicate that you would likely pass an RfA, you are still strongly encouraged to seek a more in-depth examination into your editing history to be sure.

This page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors. If you are seeking general feedback on what you can do to improve your contributions to Wikipedia, contact a friendly, experienced editor on the editor's talk page and request a review of your work, or a recommended reviewer.

Instructions

Potential candidates

To request an evaluation of your chances of passing a request for adminship in the near future, add your name below and wait for feedback. Please read Wikipedia:Not now before adding your name to this list.

Responders

Responders, please provide a number from 0 to 10 (zero being the lowest and and ten being the highest chance) to give your view on the potential candidate's likelihood of successfully passing an RfA. You can opt to accompany your score with a short comment; please leave any detailed feedback on the user's talk page. A helper script is available that allows one-click rating.

If you see a candidate receiving a favourable response, consider offering an in-depth review and possible nomination offer.

Sample entry

==Example==
{{User-orcp|Example}}
*5/10 - Edit count seems okay, but could use more AfD participation. [[User:Place holder|Place holder]] ([[User talk:Place holder|talk]]) 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

GamerPro64

GamerPro64 (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)

Trying this out as well. I've tried RfA twice before, failed one and withdrew from the second. Though those nominations were at bad times so it was probably for the best. Love to hear what people think. GamerPro64 23:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• ∞/10: I still think you're 1st rfa was inappropriately closed, and I still believe you will make one hell of admin on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10: You meet the general consensus my criteria for passing RfA, and from your statistics and behavior I think that of many other !voters -- samtar ^whisper 18:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 - You need to understand the difference between a user page and a user talk page and configure them appropriately. Without doing any more intensive research again I think you have a fair chance, and I would most likely support when the time comes. I made a farly positive neutral vote [1] which you may wish read again.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 – I suspect you're familiar with the issues here, as you've encountered them in RfA before. The first issue is the so-called "video game area specialist" issue – now, this won't necessarily be killer (Cyphoidbomb was recently promoted and he's basically a "television area specialist" on the project...), but some voters will complain about it. The bigger stumbling block, potentially, is the relative lack of article creation (only 5). And the third issue is the so-called "distribution of edits" issue – some will definitely object to only 16% Mainspace edits (and I'm not sure there's much you can do in the short-term to convince those RfA voters...) I think, in your case, you're going to want to make a really strong case in Question #1 as to why you need the tools – if you can convince RfA voters that you really do need the tools to get done what you need to do to improve the project, then I think you can pass. I also think it would help to get a really strong nomination from a high-profile trusted Admin this time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Your previous RFA wasn't that long ago. sst✈^(discuss) 07:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Having read through your previous RfAs, I think you have a great shot. APerson (talk!) 01:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• 5/10 - you have some sort of blot at the moment about Signpost spam. It would not necessarily deter me, but it seems to have irritated some involved and you have admitted it was an error in judgment. [2], [3] As you know, any minor blight can become a plague on an RfA. I would wait to the new year... Fylbecatulous talk 16:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - my feelings toward your adminship remain the same since your first RfA, but you'll have the following battles ahead: it has been less than a year since your last RfA, relative lack of AfD !voting experience, and lack of article creation. None of these are insurmountable, given the length and quality of your contributions in other areas. Therefore I think you have a better than 50% chance of passing if you ran today, but it isn't a gimme, unfortunately. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Armbrust

Armbrust (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• 9/10 - Amazing edit count (75k+ non-automated, 400+ articles, 11k+ BLP edits), nice editor with no blocks since 2013. -- samtar ^whisper 11:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC) -- samtar ^whisper 11:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about giving scores out of 10, but I will say I think you'd pass and I genuinely hope you do – I will definitely be a support again. I think you should start sounding out a nominator, look for someone who has a lot of clout at RfA (and ideally someone who opposed your previous RfA). Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• 3 previous RfA and a bit of a block log is bound to be problematic. Leaky Caldron 09:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• I meant what I said last time, but I would strongly support next time. However, like others here, I will not give you a score because the voters are a transient pool of editors and very unpredictable. There are also those who almost always systematically oppose at RfA and those who believe all admins to be corrupt power seekers. That said, if all those who opposed most reluctantly would support next time, I see a chance on the horizon but perhaps wait just a little longer for dust to settle more over that block log even though blocks that old are nobody's business but your own. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• I supported last time and unless I saw something to convince me otherwise would likely support again. A very significant proportion of your opposes were more cautious than me re your block log, but many of them said they'd reconsider if you went another year block free. As you've done that now might well be time for a rerun. ϢereSpielChequers 23:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 Very glad to see you've gone so long without any apparent problems like those that led to your past blocks. You'd have my support, but as others have mentioned there are those who will forever hold those old blocks against you, so I don't want to sugar coat it. The flip side of that is that there are also a lot of users who are very big on second chances and would love to support someone like you. What mix of those two will turn up at your RFA, I don't know. What you will have to do if you wanrt to pass this time is to be very upfront about those blocks, right from the nomination statement onward. If you are already talking about it before the opposers even get there, it will take some of the wind out of their sails and help make it clear that you know you screwed up, and you learned from it and have managed to avoid the same problems for a very long time now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 - Beeblebrox says it very well. The extra-long wait, and the lack of anything regarding 3RR during that time bodes well. There are so many excellent contributions. By the way, I'm not sure if the AfD counter is working correctly, it says you've only got 8 !votes there, but certainly you've successfully closed your share of them. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• 7/10-- I checked the concerns expressed in your previous RfAs, and it seems that your block-log played an important role among the opposes. But you have been home-free since 2013, which shows a great capacity to learn. Perhaps a tweaking in your language, one that would demonstrate you value users above personal ideas, would help you even more. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah

Oshwah (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'm curious to see how the community views me today as compared to three months ago when I was nominated for RFA, accepted it, and subsequently withdrew. I probably won't consider running again until late next year, but I don't see it as a crime against humanity to try this candidate poll out and get some honest feedback regarding where I stand today :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• 9/10 - Decent AfD stats, over 1k non-automated edits, six articles and a would-be clean block log (if it wasn't for that meddlin' WJBscribe..). Arbitrary numbers aside, you're a civil editor well versed in the usual boards. I'll draft my nom for late next year :P -- samtar ^whisper 20:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 - The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• ${\frac {1}{\sqrt[{\pi }]{e}}}\approx 0.73$ : Keep working at it; my impression is that you're on the right track and need some time to solidify your knowledge and build experience. Consider spending some time seriously working on an article you are interested in—it's important and builds perspective on the project. I think you'll be in a good position if you run late next year, as you suggest. — Earwig ^talk 02:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 - The previous RfA was over in a flash before I got a chance to vote. However, the advice provided there by Dennis is most important. I would say give it another 6 months at least in order to make your editing pattern look less than a mad dash for adminship - the voters are a fickle crowd. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• No rating this time, but I'm inclined to agree with Kudpung – give it 6 more months to avoid the appearance of "campaigning for RfA" (as an aside, I find this to be one of the most specious reasons to oppose during an RfA, but there definitely seems to be a contingent of RfA voters that will "penalize" anyone that looks like they are "campaigning" and "plotting" to be an Admin (shouldn't we want people who "pre-train" for the job?!...)). On the plus side, you have many fewer edits to ANI (and many more to AVI) than I was expecting, so that can't be used against you. On the minus side, only 6 articles created will lead to some opposes. My advice? Try to do a little less automated editing, and a little more manual "old-fashioned" editing, over the next few months. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 - Not really sure how you never passed the first time round but there we go, I agree with the above give it 6-8 months and give it another try and hopefully you'd pass!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Davey2010 Sorry to correct you, but he withdrew. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 19:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer - I know but I assumed he withdrew because of the opposers .... It all made alot more sense in my head , Cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It was exactly why I withdrew. Instead of slugging the RFA process along, I agreed with the opposition and decided to save everybody the time of saying the same thing; I had no created articles. Zero! I can say, that from the experience I gained creating content, it absolutely is an important aspect that I do not blame anyone for factoring into their decision at an RFA. Writing articles is not an easy task; there's a lot of time and energy that goes into a creation or a major expansion, and it's best learned by experiencing that hardship. They're right; I should be demonstrating my knowledge of Wikipedia's fundamentals and guidelines by putting them into practice. I won't be running again for some time; I plan to create more articles and wait at least until late(ish) 2016 before running again. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• 6/10: Probably a reasonable chance of passing, but I'd say to wait until March to avoid appearing to be returning to RfA too soon. Although I don't personally find it crucial, just creating 10 or 15 articles in total, as opposed to less than 10, can be the difference between passing and failing an RfA. Look at subpage of Wikipedia:Requested articles if you're stuck. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 I would likely support you at RFA. I've seen you do some good work at AIV though sometimes I have had to decline your reports due to process i.e. not enough warnings, no vandalism since last edit and so forth. I would like to see a bit more accuracy there but otherwise there are certainly many reports that are correctly identified and receive action. Mkdw^talk 06:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Write articles--real articles, with real references from books and articles. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• 6/10 - this would increase significantly in a)4 months and/or b)7 more created articles with good sources and/or c)showing your addition of sourced content has improved the assessment of several established articles. Great policy knowledge and not a better vandal fighter to be found. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• 7/10 — I haven't actually researched you, beyond looking at the pie chart at X!'s tools, but I've seen you all over the site being useful and displaying good judgment. If it wasn't for your tiny almost non-existent use of article talkpages, I'd have said 9/10, but that is an oddity to me. You edit articles, but you don't discuss them..? How come? Bishonen | talk 19:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC).

Human3015

Human3015 (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 been on Wikipedia since a year, I have 16,000+ edits with 19 DYK credits (+2 DYKs currently promoted and are in preparation area). I do AfD sorting, created around 100 articles on different topics, have 3 user rights. I have been blocked 5 times for edit warring, I can explain my blocks. I have no plans for RfA in near future, but I wanted know what drawbacks I have so that I can improve it over the time. Thanks. --Human3015^TALK  13:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• 2/10 - The blocks for edit warring are going to seriously come back to bite you, as a lot of voters would question if you can be trusted with the tools. Your content contributions are nice, and really welcomed Give it 12 months of solid, civil and consensus driven editing, abide by the revert/discuss cycle and then come back? -- samtar ^whisper 13:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Samtar for your appreciation regarding my contribution. Just wanted to give short explaination for my blocks. My first 3 blocks were came when I was relatively new to Wikipedia and was not knowing 3RR rule properly, I used to think that "my edits are 'right' so I will not get blocked". But now I know 3RR rule properly. As far as my first block is concerned I was unblocked after 6 hours without any unblock request because I did 2 reverts. 2nd and 3rd blocks were deserving as I broke 3RR rule because I thought I was "right". 4th and 5th blocks were quite unnecessary, it was newly created article by me and my only deleted article after 2 AfDs. I had some content dispute with AfD nominator, we both got blocked in reply to my page protection request at WP:RFPP. As of now I am well aware about Wikipedia policies and don't really engage in edit war.--Human3015^TALK  14:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion continued at talk page -- samtar ^whisper 14:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• 2/10 recent blocks for things like 3RR will sink an RFA now. In your favour you have solid content contributions and the articles and DYKs will be a plus. There is a negative as well in that I see quite a number of deleted articles, at least a dozen, in the last 7 months, which suggests unfamiliarity with notability criteria, something admins need to know. Your account age, too. Ok, you have 16k contributions but you only joined in January 2015. Some will say: too new and oppose. A last issue is language. Your messages above contain basic mistakes in English and communication will be key as an admin. I think opposes on those grounds would be harsh, but be ready for them. Leave it until 2017, avoid edit wars and use dispute resolution and your chances will significantly increase. Valenciano (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. But I don't have dozen of deleted articles, as of now my only one article has been deleted after 2 AfDs. Rest of deleted things are redirects. For example my only deleted article had 6 redirects, so those redirects also got deleted automatically. Your other concerns are right. --Human3015^TALK  15:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• 2/10 - Again, Valenciano has beaten me to it while I was doing some checking. While the community can be forgiving, a persistent failure to respect our edit warring policy is going to take some time to forget - maybe two years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - basically what Valenciano said. Also, I remember reviewing a DYK nomination of yours (Tourism in Iraq) that was full of spelling errors and I see some more articles from you with spelling problems. While (IMO) not as important as the 3RR issues that may generate further opposition in a RfA.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 as per Valenciano & Kudpung - The blocks alone will sink the RFA (We all edit war but you've been blocked 5 times in the space of one year alone!) and the English isn't great either, I mean this in the nicest way possible but maybe lay off the edit warns and perhaps improve your English and try in 2017 .–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Don't try to explain blocks, try to put them behind you by not edit warring. If you run after 12 months of block free activity then the community is much more likely to believe that your edit warring days are behind you. ϢereSpielChequers 04:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• While I might be willing to support you after a year of no blocks and demonstration of a clear understanding of policies and procedures, I feel in the current climate of RFA, that you would need about 2 years to overcome that many successive blocks. Mkdw^talk 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dodger67

Dodger67 (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've been here about 8 years during which time I've logged over 60,000 edits. I've created in the region of 50 articles on a wide variety of topics. I have a clean block log - the only entry was an error by the admin concerned, which was rapidly reverted. I'm an active AFC reviewer with many tens of thousands of reviews under my belt. I frequently work at help pages and reference desks. I am one of the founders of WikiProject Disability. I have been through RFA before, I withdrew when opposition based on my lack of experience with deletion grew rapidly. Since then I have kept a Speedy log. My AFC experience has taught me a huge amount about what constitutes an acceptable article and what doesn't. Most of my mainspace edits are gnome-work - I'm not a gifted writer of sparkling prose, though I have a fairly good instinct for English grammar.

• 8/10: I think we can't stick forever to things your "oppose" voters said in last RfA, we have to move on. Now you are a better candidate. Best luck. --Human3015 ^{It will rain}  20:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• 8/10 - I supported the previous RfA after moving from neutral and I would suport again but I would strongly recommend placing less emphasis on the work at AfC as a criterion of good work; any of the regular opposers looking for an excuse to oppose will pounce on any AfC reviews they can find to be slightly dubious. And that's the danger of doing too much of any one thing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• 9/10 - Solid, experienced candidate, and I'd support again. APerson (talk!) 04:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• 8/10 - I too supported the last RFA and would do again, To be absolutely honest I am a tad concerned about the lack of AFD work particpation and I have a feeling a few opposers will oppose because of it .... But you've got experience in AFC and other things so I'd say you'd probably pass if you ran for RFA... –Davey2010^Talk 09:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Lack" of AfD work?! Dodger has 125 AfD entries, with an >80% match rate! If RfA voters won't accept that, I doubt they'll accept anything! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I meant he doesn't close them and he doesn't really participate in them either.,... –Davey2010^Talk 17:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Derp sorry I meant "AFD participation" not work!..... It's been a long day! . –Davey2010^Talk 17:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah. FTR, I'm not sure RfA voters are specifically looking for "closing" experience – I think they're just looking for displays of good judgement in AfD !voting. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean closing experience overall, I meant closing and !voting..... Right I'll stfu before I confuse you even more! , –Davey2010^Talk 19:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• 8/10 - I still feel the same way as I did last RfA. Longer track record, and you have waited more than a year, so several of the previous opposes should swing to support if they are true to their word. I would expect a few opposes by some who just look at the last RfA, go to the oppose section, and don't do any of their own work, but there's nothing you can do about that. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• 9/10 per User talk:Dodger67/Archive_11#RfA. Whadd'ya waiting for? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone! Following this very encouraging feedback I'm now searching my calendar for a contiguous 7-day period during which I will be at home every day and not too busy with work, study, community or family obligations. It's proving to be stubbornly elusive as I need to commit to at least two sessions of an hour each every day during the week long run of the RfA - and not forgetting a few days before to prepare. I also need to give sufficient prior notice to my nominators. It seems I actually need a clear two weeks. Running for admin is a lot of work! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67), not to put pressure on you but I really recommend you have your nominators or editors you trust look over your responses to the first three questions. I've read over some RfAs that were waiting to go live and I could already see phrases or statements that I recognized Opposers would highlight and use as reasons for having misgivings. I mean just a simple proofreading because some candidates take the questions very casually and can phrase a comment in a way that hits readers as "wrong". The content wouldn't change, just the words you use to express it. In my case, a statement I made was taken as a slam against content creators (as if anyone could object to excellent content being created) when it wasn't what I meant at all. But that was how my comment was seen by some editors. So just having a different set of eyes than your own look over your statements helps a lot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• If I were you, I'd ask DGG and Randykitty, and Dennis Brown; they were some of the big shot opposers. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• I'm in agreement with Drmies, we've heard from a lot of your previous supporters, but there were some very well known editors who opposed you. If you haven't already, I would suggest approaching them for some input. Mkdw^talk 21:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Everymorning

Everymorning (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 have run for adminship twice before: once under my current username and once under my old one (Jinkinson). Both times were unsuccessful. I have been editing here for just over 3 years, and have created hundreds of articles, a few dozen DYKs, and 2 GAs (though these are both a bit old). Everymorning (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• At the moment 3/10 owing to this. If you give it time for that to fade from memory, 5-6/10, as it will very much be a case of who turns up. As you know, you have a reputation (whether deserved or not) for having an "it must be notable if I've heard of it" attitude, and there will be people reluctant to put you in a position where you can edit the main page. I'd also recommend a major trim of your userpage, which is littered with "doesn't get it" red flags which I assume are relics of your early days but will be pounced on at RFA by people reasonably assuming that if it's on your userpage, it represents your current philosophy. ("If an event provokes a reaction from the head of state of at least one sovereign country, the event is notable" is one that jumps out to me.) ‑ Iridescent 17:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 - On your first RfA I said this, and on your second attempt only nine months ago I said this with an empasis on your reluctance to take good advice. I detect a possible maturity issue with the matters brought up by Iridescent. THe persistence in wanting to be an admin is not natural, and the more you keep thinking of wanting to be an admin, the less likely it's ever going to happen.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heilman (2nd nomination) was not a very good idea. Stuff like this will be brought up in an RfA, and they will mostly likely sink it. Give it six more months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think it's an issue with experience but rather demeanour and maturity. You need a thick skin to be an admin and you need to see things through to the end. You need to be more than willing to simply just leave comments here and there, but actively engage in discussion (especially the ones you start), and you need to have the foresight to see "to what end" and benefit will opening up a new discussion have. I'm going to bring up the two last threads you started at RFA talk. I admit I was a bit harsh in my reply, but trust me, you'll experience much harsher criticism in other custodial areas, and all this in the context that there was a lot of work being done to improve RFA. Multiple and successive RFC's, the conversation had been extensively and exhaustively recently discussed, and we recently implemented this very page. Yet, you still judged the need to bring up the subject again in the phrasing "Does anyone else find it concerning" and then essentially checked out of the discussion. Did you have a plan? An idea to bring forward? Did you encourage other editors to become candidates? Anything that needed highlighting that had changed since the last discussion? It's important to note that the project space is here to help organize and improve the project and so using it as a forum for simply opinions broaches on the space of simply chit chat. I'm not saying adminship isn't a possibility for you in the future, but I wouldn't recommend running for quite some time. Mkdw^talk 16:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• 2/10 - prolific contributor of content with more than sufficient tenure, old block would probably not be an issue, but RfA would almost certainly be torpedoed by the issues raised above, wish I could give a different answer. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Giso6150

Giso6150 (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) Thinking about pursuing this for the first time later this year. giso6150 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• 5/10. Your edit history is not going to go over well with voters at RfA if 16% of your total edits are to mainspace and the vast majority of edits are to talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your candor. I helped to clear a massive backlog of unassessed articles for WP Brazil this last year which skews the numbers heavily towards Talk pages. That backlog is now at zero, so my numbers will balance out as I continue to do more work in the article space. giso6150 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that you would have a hard time passing RfA with only 6 AfD !votes. This isn't a deal-breaker for me personally, but I have seen more than a few RfAs fail because the candidate did not have long enough of a record at AfD to show they understand concepts like the notability criteria. In general, AfD is one of the most common areas for admins to participate in, and emotions can run high between the defenders and detractors of an article, hence the reluctance of voters to promote candidates lacking the experience needed to judge such situations. Which isn't to say that I doubt your capability to be an admin, it's just that historical patterns are not on your side. Altamel (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty and take no offense; that’s why I posted here—to see if it would be a waste of time to try. I will keep my name on the list of possible admin candidates, but I don’t think it’s very likely that I would self-nominate any time soon, if ever, based on what I am learning about the RfA process. Thanks again. giso6150 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Giso6150, you may wish to read the instructions at the top of this page again, because IMO you haven't read any of the linked advice pages.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a constructive thing to say. I have read the links and if you think that I am not ready, then just say that. Your comment comes across as demeaning. I thought this was an optional, informal poll and a way to garner useful feedback. giso6150 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10 - great article creation, but tenure of consistent contributions is less than a year. Working on AfD, but the panhumanism was a mis-step which will mean you'll need to work in that area all that much more. It's possible that you can get !voters to overlook the low percentage of edits in the article space by noting that you have 4000+ edits there, but you can expect significant pushback if not outright opposition because of it. Have you created a CSD log? It's not showing up, if you have significant contributions there it might help you overcome the relative lack of AfD participation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for the constructive words of advice. I recognize how green I am with regards to CSD, PROD, and AfD and I do tend to learn from my mistakes (like the panhumanism AfD). I think 2017 would be the earliest I might think about RfA again. This process has pointed me in the right direction and I'm in no rush. giso6150 (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Edwardx

Edwardx (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA) Have been thinking about this for some time. Some of the tools would be helpful in my editing, and in leading training events for new editors. The prospect of RfA is somewhat intimidating.

Extended content

In Tibs the Great: Your text: On 7 May 1869, it was noted that "the cats have done their duty very efficiently" Source text: On May 7, 1869, it was reported that "the cats have done their duty very efficiently". Your text: By 1873, their pay had been increased to 1s 6d, and their use had spread to other post offices. Source text: ... in 1873 they were awarded an increase of 6d per week. The official use of cats soon spread to other post offices ...

• I found this by randomly checking two sentences in one article you created. You're going to get crucified at RfA if this is representative of your work. I'm actually a little worried that you've created almost 2000 articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's why we use quote marks. Am I missing something here? Edwardx (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:CLOP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. Now wishing I hadn't bothered with this poll. I was expecting brief comments, not a line-by-line dissection of my editing. Edwardx (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've got a point. I've collapsed some of my post. But that's often what RfA is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, an RfA is like this, only instead of just NinjaRobotPirate, you'll have 50+ editors going through your contributions. You're right to feel intimidated. It can be a grueling experience and that shouldn't be downplayed. But stick with this evaluation and see if you get some suggestions on how you can improve your chances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• 7/10 - the content work is fine, AfD stats are okay. It might be worth giving us some idea of what you want to do with the tools. The close paraphrasing is a marginal case (earwig's tool reports 43% likelihood which is not really enough to CSD G12) and not a major showstopper for me. To expand on what Liz says, more people at RfA means there will be people quite happy to tear NinjaRobotPirate a new one for those comments (eg: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyphoidbomb 2). How much opposition you get from that depends really on which way the wind is blowing and what day of the week it is, to be honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, if Richie says it's fine, then I'll drop it. And, yes, some people do enjoy tearing me a new one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody should be tearing anyone a new one on Wikipedia full stop, yet sometimes on RfA there can be badgering from both directions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In veritas

In veritas (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 have been active in anti-vandalism and CSD efforts with a side of content work and wikicode cleanup. I am thinking of running for adminship in August and just want some opinions. Thank you. In veritas (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• People focused on numbers rather than quality will oppose you in droves for having a low edit count (under 5 billion 1500 and tenure of less than a year. I would not attempt anything until at least past November, 2016. It doesn't matter what your talents are, or how good of a writer you are, or how well you've demonstrated a grasp of how things work around here. If your numbers don't add up to some arbitrary metric, you will fail. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• I would also recommend you attempt to substantially expand or create and write a few full length articles to give yourself more experience. Certainly custodial activities are a big part of being a sysop, but it's a matter of perspective that you should have some writing experience as an editor. Mkdw^talk 16:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10 - RfA voters tend to evaluate how ready you are for all areas of adminship, including deletion discussions. Neither your single AfD !vote nor your 3-month (9-month, when you plan to run) account age look especially good good in that light. Otherwise, looking through your talk page and interactions with other editors, you seem like a great editor and I wish you success in a future run. APerson (talk!) 22:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Krj373

Krj373 (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)

• been slow for a few years(6)
• like the anti vandal work
• have made a few errors but do step back.
• check the edit history; if you have issues i will try to defend.

Creation content is low & I am sure I have a few issues. Just asking for a general opinion. If it fails well it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krj373 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• If this is any indication of your readiness for a mop, I must give you a NOTNOW. Misidentifying vandalism, then edit warring over it (with an editor who has been an admin for 12 years no less), culminating with making an ANI report on him because he dared swear at you? You are not suitable for admin work with your current skill set. It requires thick skin and attention to detail, which in one fell swoop you demonstrated a lack of either. John from Idegon (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well John, I will admit that was poor timing. However errors are made and I believe assume good faith & civility should apply. I do stand by the complaint. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You poke an editor by reverting, often without discussion, their edits; then you template that editor; then you take that editor to several venues (ANI, shown above; AIV Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=706063684 ) -- that's not a great sign. The talk pages of the articles don't show any attempt by you to start a discussion. Your edit summaries are not clear. You don't seem to have tried to discuss this with Xezbeth. You templated a regular. I agree with John from Idegon above. In my opinion you need to have some solid dispute resolution style work to show people. DanBCDanBC (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Aiv was removed once I reliezed who he was. The ANI was started when I did. I did try a dicussion on his talk page. It was removed with the edit summary of 'get lost'. If you'd like to review. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 06:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Krj373: It takes guts for anyone to come here, but testing is the purpose of this page. John's assessment seems correct: NOTNOW. However, just showing up gives you the chance of recognizing the areas you need to develop to become a helper with the mop. Respect for others should come up high on your list, but also consider writing articles. The last time you made any effort on this area was in 2010. WP is about writing, improving and expanding. Experience in writing a few articles from scratch and taking a few pieces to the GA level would give you a much-needed appreciation for the work of substantial quality contributors while noticing the work of incrementalists too. My 2¢. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 15:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• As long as you stand by that complaint there is no way you're going to get the tool: the misunderstandings on display there are pretty severe. This is a good time to reassess and, when that's done, make up for it. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 at present I'm afraid. (I'll use the recommended numbers system if nobody else does.) Per all the above, but especially per your own statement that you stand by your ANI complaint. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC).
• 0/10 I'm afraid a persistent refusal to accept and own your mistakes gets you a definite "not gonna happen" !vote. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10 - As I stated here, I think you need some work on advancing your technical skills in editing the Wikipedia. Additionally, I think you should also focus on article writing. You should bring a handful of articles to GA or FA status. Aside from being the point of Wikipedia, it will force you to utilize a wide range of skills an admin is expected to know. These range from the application of WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and more. Being able to create, write, and bring a few articles to GA and FA (ideally mostly on your own steam) will demonstrate mastery of these policies. It will also give you an appreciation on what some editors must go through in dealing with other editors who insist on red tape and often unbeknownst become problematic obstacles to actually building an encyclopedia. I would say you need at last 2 years of solid editing to accomplish this given you current state of affairs. Mkdw^talk 05:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• thank you for the comment. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 06:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - I've done some dumb shit in my time but templating 10 year admin is just another level!, Then there's the fact you decided to send that same admin to ANI over your mistake...., Also I've just noticed you've been here since 2009 and yet with the greatest of respect I'd expect those edits and report off of a troll/vandal/newbie .... not a 5/6 year editor......, Anyway unfortunately I don't think you'd have a chance in hell at the moment so I would suggest you stay away from drama and concentrate on editing. –Davey2010^Talk 07:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• I don't want to pile on with criticism, but if you're looking for things to improve to help your chances in the future, this A1/A7 speedy tag shows either a serious misunderstanding of speedy deletion policy or a serious lack of care in tagging. When you tagged the article, it had a television infobox on it that gave info on the title, genre, creator, writer, network, air dates, etc., making A1 clearly an incorrect tag. As for A7, the infobox stated that it ran 79 episodes on a notable TV network (which was wikilinked), and a google search for the exact title returns 351,000 results. Since one admin task is performing speedy deletions, it's important to demonstrate that you understand the speedy deletion policy and can apply in accurately. Hopefully you can improve in this area, and good luck in the future! A2soup (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks A2soup. This is the sort of advice I was hoping for. I am sure that I have more issues buried in my edit history and I hope others will point them out. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 09:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Amakuru

Amakuru (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)

• Comment: X-Tools looks to be down right now, so I can't do a full appraisal. What I'm seeing right now makes me think it might be about a 6/10, due to lack of AfD and CSD(?) work. But I can't say more until I can look at what I can't see right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I personally think you'd be a solid addition to the admin corps but I'm pretty sure you'd currently fail at RfA because of your lack of participation at XfD and more generally lack of experience in admin-related areas. Pichpich (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)