Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

This is an optional polling page available to potential RfA candidates. 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 indepth examination into your editing history to be sure.

Instructions

Potential candidates

If you wish, add your name below, then allow the community to provide 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.

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)

SBaker43

SBaker43 (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)

• 7/10 - User:78.26 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 - davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 --Jayron32 00:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 - Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 - --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 - maintenance experience is important, but anyone versed in content creation would be able to pick up requisite knowledge easily. Esquivalience ^t 20:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 --sst✈^discuss 05:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 Jim Carter 14:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10, you are experienced and competent in content creation, I fear that means you're doomed! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 - Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• 7.5/10 Jianhui67 ^T★C 00:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 and increasing. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 03:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy

Oiyarbepsy (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'll be a guinea pig for this, why not? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• 6/10 - (please note this would be considerably higher, except your contribution history only goes back just over a year. 10 months from now I'd give this an 8 or more likely 9, the contributions appear exemplary.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 - your CSD work in particular looks good. Whether your edit warring on Thine Antique Pen's RfA today will get pulled up and incur a pile-on (hopefully not as it seems to be a one off), who knows. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• 6.5/10 per a cursory look. Esquivalience ^t 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - you haven't been here long enough to piss off lots of people, but you apparently said something that upset someone, and that's all it takes to attract the swarm ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 4.5/10 - Your content and maintenance work is relatively good. Due to the relatively short tenure, and the nature of your participation in one particular meta areas, it could be perceived by some (though perhaps not so glaringly obvious to others) as if you may have been working almost from the very start towards becoming an admin; I won't characterize on whether that is a pro or a con. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC).
• 7/10 Per Ritchie and Kudpung. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• 5/10 for range of experience and speedy delete nominations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• 6.5/10 Jianhui67 ^T★C 00:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sparklism

Sparklism (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'll play along too :) — sparklism ^hey! 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• 8/10 - good content; sufficient maintenance contributions. Again, just a cursory look. Esquivalience ^t 23:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 - good content work, good CSD taggings, no major red flags except maybe a lack of recent admin-related work (not much AFD/CSD in the past year, would people find that problematic)? — Earwig ^talk 07:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 - 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 Yash! 17:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 5/10 - you've been here as long as me and you've created lots of excellent content, you must have pissed off someone at some point and that's fatal ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 - have worked with Sparklism on a few articles and found him to be a good collaborator. Consider requesting an RfA nomination from someone soon! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 The first edit I looked at broke the rules, but after that logs, nominations and articles looked good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 but do something about your user page. It's only fair to the people we have to deal with as admins to let them know at least a little bit about ourselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yash!

Yash! (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)

• 8/10 --sst✈^discuss 12:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 - you exist in the sweet spot of not having been here too long and no active blocks, but search your name at wikipediocracy; if you appear at all, they will notice...! Montanabw^(talk) 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - you might get some moans over very slight idiosyncrasies in English, not that I think it would be reasonable in your case, but !voters can be strange. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Epicgenius

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

No way I'll pass, not at this time of year. (I'm thinking of running in late 2016, if I'm still editing by then.) epic genius (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• 6/10 If that is the case, I think I will increase it by two i.e. 8/10 if you apply in late 2016 or early 2017, unless anything terrible happens meanwhile. :-p Jim Carter 13:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 for your industry, congeniality toward new users, and reliable judgment Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 4/10 – You should pass; unfortunately, with RfA, that doesn't mean you will pass. (Addendum: Missed the recent block for 3RR – that means you'll need to wait at least 6 months to have a shot...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• 7.5/10 Jianhui67 ^T★C 08:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10. Some voters may not like your fancy user pages. sst✈^discuss 14:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC) 4/10 per recent 3RR block. sst✈^discuss 07:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10. No doubt a future admin, but recent block and past activity at drama boards may bring extra opposition. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• 5.5/10. I'm rather concerned that you have 654 edits to ANI. Note also that some of our editors will even hit below the belt to brand someone as mysogininst, especially adminship and arbcom candidates, so be careful what you have on your user page.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

LukeSurl

LukeSurl (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)

OK, I'll bite :). Like some of the above, I would not consider myself admin material, nor do I have any plans to try to become one. However the comments on the others' requests have been generous and interesting, and I'd appreciate a few similar assessments of my editing. Cheers --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• 8/10 - extremely civil, helpful, and clueful (as your user talk page archives show). Minor quibble: your overall minor edit summary usage is at 86%. APerson (talk!) 18:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - If you go for it right now. The inconsistency in your edits per month is something that a lot many editors would object to. If you could show the same editing pattern consistently for 6-8 months more, I'd clearly give you an 8/10. Yash! 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - longstanding productive editor with clean block log. A proven civil collaborator. Some voters will see the inconsistent editing history as noted above, no matter how much I disagree. I think a bigger concern will be the percentage of recent AfD nominations that have been closed as "keep". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ONUnicorn

ONUnicorn (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) Why not? I'm not planning on running for RFA any time soon, but the idea has occasionally crossed my mind, and this looks like an interesting experiment to see what people think. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• 4/107/10 - I'm struggling to find a diff in article space that is isn't Twinkle or fiddling with templates. Sorry, I need to find some evidence you won't rip content creators' heads off :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Are you sure you were looking at my contributions and not another users? I have never used Twinkle, and I rarely edit templates.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, well it looks like I must have done, sorry about that. I've had another look just now and there is some evidence of article rescue on Toxic Girl, and I think what I meant by "Twinkle" was "Twinkle-esque" by which I mean edit summaries like "Reverted edits by 'x' to version 123 by user 'y'" that don't actually give any reason why the revert was made. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• 6.5/10 – This looks pretty good to me, all around. AfD numbers are OK (but could be better). But voters will probably like your sticking to the Help desk and VPP and WP:3O over the "drama" boards. The only real potential stumbling block I see is the the relatively long layoff in active editing between 2007 and 2015, and edit count just a hair under 10,000 (but ~50% of those in main space, which is good). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10 - I think IJBall hit the nail on the head. Excellent work overall, but because of the long layoff, I think a significant number would only count the last year of about 3100 edits. Give it another year of consistent editing, and my evaluation of your chances goes way up. Some may also be concerned about the less than 70% "correct" voting at AfD. I say baloney, but that's the way it can go. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Shoy

Shoy (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) Out of curiosity. shoy (reactions) 18:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• 5/10 at the moment. There is a long hiatus, you have almost no edits between February 2011 and July 2015. At least 6 months of consistent activity is needed. Jim Carter 15:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 content creation, use of buttons, AFD participation is all good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• 5/10 that hiatus is too long.I would like to see 12 months of solid editing. Propotionally too many edits are just putting project templates on article talk. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 5/10 good content creation (including article creation on chemicals), good AfD participation, good communication and clean block log, but oh that layoff, including an entire year without activity. Only 1500 edits in the last 5 years. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Grapple X

Grapple X (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)

For what it's worth, if I ever do proceed with a request it would be intended mostly for advanced gnoming (manning WP:ERRORS, queuing DYK when it's running late, etc). I'm too ogrish to worry about being expected to club users and eat their bones use block functions. GRAPPLE ^X 11:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• 6.5/10 Quite promising. But at the moment I will stick to 6.5, due to low activity between 8/2014 and 8/2015. Some people like to see consistent activity for at least 6 months. And I would encourage more activity at WP:AFD. I may increase the number by 2 after three months of consistent balanced activity. Jim Carter 13:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - tenure and edit count is substantial enough, civil and communicative, but low activity in the last 3 years, and minimal AfD participation. Might pass if clear need for tools in area of expertise were clearly demonstrated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ansh666

Ansh666 (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)

Just out of curiosity. And, of course, assuming that I return to active editing soon. (Noting that responses here will in no way effect that.) ansh666 10:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• 4/106/10 - it doesn't look like you've ever created an article (although I may have missed one), and that 66% AfD rate could be improved. APerson (talk!) 17:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Just going to note, I do a lot of proxy nominations for IPs, which means that my AfD success rate is essentially meaningless. Forgot to mention. ansh666 23:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

    Sure; updated feedback. APerson (talk!) 14:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• 5–6/10. I've seen you around, and I think you've done a lot of good for Wikipedia. However, the reality of RfA is that there's a vocal faction who demand evidence of significant content creation. Not all of them require a GA or FA, but they will balk at your mainspace contribution percentage (23%), number of edits to mainspace (1600), and number of created articles (1). Some people have passed RfA recently without the support of this faction, but 23% mainspace contributions will be too low for many people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10. Ansh666, let me say up front that I'd support you in an RfA, and think you'd make a good Admin. But I think there are too many stumbling blocks to you actually passing, primarily a relatively low edit count, and some inconsistent editing levels (e.g. esp. recent relatively low editing activity) – these are things that too many RfA voters look at and base their votes on (unfortunately), and lack of article creaion, and I think it'll be too high a hurdle for you to pass right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10. Some don't think that <10,000 edits is enough. Some will think you have too many AfD noms that were closed as keep. The last will be seen as particularly problematic for those who value content creation over everything else. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • See my comment to APerson above, I would make clear if I ever ran that the vast majority of "my" noms are not actually mine. ansh666 23:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

6/10. OK, one point per your explanation, and another point for for your ability to clearly explain it . I'll still gather your willingness to do this when compared to your lack of article creation will draw opposition, unfair or not. My opinion is that another 5000 edits within a reasonable time-frame and you are highly likely to pass. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Cloudbound

Cloudbound (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 used to go under the name of Wikiwoohoo until February 2010, and put myself forward for adminship five times between 2005 and 2010. I know that five requests will ring alarm bells for some of you, but the first two were far too early, and the third had more support votes but could not reach the general consensus level.

I'm very active in many of the behind-the-scenes tasks here really, such as checking images are correctly licensed and that we have the most up-to-date files in the best available quality. I do a lot of work primarily in business related articles now, keeping them updated and in good condition, as well as keeping articles trimmed down to be at their best. Cloudbound (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• 6.5/10 - I'd love to give you a higher rating, but that 39% AfD rating is a sticking point for me. (You know how RfA !voters look for at least some experience in all areas of admin work.) You've made wonderful contributions everywhere else, and that ~50% mainspace edit percentage is a big positive. APerson (talk!) 02:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 - at 40,000 constructive edits, clearly WP:HERE. You'll get some opposition regarding the AfD rating, not that the participation is all that extensive. Bigger problem is that you have always voted delete, although that will be blunted somewhat by your own content creation. User interaction is mostly templates, but there's enough there to show the editor interacts collaboratively. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• If you do apply for adminship, it will be helpful if you will link to the previous RfAs:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo2
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 4
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 5

I'd suggest more AfD and CSD participation. This was also mentioned a few times by the opposers in your last RfA (2010). Your current AfD statistics aren't very impressive, since you made only three votes in total since 2012. It shouldn't take long to get your total AfD votes up above 50, if you want to. AfD participation is good because people can see if you have good judgment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wildthing61476

Wildthing61476 (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)

I did a self-nomination years ago in a RFA. As time has past (and after an extended wiki-break to handle real life), I feel that my time here on Wikipedia, along with my patience, my ability to communicate and my ability to observe and make critical decision that are for the best of Wikipedia would make me a good choice to become an admin. My time here usually is spent cleaning up after vandals, though I do edit in areas I have expertise with, namely topics about Baltimore and Maryland. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• 5/10 — I would probably support you in an RfA, but you haven't created an article in several years. Try starting an article and getting it to GA status, if that's not too much of a hassle. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10 — Your case reads like someone who took a relatively long "layoff" from active editing, and that you have only returned to active editing recently. Thus, I agree with Bilorv – you probably need 6 months more of active editing, and probably need to create a couple of new articles (and/or do the GA thing...). But your AfD work looks good, and I think if you do what's suggested, you'll probably look more like a "7/10" by next spring or summer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10, with a positive outlook (hope A. M. Best doesn't sue...) It's the layoff thing again, mostly, plus the low percentage of edits in article space. On the plus side, you are a prolific AfD contributor, with a nice mix of "keep" and "delete" arguments. You are very helpful to new editors, which is a big reason your article-space % is where it is. I'd give it a year on the current trajectory, and my estimation of your chance at consensus for admin goes way up. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Samtar

Samtar (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) Just thought I'd ask, seeing as I'm one of very few non-admin ArbCom candidates. Your advice and brutally honest thoughts are really appreciated samtar ^{t} 14:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• 2.5/10 - needs more experienced. At least 10,000 edits, 800 to 1,000 project-space edits, better performance in AFD, at least 10+ article creation --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice Titodutta samtar ^{t} 14:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• 4.5/10 -- 921 edits to mainspace of which almost all of them has been made in the last four months and a significant amount of them are using semi-automated tools. I would recommend a consistent activity for at least 6 months, with a balance between mainspace edits and user talk page edits. Some more content writing will be a definite positive for your future RfA. Cheers! Jim Carter 12:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Jim Carter, any advice really helps samtar ^{t} 14:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• 3/10 - NOTQUITEYET. As the others said, a higher edit count (particularly in main space) would help towards a future run. Also, you probably want to get the AfD numbers up. And creating more articles would be good too... Addendum: Also, if you can manage to help on the "tool" end, that would definitely help a later RfA run IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 2/10 - editing tenure is technically longer than mine, but has really only been active the last 4 months. Get anohter 6, at the least. I really like this editor's communication style. Respectable CSD history, AfD participation is so far underwhelming. Show me a rescued article, that will get you points. Tons of potential here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• 3/10 for the courage of standing for Arbcom, but IMO adminship must come first with at least 3,000 edits to mainspace.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

BethNaught

BethNaught (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)

• If granted adminship I would expect to do mopwork mainly in deletion, but also in anti-vandalism. When commenting please bear in mind that any RfA in the near future would likely be late December / early January. Thanks for your feedback! BethNaught (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10, do not see any major issues at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10. Looks good. Might get a little bit of opposition due to the lack of dedicated content creation. This question might cost you a few support votes, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 Jianhui67 ^T★C 11:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 Jim Carter 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• 9.5/10 You're a no-brainer. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10, please run. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 What are you waiting for? :) Yash! 17:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this question may raise some eyebrows because it was not phrased neutrally - it is what is called a 'leading question' and whether it was your intention or not, we have a lot of clever Dicks at Wikipedia who hang on every candidate's words (on Arbcom elections too) to make candidates look bad, so the advice is: watch your language, but at this stage of the proceedings there are probably not many people who will find it or see it. Start looking for a nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

MrWooHoo

MrWooHoo (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 don't ever plan on EVER getting the mop, and even then I wouldn't run for a couple years because of my lapses of editing. Since there really aren't any other venues where I can ask for advice, what should I improve on in order to ever even become an RFA candidate? MrWooHoo (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• It looks to me like you're on the right track. Just keep doing what you've been doing. Some of your AfD votes are "per nom". That's fine, but if you want to impress people at RfA, it helps to be more verbose and persuasive. Maybe create some more articles, help out at WP:NPP, and weigh in at content noticeboards like WP:BLPN and WP:RSN. Also, 18% of your total edits are to mainspace, which may be too low for some people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• More of everything. You might need more CSD nominations under your belt, that shows you understand that policy. Try to write more articles, people like that, and it would improve your mainspace edit %. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• 3/10 - With just 2,300 edits and only 400 to mainspace, you've been around long enough but you have a long, long way to go before you will satify the criteria of RfA voters. Are you absolutely sure you followed up on all the advice at the top of this page? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

KSFT

KSFT (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)

Imagine I had another year or two of experience doing what I've been doing for the last six months. I would also appreciate suggestions about what to change for that year or two. KSFT^C 21:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• After an year, a 7/10 perhaps. My 7 might turn into an 8 or 9 if you could show some work in the GOCE-DYK-GA-FA-FL area, by working in other admin-related areas and by not getting into any serious trouble. Yash! 18:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yash!: I've been planning to do GOCE work. I didn't realize it was considered an admin-related area. Also, do you mean improving articles for DYK/GA/FA/FL or their administration? KSFT^C 19:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Those are not admin-related areas, and they have nothing to do with admin tasks. Admin-related areas are WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @NinjaRobotPirate: Okay, that's what I thought. I've made fortyish reports to AIV, I've tagged several articles for speedy deletion (not sure how many--they got deleted), I've made a few contributions to AIV and UAA. KSFT^C 23:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Twinkle has an option to turn on logging for CSD nominations. You can track your AfD votes in the link above. AIV and UAA are more difficult to track, but one can do an edit summary search. Writing GAs and FAs help demonstrate knowledge of content-related policies, but you can do that at WP:NPOVN and WP:BLPN, too. I guess GOCE work would show collaboration? Dunno. Really has nothing at all to do with admin tasks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • KSFT, they are not admin related areas but they do matter. It shows your knowledge about content policies and that you can work fine with other editors. If you could show really good understanding of admin-related areas (CSD, AfD, UAA, AIV, and all) and not have substantial content work, you could face few opposes. If you go through the archives, you will find a great number of opposes simply based on candidate's lack of content creation. Many here believe that content creation is something that every RfA candidate should have had experience at though they are not really admin-areas (I wouldn't disagree with that). While we need editors to do the admin-work, basically we are here to improve the pedia' and content work is the best way to achieve that. Also, admins need to resolve content-related disputes and work along content creators - having experience in these areas might help the admin understand the overall situation better. That is just my take on RfA candidates and content creation (others may differ and also have different reasons too but in short, content creation does matter to many). If you could show solid admin-related work, I would not oppose you for lack of content work, but few might. On a personal note, you should try some content work. I have found that to be the best thing about this site. Yash! 00:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've been meaning to get more involved at AfD. I understand your points about content creation (although I don't quite understand why it's necessary to get, as it's been called, the "mop"--content creation doesn't seem related to mopping). I keep seeing mentions of "dispute resolution", but I can't figure out what non-admins can do in that area, other than have disputes that need resolutions. KSFT^C 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
        • KSFT, content work and mopping cross paths at various times. As an admin, you will need to handle a lot of content-related disputes and having some experience with the mainspace might help you in understanding the situation better (not necessarily though). For dispute resolution, you can participate at noticeboards or moderate disputes or give a third party opinion - have a go at this. Hope that helps, Yash! 03:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 for not reading the infobanner on the top of this page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kudpung: Which part of the infobanner didn't I read? KSFT^C 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @KSFT: Maybe, this. Cheers! Jim Carter 04:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• After reading the above, I feel I should add my two cents. Being an admin is supposed to be no big deal. Edit what you wanna edit and do a good job at it. Don't change what you do to make some RFA voter happy, cause you won't make them happy and they'll be a jerk about it, as you see above. Haters gonna hate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Azealia911

Azealia911 (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 definitely will not be putting myself forward at RfA for at least another 9-12 months, as I am fully aware 10 months isn't sufficiently long enough to have gained the relevant experience needed. I'd like to know if there's anything drastic in my editing / conduct I need to change, or pointers in elsewhere to involve myself as to gain experience in other fields. Thankyou. Azealia911 _talk 15:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

9/10: 20 articles created (6 deleted), 10k+ edits (1000+ BLP mainspace, 3794 non-automated), no blocks. I think if you RfA'd in 9 months (same level of contributions) with some more dispute resolution thrown in, you'd be golden. (adding to my new list of RfA Hopefuls) samtar ^{t} 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• 7/10. Looks good, but a little more participation all-around (article creation, AIV, AfD, Teahouse) would push you further into "sure thing" territory. Maybe turn on Twinkle's CSD and PROD logging? Probably 8/10 in just 3–6 months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 At the moment, more work is needed in WP:NPP, AIV and RPP. Consistent (dramaless) work for another 6 months will increase the value with 2 i.e. 8/10. However, I suggest, add some details about your username on your userpage. Your user name "Azealia" and your significant work in Azealia Banks related article may arose suspicion among people. Best, Jim Carter 08:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What kind of suspicion do you mean? Azealia911 _talk 11:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That you might be a paid editor or otherwise have a conflict of interest around the topic.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• 7/10. I think a little investigation reveals a true-blue Azelia fan, not a COI. Most things look good, although I spotted an anomaly regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm The One (song), where wmflabs has you voting "keep" when you actually voted "speedy delete". When I read the conversation, I think you came off a bit snippy, even if you were correct in your policy interpretations. Some may not like that. There are many more examples of an exemplary communication style. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• 8.5/10 - I say this with caution however because in the current climate at RfA I think voters will considering 12 months as a borderline minimum. Try to increase the maintenance area edits in proportion to your content work. However innocent it s, your user name will cause drama at RfA but might not be a deal breaker. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Lakun.patra

Lakun.patra (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)

Just wanted to know the areas i can improve upon. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• 5/10 – CSD and PROD logs look good; AfD looks OK; approx. 21 valid non-disambig. articles created, though most look to have been short stubs, but probably good enough for many. There are two issues I see here, in terms of an RfA: 1) you've only been actively editing for about a year; 2) almost all of your edits are automated. While the former will only cause problems for a few voters, I think the latter is a much bigger hurdle with RfA voters. My advice would be to put AWB and Twinkle aside for a while, and start to manually improve some articles by doing things like copyediting and adding references. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks IJBall. I will focus on the areas you mentioned. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• 6/10 - Article creation/mainspace activity solid; AfD looks good, although votes like these two might draw a little scrutiny. The main thing is activity; you only started hitting double-digit edits in August 2014, which may be a little short. APerson (talk!) 02:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks APerson. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• 8/10 - half your edits are (semi)automated although this still leaves 9,000 which is more than many successful candidates had. Otherwise, without delving deeper, everything is looking quite good. Your block log is a perfectly innocent error made by a highly trusted admin. Look at what IJBall suggests above and you may wish to wait a few more months and then ask for a nomination here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. I have no plans for RFA yet. I will take all the suggestions and improve upon them. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

clpo13

Clpo13 (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'll throw my hat into the ring. For full disclosure, I have a previous RFA. Keep in mind it was over seven years ago, but feel free to compare and contrast with my more recent contributions. clpo13_(talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Wait a few months. sst✈^(discuss) 14:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, to be honest, it would be the same conclusion to the first one more or less, as your total contributions are only 15,000 (I never care about the numbers of this anyway) and your highest have only been 8,000 this year so people would definitely question and analyze this. As flamethrowing and intense as RfA can be, I would certainly give it time (time will never take away the RfA drama and stress though ). Keep to mind also that RfA is basically no big deal and only means making yourself vulnerable to troubles and targets from others (I would say the only benefits are the delete, move, protect and block tools, and simply take away all the drama parts ). SwisterTwister talk 09:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @SwisterTwister: TBH, I completely agree. Being able to respond more quickly to obvious vandalism (instead of hoping someone's paying attention to WP:AIV) would be a major plus, but it's not something I'm seriously considering for the time being. I'm more curious how others view my activity, especially in the areas important to some RfA voters (content contribution, AfD/CSD, etc.), and how I could improve. clpo13_(talk) 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 - Without delving deeper, you appear to be on the right track but you would need to demonstrate significantly more activity in maintenance areas. Looking at it, I don't think your previous RfA would go against you at all . However, you'll probably need to let dust settle around your block log for another 10 months and make sure it stays free of new issues, and by which time you will have an unbroken 12 month editing history although this might not be long enough for some of the newer voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Vin09

Vin09 (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)

• Wants to develop Indian Village pages, which are in plenty
• 0 at this point. Too new of a user to run for admin. Also, you don't need to be an admin to write articles on Indian villages. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Whoops, hit the wrong button on the contributions page (older 50 instead of oldest) and thought you only started in October. Doh! Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: Yes, I'm new. But still is there any mini-admin ship? I mean for wikiprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Andhra Pradesh, Wikipedia:WikiProject Telangana pages? As I work a lot in these areas and also Wikiproject India pages.--Vin09 (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No, there is not any (at least for now). You can contact admins specializing in India related content for any admin work like Titodutta. You are expected to know this kind of stuff before you run. Read WP:RFAADVICE, as given at the top of this page. Learn what being an admin is, what work they do and why. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'll revise to 5. And if you want to edit articles all the time I can assure you that being an admin will only get in the way. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10 - RfA voters tend to look for at least a little experience in all areas that an admin will be able to work in. Your work at AfD might draw unfavorable attention. This discussion from this year raises some doubt. APerson (talk!) 19:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10 With over 39,000 edits and registered for 4 years I don't see quite how anyone could say you are too new, but for adminship you would need to demonstrate a lot more work in maintenace areas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Korruski

Korruski (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) More out of interest than any serious interest in running - I realise that my tendency to edit in fits and starts and go quiet for long periods probably rules me out of actually being successful at RFA.

• 6/10 - Solid content creation (2 GAs); AfD work pretty good; you don't keep a userspace CSD/PROD log, so I can't evaluate that. (RfA voters are probably going to want at least a little experience there.) APerson (talk!) 19:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10 - I may be wrong, but I don't think this page was created to be a general editor feedback page. We had one of those and the community decided to do away with it. WADR, I don't believe you read and followed upon the infobanner at the top of this page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I did, as it happens, but I must have misunderstood how serious an intention of running I have to have before starting a poll, and I got the impression from past ones that several people had used this page to very tentatively test the water, which is what I'd hoped to do. Apologies for my mistake and thanks for your helpful response.--Korruski^Talk 12:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Vincent60030

Vincent60030 (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)

Note: I don't think I'll pass but I just want opinions here. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• 2/10 - Very little chance right now. Only 2,200 edits. While you do have AFC experience, you don't appear familiar with most of the maintenance areas admins would be involved in, such as WP:CSD, WP:AFD, WP:UAA, WP:AIV etc etc. You don't appear to have been involved in AFD at all and have little or no experience at any of the others. You do have two reports to UAA, one of which isn't a violation, since it's a real person's name. Lack of article creation would also be a turn-off for some AFD participants, as you only have one article created, a stub. Thanks for your contributions overall, but I'd advise holding off for at least a year. Valenciano (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 - No AfD at all, for one thing. Voters at a RfA will look for at least a little experience in every area of adminship. APerson (talk!) 15:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• O/10 -You're right, no chance of a pass any time soon. You'd probably realise this if you had read all the advice pages. It doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong with your editing but there isn't enough of it yet and won't be for a long time. Also do remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the website is simply the way it is delivered. See WP:TOONEW. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Irondome

Irondome (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)

Comments and thoughts most welcome. Irondome (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• 9/10 - I don't see any serious issues that would make me oppose your RfA. Your talk page could use some archiving though. Yash! 03:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Noted. As per user MONGO's suggestion, adopting cut-and-paste method. Irondome (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• 5/10 - possible issues I can see are a lack of experience in deletion areas and lack of content contribution. There's no CSD log for me to judge how you'd handle those and you only have 10 AFD contributions, only half of which were correct. You've only created one article and that would garner opposes coupled with the AFD situation. Communication issues look fine, but you don't appear to have edits at WP:AIV. While it wouldn't be an issue for me, I could see opposes based on "lack of activity" as some months you have less than 100 edits and overall you have 10k which is more than fine for me but I could see some voters opposing. Valenciano (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hugely constructive comments, duly noted. Irondome (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• 9/10, I do not see any major issues. May be look for a good nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10, I am familiar with your work and it is probably time now for you to consider making a RfA. You have everything it takes to pass but the unpredictability of the voters does not make it 100% certain. Note Valenciano's comments above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have indeed Chris. Your supporting observations add clarity, and flag up the unpredictability of the RfA process as it currently stands. Irondome (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

CatcherStorm

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

• My goal is to improve and fix Wikipedia, and I have been active in doing admin-like works lately. I'd love some thoughts on this. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• 0/10 for now. Only 2 real months of activity, less than 1,500 edits and lack of experience in maintenance areas. Only 3 contibutions to AFD, one of which seems to be about a notable Albanian. CSD tagging is way short of the accuracy that I and many others in the community would look for. This nomination for example, just 2 minutes after the article, about a clearly notable topic, was created and I disagree that it's similar to the 2012 article, which it will naturally share similarities with. Another 12 months of editing, greater accuracy in deletion areas and we'll see. Best of luck with your editing. Valenciano (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  It would be unlikely that the parliamentary election would have the exact same candidates, so I thought that it might've been a copy of the previous election. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It is unlikely, but not impossible, see for example the Spanish general election, 2008, where the main 3 party candidates were the same. Even though you were right about the candidates being different, that doesn't justify it and that's a textbook case of why people like admin candidates to have created articles (which you don't seem to have done.) If you had, you'd know that it's quite common when creating an article to use similar articles as a starting point, especially for things like infoboxes, and change the content accordingly and add appropriate references. During that process, people sometimes forget to update some of the content in their first pass, but do it in a second go. You didn't give the creator time to do that, nominating it after 2 minutes of creation and a quick look at that initial version would show it wasn't a copy anyway, since half of it is devoted to changes to electoral law which took place in 2015. If there are problems with an article, deletion usually isn't the answer, commonsense is. Is a general election in a European Union member state really unlikely to be notable? Obviously, the answer is no, so if there are problems, just fix them yourself, wait a while for the creator to do so or drop a note asking them to do it. A rush to delete notable topics won't go down well at RFA. Valenciano (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I also forgot to note that the swing, polling percentage, and statistics related to the election were the exact same as the previous year, 2012. Now that must have been very, very unlikely. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Another bit of advice. If you do make a mistake, it's better to hold your hands up and admit it and move on. Arguing on, trying to justify it and have the last word won't go down well at an RFA. Valenciano (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• 0/10. With only around 400 edits to mainspace at your current rate of editing you may be ready to consider adminship in about 3 years (which is about right for many candidates). I am concerned that you are over-eager to be an admin - it should not even enter the mind of a new user. See WP:TOONEW. Experience comes a lot from watching how experienced user do things but mainly from thoroughly reading instructions, advice pages, and guidelines; many areas are not for learning by making a disproportionate number of errors, I therefore suggest you hold of fromWP:NPP for a while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic

Your admin work strikes me as immature and superficial, aiming at quantity rather than quality. You are condescending and unwelcoming to newcomers, with comments such as "First off, please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes", or "properly insert in the article, and move on". I have been involved in an incident with you, where you have: Mistook my edits as unconstructive and "Disrup."[tive] (and that's OK, it can happen to anyone) Despite my multiple requests, failed to offer any rational justification of your accusations, and failed to recognize that you may have possibly been wrong about my edits Asked me to read WP:Edit war, when no edit war was taking place, and WP:BRD, for reasons that escape me Reverted a typo that I had already fixed, so that you could rub my nose in it Made your WP:POINT in the sidewalk article, out of spite Thanks, but no thanks. 87.112.180.82 (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC) @87.112.180.82: Looking back at it, the reason I reverted your edit had absolutely nothing to do with the sidewalk. You removed perfectly fine and sourced content from the article, in which I then proceeded to give you an "welcome-unconstructive" using Twinkle. If you remove perfectly okay content from an article without clearly explaining why, it confuses people as I may have been confused. I have much more to say, but I will not discuss a conflict here. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "You removed perfectly fine and sourced content from the article" - still no diff link. 87.112.180.82 (talk) 07:46, 3 December 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)