Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Archive index

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by .

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)

Start a poll on your chances of passing RfA

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
9/10 - The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
${\frac {1}{\sqrt[{\pi }]{e}}}\approx 0.73$ : 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Write articles--real articles, with real references from books and articles. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Ϣere SpielChequers 04:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
0/10 with your block log, really don't think you have a chance in 2016. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
9/10 - Solid, experienced candidate, and I'd support again. APerson (talk!) 04:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
9/10 per User talk:Dodger67/Archive_11#RfA. Whadd'ya waiting for? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I opposed you last time because of deletion concerns. It is good that you have kept a CSD log and I have reviewed some of your recent tags and AFD votes. I can't say I feel totally at ease. This AFD nomiation, which you withdrew, is an understandable circumstance, but it does go to the heart of the WP:BEFORE concerns which were raised earlier. There is also this (admin only link) where you tagged a page as CSD G12 when it contained a few sentences copied from a source, but there was free content and the problems were fixed (admin only link) by normal editing. On the other hand, you do good work in other areas and your previous RfA shows you are a sensible person. You definitely need a strong nomination and good question answers: I may support you but I would need to be convinced. I would rate your chances as 6/10, increasing to 7 or 7.5 if you have a strong nomination. BethNaught (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just to be clear to everyone paying attention to this section: I have no intention of running for adminship anytime soon, as it is now apparent that others do not think I am trustworthy and, at least as important, I don't think I could handle the huge responsibility associated with adminship either. However, I feel compelled to point out how strange it is that Oshwah on this same page received multiple 9/10 ratings whereas my ratings in this section are reminiscent of those of an Adam Sandler movie on IMDB. But if you think I'm no better an editor than Sandler is an actor or most of these are movies, then that's fine. Everymorning (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you just misunderstand what is going on. Nobody is saying you are a better or worse editor than someone else, and as fas as I am concerned saying smth of this type would be highly inappropriate. We are here not to global rank editors on the scale better/worse. What people are saying is that if you run an RfA now it has few chances to succeed because of some issues. If you are planning to run an RfA in the future, you may want to look in the issues and make sure they do not repeat, then you increase your chances.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3/10 - basically per Hammersoft, but metrics are not simply arbitrary and in fact are practically all we have to go by. The rate of success or failure in in using one's skills of judgement on deletion related issues, or knowledge of policies demonstrated while posting at ANI or other meta areas is important. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1/10. I can't necessarily judge where you'll be in August. You're CSD looks great, and your talk page shows great communication, collaboration, and humility. If the trend continues, I think your chances by August will still be small, because of low AfD participation and low article creation. Neither of these rule out adminship completely, but it means that contributions in all other areas must, in all likelihood, be both exemplary and prolific to succeed at an RfA. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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 l[e]ast 2 years of solid editing to accomplish this given you current state of affairs. Mkdw ^talk 05:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the comment. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 06:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
0/10 - I've done some stupid stuff in my time but templating a 10 year admin is just on 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 reports from trolls/vandals/newbies .... 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 the drama and just concentrate on editing. –Davey2010^Talk 07:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

0/10 - but at the rate of editing you've started with this year, perhaps in two years if you meet all the usual criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
0/10 - no wish to pile on, but in addition to above, you've only 4 months where your edit count exceeds 100. There are no created articles in the last 5 years, and those that were created were stubs. AfD participation is very low. None of these are insurmountable, but you need more time here. Continue to volunteer here doing what interests you most. Create some substantial content on topics that fascinate you. Demonstrate how you have collaborated with others to improve the encyclopedia. Then run for RfA in 1.5 to 2 years. (Oh, and explain how you would handle the AIV/ANI issue differently, instead of digging in your heels, that is insurmountable.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment just for a bit of context on this, I've been chatting to Wbm1058 about this, who has indicated a willingness to nominate me if I'm up for running. It's very true that I don't have much experience at XfD, or indeed with blocking, and I wouldn't anticipate doing much or any of that on attaining adminship, at least until I had spent some time watching, contributing, and learning those processes considerably more. My wiki activity in my ten years here has been mainly divided between three areas that I am passionate about, namely (1) content creation (I have three FAs, a GA, and various other reasonable quality articles), (2) WP:WIKIGNOME activity, and (3) WP:RM. It is the third area in which I would greatly benefit from access to the mop. I have been carrying out non-admin closures there for a few years now, I have a very good understanding of the relevant policies, and my decisions are rarely criticised. Very many moves, however, are blocked to non-admins because the destination page is not a simple redirect to the original page, or has a non-trivial edit history. Being able to move those immediately, rather than requesting admin assistance, would make me more efficient in helping to clear the often lengthy backlog, it would also mean other admins not needing to be bothered by that and having extra time to devote to other things. Wbm1058's own RfA demonstrates that the community can in some cases trust in an editor who doesn't have so much experience in XfD or blocking to nonetheless become an excellent admin. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1. I watch over the RM process, though I'm not one of the most active admins closing them. I don't like to see too many (non-admin closure) ({{RMnac}}) templates used, and especially when they're accompanied by {{db-move}} templates. Amakuru has been particularly active at WP:Requested moves, as I noticed his activity there last April, and suggested that he run for admin then (four months before my own successful run). When I notice a non-admin's constructive help at RM, without seeing any detectable related drama, I think they're ready for the mop. Perhaps RM doesn't get as much respect as AfD, but, as my record attests, one can ring up a lot of "deletions" without ever touching anything that's been through a formal discussion. wbm1058 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins as a class are adverse to further unbundling, but "Page Mover" rights really seems like a "no brainer" to me. While I have no desire to do RfA currently, I'd apply for "Page Mover" rights in an instant if that right ever becomes available... The reason I bring this up is to warn Amakuru that they are quite likely to shoot you down at RfA, because there is a sizeable contingent that believes candidates at RfA should be seriously well-versed in all areas of Adminship, even if your stated intentions are to "narrow focus" your activities, and will turn you down even if you say "I only intend to work on WP:RM." It's basically just another disincentive for candidates to even try at RfA IMO... FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall, Admins as a class are adverse to further unbundling is probably more heresay or conjecture than a serious piece of information. Admins are very much in the minority on Wikipedia and they are hard pressed to sway any opinion at major RfCs on policy changes or new rights for users. If we could get a better class of candidates for special user rights, unbundling may become an option, but at the moment we're struggling to even get enough candidates of the right calibre to come forward for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several successful unbundlings, Rollback, template editor etc. They tend to be a clearly defined need from some non admins for a tool that can easily be detached from the mop. There have also been many many unsuccessful attempts to create an "admin lite" role that can do many admin tasks, but not with full effect. Such proposals invariably fail for various reasons that are apparent if you go through the various RFCs. I'm not aware that admins are either disproportionately among those who block such schemes, or those who want to raise the drawbridge and have new admins be given a less useful mop than the existing admins have. But this isn't the first time we have either been accused of disproportionately opposing such schemes for some dodgy reason, or of disproportionately supporting them in a dog in the manger style plan to keep full adminship for the existing cabal. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I was actually planning on suggesting this to you over the next few days so it was nice surprise to stumble over this. As I've said before on this page I dislike giving number scores because RfA can be an unpredictable beast, but I think you would be a good chance. People seem generally keen to give the tools to people who have shown article writing chops and have a clear area of experience they want to work in as an admin. I've been impressed by your work at RM and MRV. Jenks24 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jogi don

Jogi_don (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 editing on Wikipedia since July 2011, Since then I have created so many notable articles, kindly evaluate my contributions and recommend me for RFA.thanks ...--Jogi 007 (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
0/10 – Looking at the articles you have created, several have been deleted for lack of notability and I'm afraid several more will end up deleted for the same reason. This indicates you will need to become much more familiar with notability policy. Also, when reading some of your articles, there is a problem of English proficiency. That also can be improved over time. Finally, although you created your account in 2011, you really only started editing in 2015. You will need much more experience, before you can succeed at RfA. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear THE ONE , thanks for your suggestions, yes its true that I created the account in 2011 but I edited Wikipedia much more in the year 2015, its because before this I was not totally aware what a user could do at the Wikipedia, now I love Wikipedia in editing, crating articles, improving articles I can't live without editing Wikipedia, because Wikipedia have become a part of my daily life, I see youngsters of my age giving more and more time on Social sites but I do prefer give all possible time to Wikipedia. Other thing regarding my created articles is that I tried all my best to give the proper news references, if any of my created article has less or poor references then its the opportunity provided by the Wikipedia to all users to help improve the articles including improving references, so I may not be held sole responsible of poor references, anyone can also improve the references of the articles that I have created, these articles are the for all, so the all must owe responsibility of improving the references. Regarding the deleted articles of mine, I would say that I did tried my best to give references, there should have some other Wikipedians who should have to improve the references before the articles went for deletion. Regarding the English proficiency I would say no body is perfect so may I may be, but I am sure that I have at-least a average English proficiency, I would humble request you kindly tell me what areas of my written English you perceive that should be improved. Jogi 007 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

0/10 - Without any experience at AfD, many voters who look for at least a little participation in most of the areas admins work in probably wouldn't support your RfA. APerson (talk!) 16:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear APerson, for advising me for AfD, kindly let me clear that what experience at AfD should I acquire, do you mean that I should make edit contributions at AfD?.Jogi 007 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

0/10 per I am.. & AP - Although you've created 29 articles 6 have already been deleted and IMHO most of the rest deserve deleting too .... Most (not all) have serious notability issues, That aside you've not contributed in any admin areas (IE AFD, RFD, CSD ect etc) so with all this in mind I think had you ran for RFA it'd be Snow-closed, I would suggest participating in the admin areas and perhaps coming back here in a year or 2, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear, Kindly clear my disambiguation regarding admin areas, which admin areas would you suggest me to gain experience and how should I provide a more valuable contributions on the admin areas. Regarding the deleted articles of mine, I would say that I did tried my best to give references, there should have some other Wikipedians who should have to improve the references before the articles went for deletion.

0/10: Although nothing disqualifies you from succeeding at RfA in the future, you need more experience in admin areas in order to succeed. Esquivalience ^t 17:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Thanks, for your king suggestion. Its humble request kindly explain me what admin areas you perceive that I should gain experience and how? See nobody is perfect in your opinion I may be a learner, I don't say that I am a perfect, I prefer learning more from a humble people like you..Thanks again...Jogi 007 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

0/10 If this is how you talk to other editors. Mduvekot (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, in your opinion what wrong thing I have said in the discussion that you have provided a link above, I have observed here on Wikipedia that approximately every tenth of the Wikipedian do Propaganda of their own social, political and other notions, perceptions and they show dogmatist and a Bigotry in their attitude and such people never accept other point of view. In above link that you have pointed out I defended the contents of the articles..Jogi 007 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

0/10 - You need to remember that this is the English language Wikipedia and a very high level of use of English is required for adminship. That said, your user page is a mess and does not convey the level of maturity expected for admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear , Thanks for your advice I don't claim a high proficiency in English, but its not the valid reason to have a high level of English for adminship, regarding my User page, so If anybody thinks that I can not become an admin, WHY? and WHY Not? I should be admin, I am sorting my Userpage and it will look more sorted and no one should have a right to say that my user page is a mess, its neither mess nor its filled with any useless thing and if anybody have to interact with me they can always talk on the Talk page of the User talk. Jogi 007 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thespaceface

thespaceface (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 might consider becoming an admin someday. What are my chances of becoming one now, and if they are particularly low, how long should I wait until running. thanks. --^TheSpaceFace _{Let's Chat} 19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

0/10. At your current rate of progress, only immortality can give you any realistic chance. Edwardx (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm Not Surprised --^TheSpaceFace _{Let's Chat} 20:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

0/10 - With only 233 edits, it doesn't seem likely at all that you would pass a RfA. You may also want to read WP:NOTNOW. APerson (talk!) 00:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
0/10 - For some unknown reason the count tool is saying you don't exist - I amended the name above to a capital T[1] in the hope that would solve it but obviously it hasn't .... but anyway I'm trusting that APerson is correct and if she is then you to put it bluntly have no chance with RFA and it's more than likely it'd be Snow-Closed, I would suggest you work in the admin areas (AFD, RFD, CSD etc etc), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
0/10 - and probably not for several years. There are two issues that give me pause: The fact that you are here on this page with only 30 or so mainspace edits is a clear indication that you haven't bothered to read any of the linked advice pages, and anyone who joins Wikipedia with even an inkling of wanting to be an admin already, has joined the project for all the wrong reasons. Judging by your user space there may also be a maturity issue. My advice would be to add sourced content to articles and when you have significantly more experience (around 500 mainspace edits) try your hand at reverting vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
0/10 - far too few contibutions. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike1901

Mike1901 (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 am not considering going through the RFA gauntlet in the near future, and am aware WP:NOTNOW may apply here as I have only been actively editing since last October - am just genuinely interested in what others feel my chances might be as a nagging thought at the back of my mind, and also using this process as a peer review opportunity to gather others' views on my Wikipedia activity overall (though am aware that's not this page's primary purpose). Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NW (for cases not scrabble because WP:NOTNOW applies). Since you already know that you are WP:NOTNOW, it probably would have been a better idea to ask some admins you respect what you should focus on doing to gain the necessary experience to become an admin in a year or two. That said, the most obvious things to do are create/edit high quality articles, participate in AfD, study policy, and learn more about some admin areas. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're off to a good start. I have no objections to candidates seeking general advice here. After all, there is no meta-forum for asking advice about how to ask advice at pages like this one. Vandalism reversion is very important to Wikipedia, but many voters at RfA like to see a broader range of contributions and are especially concerned with content creation, showing that you can research and evaluate sources, and demonstrating good judgment in situations that are less clear-cut than vandal patrol. They also tend to discount automated edits. Find an area of study that you are interested in and work on building up some articles. Good luck! Altamel (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnsmith2116

Johnsmith2116 (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've actually been considering running since 2014, but wanted to get my edit count a bit higher; my current count is over 8,000, and the bulk of that is since 2012. (The first five years that I had this account, I didn't do editing.) As a possible administrator, I'd like to help out on the articles that get vandalized. Many of the higher profile entertainers (such as professional athletes and actors) and higher profile events (such as the Olympics and the championships of several sports) have Wikipedia articles that tend to be the biggest targets of vandalism, and that would be an area where I could help, with page protection and so on. Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3/10 I can see that you are a productive and valuable editor here, with more than 100 hiqh quality articles created. But you seem to have almost no experience in admin-related activities. You have participated in fewer than a dozen discussions at AfD, and you have no record of submitting requests for speedy deletion or proposed deletion. (Twinkle can create such a record for you, if you enable it in your Twinkle preferences, but I get the feeling that you do not do the kind of activities such as New Page Patrol that give you experience in this area.) You have made very few referrals to Requests for Page Protection, and apparently none at all to AIV. Before we grant a person the tools, we need to see evidence that they have some familiarity with their application and understand relevant policy. If you really want to be an administrator, you are going to have to develop a track record in administrator related areas. Alternatively, you could keep doing what you are doing, making valuable contributions to the encyclopedia - and holler for an administrator when you need one. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2/10 You don't have a clean block log so that's a problem. You've created a bunch of articles but they're all small pro forma articles on not-very notable sporting events not to mention you've had no involvement that I can see taking an article to GA or FA. From my standpoint your content contributions are weak. You've done some counter-vandalism but again, only in the area of sports so you can't claim to need the mop as a vandal fighter. If you self-nom I guarantee you'll be rejected at RfA. You have (as of this writing) only three !votes at AfD and I'm not impressed with your arguments. You've done extensive work with golf-related articles but you've done nothing that I see to actually contribute to the running WikiProject Golf. This edit makes you look both petty and clueless. There's a lot of advice about RfA out there so I'd start acting on that advice and maybe you'll be in position in another year or two. You just don't have the substantial content contributions or history of meta-contributions we expect to see. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93

Vanamonde93 (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)

Content creation is my first love, but over three years here I've come to appreciate more and more the role of admins in facilitating and supporting the process of content creation. Recently, I have thought seriously about trying an RFA, because I feel I have the experience to be helpful in a couple of areas (AIV, DYK, RFPP) and I believe there is a need for more people with the mop. I also recognize that I have had a steep learning curve here, and I will continue to learn; but am I ready now? Or should I wait 6 or 12 months? I would much appreciate any feedback on this. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... rating and optional brief comment ...
I will give 9.5/10. Vanamonde93 has always followed NPOV and fought Hindu Nationalists. He is also a good content creator. Now lets have a look at his NPOV. Calm321 is a confirmed sock of Xtremedood. Xtremedood's POV matched with Vanamonde93. That's why Vanamonde supported this sock in the SPI page against Xtremedood and the sock remained unblocked for few months. He has found a new friend in SheriffIsInTown and is trying to help him by following his edits and posting messages on user talk pages. If any user increases the Hindu death toll, he will revert it according to the policy of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. But he won't revert it back if someone increases the Muslim death toll to epic proportion. 2A01:B840:111:1C0:D942:D99A:968A:2396 (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]