Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Peacemaker67

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Peacemaker67 (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)

My content creation work is in highly contested space, and I have two blocks (one in 2012, one in 2014) and a couple of smacks for incivility. Just testing the water as a couple of admins that work in the Milhist area have suggested I think about it. Interested in areas that I might need to do more work in to satisfy the RfA voting community that I have the goods. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that the AfD tool massively understates my involvement in AfDs. I would have "voted" on hundreds of AfDs (mostly Milhist ones) since I created an account. Not sure what is going on there... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(Responding - re. the AfD tool - on your talk page. APerson (talk!) 15:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

• (edit conflict) Just noting here that I would definitely support, but I don't have the time to do a thorough analysis and determine if you have a good chance of actually passing. Biblioworm 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• 8/10 There is something weird going on with the AFD tool in your case, for example I see you voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Metzger, but that doesn't show up. Even with the faulty AFD tool showing a low score, you're giving policy based arguments when you're voting against the final outcome. 42k edits, significant contributions including FAs and GAs, involvement in GA reviews, all looks good. The 2014 block could be a reason for people opposing you, though that would be harsh. Another possible oppose rationale would also be the question of why you need the admin tools - I don't see involvement in CSD, RFPP, AIV, UAA among the last thousand edits. Valenciano (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have nominated dozens of pages for temporary page protection over the years (usually in response to vandalism and edit-warring by dynamic IPs), and have been involved in fighting vandals and socks. Not having the tools made me consider requesting them back then, but I was put off by the dramas at RfA. A couple of examples of my contribution to chasing down persistent socks would be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldhouse2012/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis/Archive. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • In that case, you'd be fine. You might get some opposes based on the block, but I doubt that would outweigh positive contributions. Barring any major skeletons in your cupboard, I'd definitely support. Valenciano (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'd be very pleased to support you at RFA. You've done great work in some difficult topic spaces, maintaining civility while dealing with POV pushers and the like, as well as good admin-type work in the military history project Nick-D (talk)
• The 2012 block is ancient history, Nov 2014 is now over a year ago and it used to be that RFA would ignore any block from more than a year ago. But times change and it wouldn't hurt for you to include a sentence in your RFA nomination acceptance or your answer to Q3 as to how you've learned from the past and are unlikely to edit war again. ϢereSpielChequers 04:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• If you run for adminship, I'd like to participate. Am impressed with your work in the WP:ARBMAC area, one where many people fear to tread. It is an open question how people will react to your two blocks. Why not do something about points #1 through #4 at the top of User talk:Peacemaker67. You say "I have a (short) list of editors I don't interact with..." Admins should radiate calm, or at least try to. If you don't suffer fools gladly it is best to keep that fact to yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Makes sense, EdJohnston. Thanks for your input and kind words, I appreciate it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• The AfD Stats tool searches for your vote by looking for a link to your talk page. It must be a direct link, i.e. [[User talk:Peacemaker67]], not your current configuration which links to the lead section of your talk page. I learnt this the hard way. sst✈ 13:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, I wondered what was going on there. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Anyone else? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• 7/10 - I am aware of your prolific contributions to mainspace, so I'm not worried about that. Unfortunately this is a wild card, and I can see one or two editors writing "Oppose - told a new editor to fuck off" using that diff, even though I can see the extenuating circumstances and that it was well over a year ago. The conduct at Talk:Bijeljina massacre is on the whole good, trying to collate views a difficult and contentious topic and bring it to FA, but accusing Future Perfect At Sunrise of "supervoting" a few weeks back isn't going to go down well if somebody spots it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course that outburst in November 2014 was what I was blocked for, and rightly so. As regards Fut.Perf., that's open for debate in my opinion. On that occasion I believe Fut.Perf. went further than was necessary on a BLP issue, and overrode a significant proportion of experienced editors contributing to the debate at the RfC. If that's not a supervote, I don't know what is. Like me, I'm sure Fut.Perf. isn't actually perfect... Thanks for the input though. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pablothepenguin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pablothepenguin (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) Any ideas as to when would be a good time to make my next RfA request? I am thinking about doing this around July period. Pablothepenguin (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10 - You already are running, and its going to get SNOW closed. I don't know if you are trolling, or taking this seriously, but assuming you are taking this seriously, even in July you likely will not pass an RfA. You need many, many more edits, some article creations, AfD participation, and you likely will need a few years for RfA to forgive you of that indef block that is on your record. Not everyone needs to be an admin. You said you wanted to help fight vandalism, but you haven't shown much there, so you don't need to be an admin to really do that. Go take a read of WP:VAND and help us revert some vandalism :) --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - Yeah clearly not one RFA page was read .... Your RFA's gonna get Snow Closed so If you're not trolling I suggest you focus less on becoming an admin and more on editing constructively here.... –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cullen328

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cullen328 (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 have certainly thought about an RfA, so it can't hurt to get some feedback from the community. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• 9/10 - Great edit count (both non-automated and BLP), strong proof of contributions (68 articles created!), no blocks and an all-round civil and lovely editor. -- samtar ^whisper 09:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC) -- samtar ^whisper 09:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10. I don't foresee any problems. I pessimistically underestimated Beth Naught's support, so I'm going all-in on this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 -- Please file your RfA nomination, it is long overdue. Jim Carter 11:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10, you aren't an admin already?! Please fix this. Winner 42 Talk to me! 12:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought he was an Admin!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9.5/10 – I've looked around, and I don't see anything that would obviously set RfA voters off to "oppose". I've also seen you around and can't recall anything but seeing things that impress me. I say "Go for it." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 - Cullen, you have high standing in the community, and I have frequently admired your judgment, especially your approach to new editors with your work at the Teahouse. Your adminship is definitely long overdue and would benefit the encyclopedia greatly. Mz7 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10. One of those cases where I would support an unprecedented move to give the mop without a RfA. Any opposition on any RfA you choose to file is ridiculous to the highest level. So many AfD !votes that the AfD !vote counter fails to work! Esquivalience ^t 00:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 – this is a page I did not know existed until I saw comments on your talk page (which I have on watch). Absolutely, without question I support you. Wishing you the best ツ Fylbecatulous talk 13:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 – you know why. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10. Go for RFA and do not waste our time here.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 Indeed. Nothing more to say, now it's time for action ...  Philg88 ^♦talk 20:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 Finally! Go for it, you'll have my vote. w.carter-Talk 21:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 I look forward to supporting you. HighInBC 22:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 add me to the list of "whay aren't you already an admin" comments. I think you would sail through pretty easily. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 - I would 110% support you and lets be honest you would sail through it so go for it!, –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 - Like Davey said, 'you would sail through it!' :) Yash! 17:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Gimme NE Ent 19:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 Absolutely, and I'd be willing to nominate you, Cullen328. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 19:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10. Please run. You would be a perfect candidate. Biblioworm 23:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 It's time. You don't have to become JUST a sysop. Keep doin' what you're doin' but able to help out with some backlogs and such when you have the time and inclination. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 00:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 One of most deserving editor. His work on Teahouse is great. --Human3015^TALK  12:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• 10/10. I wouldn't usually comment on something that no one else has for 11 days but I think you could definitely pass RfA. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• 10/10. You're a great mentor and friend to every fellow editor. You're the person who comes to mind whenever I think of the "model Wikipedian." Bananasoldier (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• 10/10 would gladly support this editor. I already thought they were an admin and I've had some very positive experiences with this editor. Mkdw^talk 06:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• 10/10 Per Jim Carter, " it is long overdue." I stumbbled recently on his record and thought it was inspiring Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• 11/10 - this candidate goes to 11! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

K6ka

K6ka (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)

A number of users (one even a 'crat) have suggested that I run for the mop, the most recent one (containing links to all past discussions/suggestions about me applying at RFA) being a month ago by Biblioworm. My biggest reason has almost always been "RFA itself", with my second concerns being my lack of article development, and my third because of my mostly mediocre AFD participation (although, I have no interest in working at AFD). I may (or may not) run for RFA in the upcoming year (but who knows? only time will tell), but with so many users suggesting that I run, I figured I'd obtain some more advice (and maybe a hot pepper in my eyes) here first. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• 5/10 or higher. That "This user is a teenager." might be an issue, seeing the Thine Antique Pen RfA. Being a global renamer is a plus. I suspect a lot will depend on your "what I plan to do" statement. Lack of content contribution is still bad. Biblioworm's assessment seems accurate, to me.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't want to give out too much about my real age (although it seems that gets harder year after year), but soon I'll cross the age of majority mark in my country, so hopefully that will no longer be of concern. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I actually didn't see that userbox when making my assessment. I note here that I will support editors below the age of majority iff they show maturity equivalent to that of a rational adult. Now keep in mind that I have never believed in blanket discrimination merely because someone is something, but all I'm saying is that (regardless of disclosed age) I want to see evidence of maturity. In any case, by my assessment, you do seem to pass my personal requirements. I happen to know a few young people who are quite mature and could be trusted with adminship (although I don't think any of them would be interested in Wikipedia), but this is the exception rather than the rule. However, not everyone sees it that way; some people automatically oppose anyone who isn't above 18, so although it might not be quite enough to sink the RfA completely, you might frankly have a rough ride since this would be combined with your almost complete lack of content creation. Biblioworm 17:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10, as your contributions nearly trump your lack of content creation, but you may get significant opposition because of that and the usual frivolous votes. Esquivalience ^t 19:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• 6 or 7/10. I would support you, but as noted by others, your chance might improve by gaining a little more experience in some administrative-type work in which you have little or no participation yet and in creating some content. This would be enough to show you know how to write content and can understand what content creators do. Creating a few articles (not necessarily featured or good articles in most editors' opinions) and adding some content to existing articles would help your chance and reduce potential opposition. Global renamer boosts your chances so that needs to be considered in your favor. I think you have demonstrated your trustworthiness already but some RFA voters require somewhat more than that. If those who oppose, mostly on single-issues, reappear at RFA in greater numbers than they have recently, you might need a little more variety for your resume to keep them at least neutral. For what it is worth, I would like to see you spend some time adding some experience in a few other administrative-type areas (maybe AFD) and doing some content creation before you give it a try. Of course, you would be continuing your good and steady work as well. It is hard for me to say how long that might be (6 months?, a year?), but it would not be measured in weeks. FWIW. Of course, I would defer to the opinions and judgment of administrators or others with more experience if their views differ from mine on whether, or perhaps more accurately, when, you should proceed. Good luck and keep up the good work. Donner60 (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 or 9/10 ish. Personally I think you should run, it'd be bold and I think having you as an admin is a net positive. I'd be glad to nominate you with Biblioworm if you'd like. CatcherStorm ^talk 10:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 6–7/10. As I mentioned above, I think this user shows ample maturity for a person of his age. However, at least a few people will definitely oppose because of his disclosed age. He also has no content creation whatsoever, and the number of people who will oppose because of this is quite large (larger than I previously thought). Therefore, the combined number of auto-opposers will be substantial. I would support, because I think his work here (along with the fact that he has been trusted will global renamer) outweighs all the other factors. Truthfully, though, I think it might be a rough ride if he ran for RfA. Biblioworm 17:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 - Personally I'd easily support you but as noted above you'll probably get a fuckton of Opposes because of the "I'm a teenager" ubx and the fact you've not created any content, IMHO overall I would probably say you'd be successful in getting the mop if you ran for RFA. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 5/10 - I don't think K6ka ha really understood WP:RFAADVICE - if indeed he has read it. That essay is deliberately worded to avoid stating what voters' criteria actually are, leaving the reader to follow the many links and footnotes. That said, it would be evident that my criteria are not met - not even on aggregate, but I believe this to be more of a question of time than anything else. Otherwise, there is little I can add to the advice given by Biblioworm - don't worry too much about the 'anti-reform crowd' or even the anti-admin brigade; after their recent performances on RfA and Arbcom elections and in other noticeboards, they are no longer oozing along at ground-level below everyone's radar and they are likely to be finding themselves on a short leash in 2016. They are the very reason (and there are no other reasons) why reforms to RfA are being proposed - it's just a mystery why the community refuses to accept 'fix the voters and RfA will fix itself' . In the meantime, perhaps removing that teenage userbox might not be a bad idea - Wikipedia is serious stuff and anyone who admits to being very young is not doing themselves a favour however proud they may feel at editing the encyclopedia at a tender age. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Possibly about 6/10. Jianhui67 ^T★C 10:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

L235

L235 (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) This page looks quite new, and I'm glad that it's getting the amount of attention it's been getting. I'll just stick my name here quickly; I'm curious to see what the community thinks. Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 05:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• 6/10 - Your biggest 'sticking points' are going to be only having 611 (out of 10k+ total) non-automated edits and only two created articles. Work on content creation, improve your AfD stats and put down the tools for a while and I think you could do it :) -- samtar ^whisper 15:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC) -- samtar ^whisper 15:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• 4/10 - For now I doubt it. On the plus side, you've been here long enough and made enough edits. On the negative side, you'll get opposes due to less than 30% of your contribs being to article space. On top of that, lack of content contribution, the two articles credited to you are a dab page and an article created on behalf of another user. What will really set you back is the deletion area, in your CSD log I see a number of questionable tags in March this year. In the AFD area, your last activity was in January when you nominated 10 articles, 6 of which were kept and only 2 deleted. I think you'd need more regular and more accurate participation there. Valenciano (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• 3/10 - Don't get me wrong - I'm just reading your user page from the perspective of the average viewer/RfA voter looking for an excuse to oppose., but it makes you look like a bit of a control freak doing as much maintenance work as possible on as many Foundation projects as possible. In fact there are some who might argue that on top of all that you would not have time to be an admin on en.Wki. You have also made no mainspace edits for six months. If you examine the histries of most admins, you'll see that they still plod along improving articles and adding content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kudpung: Wow, thanks for that advice. I'll see if I can clarify my userpage in a bit. I've never seen it from that point of view before. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• 5/10. You could pass if you increase your activity level, create a few articles, and demonstrate better understanding of deletion policy. Right now, you'd get pile on opposes from each of those issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe 7/10 if your activity level is constant and high for the next 6 months or 1 year. Jianhui67 ^T★C 10:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Qed237

Qed237 (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 for a while and have been nominated twice (two different editors created RfA page for me but I declined both as not being ready). I have now read the guidelines one by one and are interested in what others think of my chances. I would mainly continue my regular editing but also help at WP:RPP and WP:AIV, and as a football fan I think I can help a lot there as many BLP's gets vandalised (especially during transfer season) so those pages often needs protections, and vandals a shorter block. Qed237 (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• 10/10, go for it. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• I have serious concerns about your habit of knee-jerk reverting of constructive edits. For instance, this revert last night was wrong – the player has made three appearances (which you could have easily checked using the Soccerway profile link). This is technically WP:TWINKLEABUSE, as you weren't reverting vandalism and didn't use an edit summary. Number 57 11:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I appreciate your thought and I will think about this. Basically the player did not have 3 caps correct as of 19 December 2015 which the infobox stated so I reverted an incorrect factual edit to a BLP. Also I have seen administrator doing exact same thing over and over again, and although that is no excuse it made me think it was okay. Also I do give the editor a longer informational message at their talkpage instead of a very short edit summary, and you can read it (and perhaps improve it) at User:Qed237/player. Qed237 (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that your reaction is almost always to revert rather than consider whether the edit is correct and fix associated details or source it. This is not a trait I want to see in an editor who has the power to protect pages. Number 57 13:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Message recieved and to not clogg up this poll, please continue at my talkpage if you have more views. As I said, I have seen administrators do this and I do leave the editors information why it was reverted (although not in edit summary). Technically I revert it being a factual error to a BLP, and I also disagree that my reaction is always to revert even though I revert much as being a vandalism fighter and I patroll recent changes and my watchlist for vandalism. Qed237 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• 06/10 I see you very often at WP:RFPP. I usually look edit history and talk page of many pages reported at WP:RFPP. I think that you are nice but very aggressive editor. You edit pages related to Football, and as we see football players show some aggression on field, you too have such aggression on Wikipedia. You should become more responsible editor. Aggression on Wikipedia is not useful. Otherwise there is no big issue with you. You will become an admin one day.--Human3015^{Let It Go}  15:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think Qed237 is good outside of WP:FOOTY articles, but I too have concerns on the FOOTY side – I myself was reverted by Qed237 at a FOOTY article I came across recently reviewing, and was reverted without an Edit summary, and when I looked at the revert it wasn't even a "clean" revert of what I had reviewed but involved adding/subtracting other material as well. I assume this is the "Twinkle abuse" to which Human3015 is referring. At this point, I think I'd like to see several months of more responsible editing (and less aggressive editing at FOOTY articles) and more responsible use of Twinkle before seeing Qed237 run for RfA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human3015 and IJBall: Thank you for your responses. While I dont mean to be aggressive, and mostly I dont feel that I am, I understand now that I may seem aggressive and I will try and work on that. The thing with editing football related articles is that they are often subject to vandalism, which leads to a high count of reverts and I have seen more editors than me being frustrated over this. But, I will definately work on it. If you want to elaborate more how I am being you are very welcome to my talkpage to discussion. Also the reason for reverting IJBall is both that it was in the middle of a matchweek and the source had not properly updated, as well as the whole table had not been updated. We can not update just one player and timestamp, and let others believe all has been updated. However, I take responsibility for not informing about the reason for why I restored an earlier version of the article (not a "clean revert" of IJBall), I should have done that. Qed237 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have to share Number57's concerns here. Three times you've shown up on my radar in a big way, by being involved in a dispute that had degenerated to the point where one of the other editors involved had resorted to personal attacks. Now, I'm not going to fault you for the bad behaviour of others, but I do think a fair amount of nastiness could have been prevented if you had properly explained yourself. The other big concern I have has to do with the assumption of good faith. On a number of occasions I've seen you fail to empathise with editors who don't share your quality over quantity approach to editing. In particular in our discussion of the suitability of short articles a few months ago, you ascribed some rather dubious motives to another editor that almost certainly didn't exist. If we're going to give you access to the block button, you need to be able to see where another editor is coming from. You're certainly on the right path for adminship, but I don't think you're there yet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I would not block anyone if I were involved with that editor (conflict of interest), and the ability to block other editors is not the only reason (or at least not mine) to become an admin. Especially as a new admin I would be vary careful. Anyway, your thoughts are highly appreciated and the purpose of this poll is to see what I need to improve so thank you for the information. Qed237 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I hate to pile on, but this is exactly the sort of thing most of the concerns here are about. A simple explanation after your first set of reverts would probably have gone a long way to making it a less heated discussion. Certainly it would have let you set the tone of the discussion much more, and it would have primarily been about content rather than behaviour and disruption. Your final comment in that thread is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say that I have concerns about WP:AGF issues and probably what Human3015 means when they talk about aggressive editing. Rhetorically asking what another editor wants is generally a bad idea. I mean maybe the other user wants recognition as you suggest; probably they just think their way of presenting the information is clearer and suggesting otherwise doesn't really do you favours. Administrative actions are often controversial. You'd have to explain them, usually without being asked, and you'll need be able to do so calmly in the face incivility. For the moment anyway, I don't trust you to do that properly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that QED started that dispute by reverting non-vandalism using Twinkle without an edit summary. Number 57 09:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Any more comments? I appreciate all both positive and negative, so I can see what I do good and what I need to work on. Qed237 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Giso6150

Giso6150 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA) Thinking about pursuing this for the first time later this year. giso6150 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everymorning

Everymorning (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · previous RfAs) I have run for adminship twice before: once under my current username and once under my old one (Jinkinson). Both times were unsuccessful. I have been editing here for just over 3 years, and have created hundreds of articles, a few dozen DYKs, and 2 GAs (though these are both a bit old). Everymorning (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

  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)

In veritas

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

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

Jogi don

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Krj373

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Krj373 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)
• 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dodger67

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dodger67 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · previous RfAs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Johnsmith2116

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 2/10 Per MelanieN and Chris troutman. That block log is going to be the main red flag for voters.It 's over 2 years old but it is on issues that are hard to live down. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Sadly, because he is a productive editor, Johnsmith2116 was just blocked for disruptive after being warned for disruptive editing. This poll should therefore be closed as a clear WP:NOTNOW....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10: Let me put it this way. After you made this edit [1] in a recent AfD stating your intention to defy consensus and just go ahead and put the article back up if people dared to delete it, and you carried out your threat (for which you were just blocked)? It's not even so much that you'd likely fail an RfA. It's that even though it's been a few years since I regularly voted on RfAs, I'd make a point to Oppose yours. We don't need admins carrying "The rules don't apply to me" POVs. Ravenswing 20:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amakuru

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

  +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)

• 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)

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)

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. ϢereSpielChequers 15:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: actually, it's a good point, that the "page mover" wouldn't be nearly as clean as unbundling as it might appear. Being able to move one page over the top of another that has a nontrivial edit history would in effect be giving admin-lites the ability to delete pages. And deletions are evidently one of the key areas that people look for full admin competence on. I have no idea whether admins have been particularly averse to unbundlings. Probably not, most aren't obsessed with consolidating their power or any of that stuff in my experience, just what is best for the 'pedia!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

(Tangent) The bigger issue with "Page Mover" right now is that there is not a specific userright yet for "Move over redirect". I'm pretty sure that userright needs to be created before the discussion about unbundling can even happen. However, once that happens, I think if the "qualifications" for "Page Mover" is set high enough (e.g. 10,000 edits or something), the potential issues with "backdoor deletion" will be mostly mollified. (And even doing a "backdoor deletion" would probably have to involve some seriously shady stuff, like tagging a regular mainspace article with 'redirect' templates or something, which I think on their own would be enough to justify removing the "Page Mover" right from someone...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Go for it. I was actually planning on suggesting this to you over the next few days so it was nice surprise to stumble across 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)

  @Jenks24: thank you for your kind words. I'm a bit torn now between trying to spend some months getting more familiarity and participation in AfD, or just going through the wringer at RfA now and seeing what happens!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: If you ever plan on closing AfDs as an admin then I would definitely suggest waiting a few months and gaining experience in that area. But if you're just going through the motions a bit in order to bump up your RfA chances then I think it's largely unnecessary (I say this having done several things such as new page patrol in the months before my RfA which I didn't particularly enjoy). Never hurts to get more experience outside your areas of interest of course, but as long as you know where to look things up if anyone ever has a question for you then it shouldn't be a problem. If you were to go for RfA in the near future you would need a strong nomination that shows, while you don't have a tonne of AfD participation, you do have extensive participation in an admin area that is perpetually backlogged (RM) and you have no interest adminning areas where you have no experience. Also wouldn't hurt to mention a few other areas where you do have experience, e.g. I notice you have quite a few contributions to WP:ERRORS, which is another place that could always use more admin eyes. Barring something completely unforeseen I think you'd pass slightly more comfortably than Wbm who had to contend with the "no GA/FA crowd", which you obviously wouldn't. Just my two cents though. Jenks24 (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  OK well let's go for it then, Wbm1058 and Jenks24, if you feel I have a good enough shot now. The worst that can happen is I don't make it this time but get some useful ideas for where to improve! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oshwah

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 6/10: Probably a reasonable chance of passing, but I'd say to wait until March to avoid appearing to be returning to RfA too soon. Although I don't personally find it crucial, just creating 10 or 15 articles in total, as opposed to less than 10, can be the difference between passing and failing an RfA. Look at subpage of Wikipedia:Requested articles if you're stuck. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 I would likely support you at RFA. I've seen you do some good work at AIV though sometimes I have had to decline your reports due to process i.e. not enough warnings, no vandalism since last edit and so forth. I would like to see a bit more accuracy there but otherwise there are certainly many reports that are correctly identified and receive action. Mkdw^talk 06:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Write articles--real articles, with real references from books and articles. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• 6/10 - this would increase significantly in a)4 months and/or b)7 more created articles with good sources and/or c)showing your addition of sourced content has improved the assessment of several established articles. Great policy knowledge and not a better vandal fighter to be found. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• 7/10 — I haven't actually researched you, beyond looking at the pie chart at X!'s tools, but I've seen you all over the site being useful and displaying good judgment. If it wasn't for your tiny almost non-existent use of article talkpages, I'd have said 9/10, but that is an oddity to me. You edit articles, but you don't discuss them..? How come? Bishonen | talk 19:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC).
• @Oshwah: I'm late to this party, but I think you should consider running this summer (better to get well past 6 months from your first run). If you can get 2 or 3 strong (co-)nominations, I think you can make it. Good luck! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That's my plan! Thanks, IJBall, for your honest input :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

thespaceface

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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

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

• 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)
• 0/10 - For some unknown reason the count tool is saying you don't exist - I amended the name above to a capital T[2] 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)
• 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)
• 0/10 - far too few contibutions. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Human3015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 2/10 - Again, Valenciano has beaten me to it while I was doing some checking. While the community can be forgiving, a persistent failure to respect our edit warring policy is going to take some time to forget - maybe two years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - basically what Valenciano said. Also, I remember reviewing a DYK nomination of yours (Tourism in Iraq) that was full of spelling errors and I see some more articles from you with spelling problems. While (IMO) not as important as the 3RR issues that may generate further opposition in a RfA.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 as per Valenciano & Kudpung - The blocks alone will sink the RFA (We all edit war but you've been blocked 5 times in the space of one year alone!) and the English isn't great either, I mean this in the nicest way possible but maybe lay off the edit warns and perhaps improve your English and try in 2017 .–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Don't try to explain blocks, try to put them behind you by not edit warring. If you run after 12 months of block free activity then the community is much more likely to believe that your edit warring days are behind you. ϢereSpielChequers 04:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• While I might be willing to support you after a year of no blocks and demonstration of a clear understanding of policies and procedures, I feel in the current climate of RFA, that you would need about 2 years to overcome that many successive blocks. Mkdw^talk 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 with your block log, really don't think you have a chance in 2016. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 8/10 - Seen you around a lot and always had a positive impression. Some very healthy content creation, including article creation. You might explain why some of your articles were deleted, and what you learned from that. Very healthy looking AfD participation. I like that while the "correct" <tongue firmly in cheek> !votes are about 85%, the !votes against consensus are a nice mix of "delete" and "keep" with a slight tilt towards keep. 2 year old block for edit warring will not likely be a problem, you will want to mention that early on in an RfA with an explanation, though. 20k+ edits with over 50% to article space will gain supporters. Talk page show plenty of collaboration and ability to explain policy and personal actions to new and, um, difficult editors. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • 78.26, many thanks. To address the question of deleted articles; by my recollection, I have had three articles deleted. The first was my very first creation (and first logged-in edit), when I had absolutely no idea what I was doing; I created an article about a school a friend told me about, with no regards to WP:V, GNG, or even appropriate formatting. The second deletion is not really a deletion of an article; it was an admin cleaning up a messed-up attempt to archive a talk page. The third was a deleted redirect; I had discovered that a genus of snake had been renamed a few years back, and made redirects from old species names to new names; except in my enthusiasm I created a redirect to a redlink, which was quite appropriately deleted. I have since created the target article, and recreated the redirect. Lesson? I should be more circumspect. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I think that explanation is more than sufficient, but 3 deleted out of 45 created probably deserves at least a mention. There's nothing there to worry about, I most certainly have made mistakes when creating articles. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• 8/10: Very good content creation, which demonstrates to voters that you are mindful of the purpose and principles of Wikipedia; and solid maintenance contributions. However, you have also have been involved in a few edit wars, the most recent being February 2015, which may diminish your chances a little. Esquivalience ^t 00:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Esquivalience. It did indeed take a long time for me to stop being trigger-happy with the revert button, and I am aware that this might be a barrier for some voters. My record perhaps looks worse than it is because I have had a lot of interaction with disruptive editors and abusive sockpuppets (particularly the OccultZone sockfarm); but this was not the case in the instance you found. For that, I offer no excuse; mistake, pure and simple. Perhaps I should consider plugging along for 6 months more or so, to let the effect of that fade a little. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Chesnaught555 (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've been here a while, and I was thinking about nominating myself (or asking for a nomination) in October or November. I'd appreciate some constructive feedback; what am I doing that is good now, and what can I do to improve between now and then? Thanks in advance. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• You've raised the ire of Floquenbeam. This is not a good thing. Many RfA voters have a long memory for ANI drama. If you want advice, I'd say to stay out of ANI and don't cause any drama for a year. Also, most of your edits seem to be automated, which can cause opposition from people who want to see evidence of significant content creation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• There are three things I remember most recently: one, a poorly judged proposal on ANI to block Maranofan, two, a very public warning to you and others not to create drama, and three, commenting on policy when you do not understand it. I do not see any real prospect of you being given the tools any time soon. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KSFT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

I'm considering doing an RFA sometime in maybe the next year or so. It would be nice to be able to block vandals instead of reporting them and reverting over and over. Going through backlogs doesn't seem as boring to me as everyone claims it is, based on my experience patrolling new pages and recent changes, reviewing submissions for AFC, etc. I don't expect to be able to pass an RFA now, but I would like to get an idea of how long I should wait and how much more experience I should get. I do almost no content creation, so I expect to get several opposes for that no matter when I make the request, but I'm hoping that with the new discussions about requirements, including RFA2015 and the current discussions at WT:RFA, there will eventually be enough !voters who will support someone getting maintenance tools based mostly on their experience with and future plans to do maintenance. KSFT^C 20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi KSFT. I may not be the best one to say, as I am not an admin yet (I'm also on this page, like you, above), but at first glance it looks way too early for you to do this. Your have made only 240 edits to articles if you don't count automated edits. You have created only one article. You haven't done enough at AfD. You have only been around since last Summer; not even a year yet. But you have never been blocked, so keep that up. I would suggest volunteering to work at one of the Wikipedia help desks for awhile. Take a look at User:Kudpung/RfA criteria. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bigpoliticsfan

Bigpoliticsfan (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 would like to see if I would be able to pass a RfA. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like you've made a good start, but you don't yet have the experience necessary to pass RfA. Most successful candidates at RfA have at least 8000 edits, and, with less than 1500 edits, you'll face a lot of opposition. My advice is to get involved in new page patrol, recent changes patrol, articles for deletion, and the various content noticeboards, such as BLPN, RSN, etc. Also, creating a few well-sourced articles would demonstrate understanding of our core content policies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• 5/10. Your monthly edit count is not going to convince a lot if users that you really need admin tools. Many admins use their sysop tools more often in a day than you make total edits in a month. Although every admin action is a plus, most voters expect admin candidates to be already active editors because we want and need active admins - any less than that and they consider the candidate may simply be hat collecting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10 - Much of RFA would probably oppose you on sight due to your lack of edit count and activity. Try doing some more work at AFD, CSD, AIV etc, and you'll be well on your way to adminship in a year or so. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• 2/10 - With only 2 !votes total at AfD, it's likely that you'll need more activity in that area (and in general) before you can pass RfA. APerson (talk!) 12:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 - You've not done any admin work (IE AFD,RFD, CSD, AIV etc etc) ... plus you've not done much editing either so personally I think the RFA would sink. –Davey2010^Talk 15:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Amortias

Amortias (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)

Am looking for a wide ranging opinion of my chances. Am aware my article creation would be a big stumbling block as may my AFD stats but any feedback would be appreaciated. I have discussed some of the issues with other editors so am aware what I may need to work on/avoid. Amortias (T)(C) 14:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Most (over %90) of your AFD !votes are delete. That in itself is understandable if you are for example a new page patroller or specifically looking for non-notable articles, but could be a stumbling block for you at RFC. Your strike rate is reasonable and I see some of the "failed ones" are procedural nominations or not unreasonable requests so this is not at all fatal. I would mention this early and prominently (or get your nominator to) as part of your nomination statement. Also mention the accidental block just in case. Didn't find much evidence of content creation so that will make things difficult (I only had a quick peruse of your contributions so may have missed some). AIRcorn (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• 7/10: Good maintenance contributions and demonstrated experience, but your lack of content expansion and low AfD "accuracy" may garner some opposition. Because of your role as an ArbCom clerk, you will attract more troll and sock votes, and those are only sometimes discounted completely. Esquivalience ^t 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• 8/10: I haven't done a great deal of research and I would be curious to know how many of the mainspace edits are automated or semi-automated bearing in mind that many operations can actually clock up not one, but several edits to the count and also create a lot of talk pages. There might be some vindictiveness about your being an Arbcom clerk but clerks themselves don't (or shouldn't)have any influence over the actual Arbcom proceedings per se. There is a raft of opposers at RfA who are not actually opposing the candidates but who are opposed to any form of (hierarchical) control over editors. They are hard to dissuade but one of two of them do clearly appear have a identifiable history of such behaviour. It's a chance you would have to take. I don't personally see it as much of a problem and your experience as an Arbcom clerk would probably be regarded by most others in a favourable light.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• 7/10. If you create a few articles, this will probably go up. I would look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz and analyze that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Now, if he looks over that RfA, he'll get scared off from ever applying for adminship. It's a matter of your editing history, your experience and timing. Your chances this month might be very different than six months from now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Liz - my agreement (mostly with myself) is that I would not self-nominate but would accept a nomination if it came regardless of when this happened. If nothing else that should prevent me being scared off as I know that I have the trust of at least one user if they have nominated me and thats a agood a starting point as any. Amortias (T)(C) 13:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's troubling to read that there might be some negative feeling towards arbitration clerks as we are often asked to take unpopular but necessary actions. You are doing a great job right now though with a difficult case and that's to your credit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• 4/10: This is my estimate of your chances at RfA as of now. I think you would get a lot of opposes over your AfD record. In particular, you have nominated a number of articles closed as keep or speedy keep. I think you need to take some time an demonstrate a better record at AfD. Content production will be another issue that draws a number of oppose votes. That is not necessarily a deal breaker, but I think lack of content creation and less than ideal AfD record will draw about 40% opposes. One thing you might consider is scanning through articles nominated for AfD to see if there are any that can be saved with a little sourcing research. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

APerson

APerson (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) Just wondering. Since my last RfA, I've done a bit of gadget work and some more content creation. APerson (talk!) 12:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• You definitely have my vote. But I'll try to look this over in the next few days to see if I can come up with a more objective analysis... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• 4/10 I opposed you at your last RfA. You've neither indicated what corrective action you've taken from that RfA's opposition nor have you made a case why you need the tools. You seem to be doing a lot of coding-type work but I can't see the community giving you a mop just so you can edit protected pages. You've created only one more article since your last RfA and it's just start class. You're a good editor and I think you should stick to that. Becoming an admin is really about checking every block on our collective checklist and you've not done that. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'd support you if you ran. From your contributions, it seems like you have a strong track record of positive interactions with others and have some good potential uses for the sysop bit. You have the necessary competencies to use the sysop tools, and your willingness to learn from past mistakes and general non-confrontational attitude would make you a fine admin. Of course, my RfA standards aren't exactly the norm, and I'm not sure how you stand up against the "know everything, be active everywhere, and have personally written half the encyclopedia" standards. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10: You still need some more content creation (one or two B-class articles will prevent 70% of the content-related opposes), and you still need to demonstrably and adequately address the concerns brought up at the last RfA. The Thizzlehatter (if I spelled it correctly) thing will only be forgotten by time. Esquivalience ^t 23:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Diako1971

Diako1971 (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)

Hi. I want to assess my chances for administership. I'm an eliminator in the Persian Wikipedia and I am active in the Persian, German, English and French Wikipedia. My global edition numbers are more than 22000. I've created 127 articles in English Wikipedia.

• 3/10 - the low monthly edit count and lack of work in maintenance areas is going to deter most voters from supporting. At this rate you may be ready in another 3 - 4 years, but only if you broaden your editing areas. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Low/10 - You would be unlikely to pass due to your low level of activity. --Izno (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• You have certainly created many articles and that is appreciated, but two of these were deleted only last September - one for advertising, the other for non-notability - so there would be questions about that. Your most recent creation, Centre Dürrenmatt Neuchâtel, currently lacks any inline citations. In addition I'd recommend you to archive your talk page. Oh, and the full word would be "administratorship", but mostly we say "adminship": Noyster (talk), 12:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 - It's great you've created tons of articles however you've not done any admin work (IE AFD,RFD, CSD, AIV etc etc) so in a round about way you don't need the tools, Plus I'm getting the feeling this is more of a hat-collecting thing than anything. –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• 2/10 - If you want to be an admin you're going to need to be far more active in admin areas. What RFA !voters look for is both content work and maintenance work. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 01:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10: You have created many articles, which is great, but you need more maintenance contributions. If you intend to write articles and only write articles, adminship can actually lead to more edit warring and trolling, distracting your efforts. If you wish to work in maintenance areas, try to gain a good track record of contributions in such areas before requesting adminship. Esquivalience ^t 00:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom

Prhartcom (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'm not yet ready to apply at RfA, but I'm nearly ready. First, I wish to participate in about 80 more AfDs, about 60 more NPPs, create one more article, and possibly send another article or two to GA and FA. Other than those points, I believe I'm ready, as I have the temperament, knowledge, and ability to do the job. Thanks for your comments, I'm really curious to hear what you have to say! See User:Prhartcom/Adminship. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• 9.5/10 - people have passed at RfA who were a lot less 'ready' than you are. You've been around a long time, have a more than adequate edit count, excellent content contribs, and from what I can see, a calm demeanour. Now is the time for some introspection and to check f you have made any enemies. Check out user:Kudpung/RfA criteria (bearing in mind that the criteria are very flexible), read WP:RFAADVICE, and when you think you're ready I'll do an in-depth review and if I don't find any skeletons in your cupboard I would be happy to nominate you - if you want, that is. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What an honor to hear from you of all administrators, Kudpung, as you are one of the model admins I strive to emulate. I have indeed read the pages you link to above, in fact, please see the page I linked to above. They would crucify me at the RfA without those couple of things I mention I still need, but I am very encouraged. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Prhartcom, but I usually do not read such pages first as they might tend to colour my perception before I have drawn my own conclusions. Get that page deleted as soon as it has served its purpose otherwise some people may even think you are trying too hard to get the mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you, I did not realize that; I had even imagined showing it at my RfA. Yes, I see that now, they probably would think I was hat collecting. I'm just using it to stay focused and organized, and your criteria helped considerably. I will request to delete it soon. Many thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

In some ways you are damned if you do and damned if you don't by either trying too hard or not trying hard enough. Your user page does give the impression that you see adminship as a goal, kinda like leveling up in a game, and that will turn some people off or at least make them suspicious as to your intentions. I would suggest db-selfing that sooner rather than later, although now that attention has been brought to it, it might still play a part in you nomination. Personally I wouldn't get too focused on meeting somewhat arbitrary numbers in certain areas. I would take 10 well reasoned comments at AFD over 50 poorly constructed keep or delete !votes. However many like to see a set of "minimum achievements" so it doesn't hurt to have the numbers. AIRcorn (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Aircorn, yes, I will U1 it soon when I have finished using it to complete my own requirements. I'm not at all worried about it. Thanks so much for your statements about what is important; I will keep this in mind. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• You look like a good candidate to me. What do you plan to use the mop for?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Amakuru, generally, I plan to use the mop to continue helping people and the encyclopedia. More specifically, I plan to spend a portion of my daily Wikipedia time doing tasks I don't have the authority to do now, such as the Category:Administrative backlog and in areas where I am needed the most (please offer suggestions) such as CSD, but also unusual ones such as CAT:RD1 or Category:All Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons. I will work my way through each type of backlog, gaining experience with each one. Currently, in addition to content creation, I do non-administrative work in an administrative capacity: I have been answering questions at the GA Help Desk (WP:GAHELP and WT:GAN) for over a year and I have been resolving disputes on various talk pages for at least that amount of time. Prhartcom (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• 9/10: Good content contributions (always a huge plus), solid contributions overall, and obviously competent and able to admin. You have more than enough articles to not be opposed because of lack of content expansion, and your record in content might even buy you some support, but some more AfD !voting (very straightforward) and new page patrolling will improve your chances. Esquivalience ^t 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Esquivalience; it's good to meet you after years of seeing you around. Thank-you for confirming exactly what I had stated I still need. Yes, those two are being worked on now and will be ready in a few months. At an RfA I saw someone express concern that the nominee did all their AfD work in the months prior to their nomination. Yes, I will say, that is absolutely true. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have some concerns with how you'd use the tools, given your attitude towards adminship. You'll be applying a bundle of rights which can't be given to every editor for security / convenience purposes, not some pinnacle of your wiki career. I find that people who consider it to be a big deal tend to start acting like they're a big deal when they become an admin, and that is something which I personally want to avoid voting for. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, I appreciate hearing my first negative feedback, from not only an administrator but a steward no less, as I want to be prepared for the negative comments of an eventual RfA. I'm not sure how I gave the impression that I consider myself or this process to be a big deal or that I consider adminship to be the pinnacle of my wiki career. I don't actually feel that way. I simply want to continue helping the encyclopedia and the editors who work on it, as I have been doing, but with an added ability to help in ways that I don't have the authority to help now. Perhaps you could comment on that and perhaps provide some advice for how you would rather see me behave? Thanks again for your thoughts. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a local admin or even an established member of the community here, so don't put too much weight on what I say - my vote is certainly not going to swing your RfA. I would personally give very little weight to what people say based on their user rights, because again, those are toolkits rather than signs of social status. Adminship basically comes with some extra tasks to do, most of which are pretty boring. You're volunteering for that role, not an extension of your authority.

The only suggestion I would have is to really reflect on the role of an admin. Not as some kind of superuser, but as a janitor who ends up spending excessive periods of time doing menial labour. And maybe have the adminship userpage deleted, and don't judge a comment based on who makes it. If you do end up running, then I'll most likely support - adminship is no big deal and I rarely oppose candidates for reasons other than incivility. Regardless of these concerns, you do seem to have a good grasp on the local policies and procedures, and would probably be able to press the delete and block buttons in the right cases. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I already respect all editors and try not to respect some editors less than others, even IPs. Your advice reminds me I should not respect some editors more than others, even admins or Jimbo or anyone; I can see that is good advice; thank-you. I already know that an admin is a lot of cleanup work, but that is fine; I am a detail-oriented person, a temperament that should help a lot, and I am also fairly calm most of the time, which I think will also help. I plan to balance admin work with content work, so I doubt I will actually become bored; I am optimistic it will be fulfilling. Yes, everyone is urging me to delete that page and I will, but not yet, as I am still using it to keep myself organized; as I said, I am not at all worried about it. Thanks so much for your support! Best, Prhartcom (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• 9/10 - Hi Prhartcom (hope I spelled that right). You've definitely got my vote. Solid content work and some GAs and FAs is always a good thing. Some more work on the maintenance side couldn't hurt, but I think that you'd still pass pretty easily. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 02:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Mz7

Mz7 (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 guess I'll offer my name here too. A good portion of my work on Wikipedia already encompasses the sort of mundane, janitorial work that administrators do, and I think I can help on that front. I've had experience working with the deletion process and counter-vandalism since I became active here in late 2011. I work with content creators at AfC, helping to improve the drafts with them if I see potential. Beyond that, I enjoy creating articles about books I've read, though I think the amount of content I've created is definitely on the lower end of the spectrum for RfA. Mz7 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• 6/10 - You have a clean block log. Edit count and longevity are appropriate. Almost half of your edits are semi-automated (Huggle and Twinkle, mostly) so that may cause some question about your edit count being sufficient. You've created several articles though nothing impressive. You have one successful GA. Your AfD stats show you are overwhelmingly with the end result (assuming that's a good thing) although your participation there isn't really high. I don't see any glaring problems; I'm counting on your enemies to provide that ammo at RfA. At this point I think you could pass but I'd definitely work on more content creation. Be sure to have good answers to the three boilerplate questions and find a good nominator. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I think this is a fair assessment. I figured as much about content creation, reading past RfAs and advice pages—couldn't hurt to spend more time doing that. Mz7 (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Adotchar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Adotchar (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)

• 0/10 Unfortunately, not with an almost WP:SPA for Ira Tiffen account only a month old. However, you could take this opportunity to explain this edit. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 With less than a hundred edits, you shouldn't even consider adminship. I'm glad you came here to get your "no" rather than start an RfA as some editors have. Come back in three years. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.