Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 12 December 2015

• WP:ORCP
• WP:RFACP

Please read Advice for RfA candidates before you add your name to this list, otherwise you might be wasting your own and everyone else's time. Self-evaluation is very important.

Archive index

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

This is an optional polling page available to potential RfA candidates. It can be used to help see what the community thinks of your chance of success. Note that actual RfA results may differ greatly and that opinions given here may be based on only a cursory assessement.

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

Instructions

Potential candidates

If you wish, add your name below, then allow the community to provide feedback. Please read Misplaced Pages:Not now before adding your name to this list.

Responders

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

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

Sample entry

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

SBaker43

SBaker43 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA)

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

Oiyarbepsy

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

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

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

Sparklism

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

I'll play along too :) — sparklism 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Epicgenius

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

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

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

LukeSurl

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

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

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

ONUnicorn

ONUnicorn (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs) Why not? I'm not planning on running for RFA any time soon, but the idea has occasionally crossed my mind, and this looks like an interesting experiment to see what people think. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Shoy

Shoy (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA) Out of curiosity. shoy (reactions) 18:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Grapple X

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

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

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

Ansh666

Ansh666 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs)

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

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

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

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

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

Cloudbound

Cloudbound (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA) I used to go under the name of Wikiwoohoo until February 2010, and put myself forward for adminship five times between 2005 and 2010. I know that five requests will ring alarm bells for some of you, but the first two were far too early, and the third had more support votes but could not reach the general consensus level.

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

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

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo2
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 3
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 4
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 5

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

Wildthing61476

Wildthing61476 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs)

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

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

Samtar

Samtar (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs) Just thought I'd ask, seeing as I'm one of very few non-admin ArbCom candidates. Your advice and brutally honest thoughts are really appreciated samtar 14:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• We've had a candidate pass this year with less than 7,500 edits, and while some sort of reliably sourced content creation is expected, there are only one or two editors who are so inclusionist as to expect a candidate to have started some articles from scratch; Almost all voters are as happy with candidates who improve some of our existing 5 million articles that others started as with candidates who sometimes start new ones. ϢereSpielChequers 04:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

BethNaught

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

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

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

• 8/10 thought you were an admin already. Lankiveil 07:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
• 10/10 91% of nearly 150 AfDs called correctly and the majority of edits are in mainspace, you are getting unsolicited messages asking you to run for RfA. Please take the hint ;-) The arbcom question is a fair one in my view, as I think it's one of the biggest unsolved problems we face. Ritchie333 11:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• 10/10 - Another editor who I assumed was already an admin!, No doubt about it Beth you'd be a great admin!. –Davey2010 19:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

MrWooHoo

MrWooHoo (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · no prior RfA) I don't ever plan on EVER getting the mop, and even then I wouldn't run for a couple years because of my lapses of editing. Since there really aren't any other venues where I can ask for advice, what should I improve on in order to ever even become an RFA candidate? MrWooHoo (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Azealia911

Azealia911 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)

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

9/10: 20 articles created (6 deleted), 10k+ edits (1000+ BLP mainspace, 3794 non-automated), no blocks. I think if you RfA'd in 9 months (same level of contributions) with some more dispute resolution thrown in, you'd be golden. (adding to my new list of RfA Hopefuls) samtar 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Lakun.patra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clpo13

Clpo13 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · previous RfAs)

I'll throw my hat into the ring. I've considered doing an RfA recently but I want to gauge reactions here first rather than diving headlong into the process. clpo13_(talk) 21:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Vin09

Vin09 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs)

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

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

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

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

Korruski

Korruski (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA) More out of interest than any serious interest in running - I realise that my tendency to edit in fits and starts and go quiet for long periods probably rules me out of actually being successful at RFA.

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

Irondome

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 9/10, I do not see any major issues. May be look for a good nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10, I am familiar with your work and it is probably time now for you to consider making a RfA. You have everything it takes to pass but the unpredictability of the voters does not make it 100% certain. Note Valenciano's comments above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - I see a good mix of mainspace to project space in your summary, but as Valenciano says, you don't have a track record of working with deletion. Others may disagree, but I (and I think Kudpung) both think deletion is the most frequent activity administrators are called to perform, so a working understanding of the policies is essential. I can see you calming down conversations on your talk page in an amicable manner, but things like biting an IP's head off here may cause people to hesitate. As Kudpung says, things can be unpredictable. I would definitely get some experience in working in one of the "admin" areas, as once you can easily show you have a requirement for the tools, people will be much more amenable to giving them to you. Ritchie333 11:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

GamerPro64

GamerPro64 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · previous RfAs)

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

• ∞/10: I still think you're 1st rfa was inappropriately closed, and I still believe you will make one hell of admin on Misplaced Pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10: You meet the general consensus my criteria for passing RfA, and from your statistics and behavior I think that of many other !voters -- samtar 18:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 - You need to understand the difference between a user page and a user talk page and configure them appropriately. Without doing any more intensive research again I think you have a fair chance, and I would most likely support when the time comes. I made a farly positive neutral vote which you may wish read again.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 – I suspect you're familiar with the issues here, as you've encountered them in RfA before. The first issue is the so-called "video game area specialist" issue – now, this won't necessarily be killer (Cyphoidbomb was recently promoted and he's basically a "television area specialist" on the project...), but some voters will complain about it. The bigger stumbling block, potentially, is the relative lack of article creation (only 5). And the third issue is the so-called "distribution of edits" issue – some will definitely object to only 16% Mainspace edits (and I'm not sure there's much you can do in the short-term to convince those RfA voters...) I think, in your case, you're going to want to make a really strong case in Question #1 as to why you need the tools – if you can convince RfA voters that you really do need the tools to get done what you need to do to improve the project, then I think you can pass. I also think it would help to get a really strong nomination from a high-profile trusted Admin this time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Your previous RFA wasn't that long ago. sst✈ 07:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Having read through your previous RfAs, I think you have a great shot. APerson (talk!) 01:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26

78.26 (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) There have been several instances lately where it would benefit my own editing, and I believe would be useful to the community at large. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• 8.5/10 You look like a decent guy to me. :P Jianhui67 16:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, wow. I've seen you around a lot, and I thought you were an admin already. You need to do an RfA. KSFT 16:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9.5/10 - After going through your edits, there is just a little question that pops in my head: What has kept you from running? Yash! 17:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9.5/10 - You tick all the boxes, more than sufficient tenure, experience in maintenance areas, article creation, clean block log etc. The only issue that I could see putting people off would be your user name. Consider changing that prior to an RFA and you should walk it. Valenciano (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 - If you have read and understood the instructions at the top of this page, check this out and if you more or less check or the boxes, go here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with both pages, thank you for that resource! I manage to fail (or at least nearly so) #4 (mostly from giving warnings nearly every time I revert vandalism, and from adding WikiProjects to talk pages), and for some reason I fail #13, which is odd because I always use edit summaries, I think HotCat or perhaps the AfC Helper Script might not add one on occasion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• 9/10, superficially I do not see problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 – I'm not seeing much "wrong" here. The biggest issue may actually be your username (no, seriously – somebody's bound to complain that it's too "IP-like"...). I think you should go for it. And if you can get Kudpung or another Admin of that stature to nominate you, I think you'll pass. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone opposed me solely because of the font size of my signature. You don't know what rationale some editors use to decide how to vote in an RfA but I think you can expect questions about the username...but I say that just so that you expect it and aren't surprised. There is no need to change your username. Liz 00:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to those who have commented, and I do invite further feedback and scrutiny. I know the user name is a problem (I used to reference it in my signature, but it didn't seem to help anything.) I would most certainly not recommend it to anyone. I've had it long enough that I'm reluctant to change it, but if I choose to run I probably will. I don't have any experience at closing AfDs, although I like !voting in them. As an admin, I would continue to avoid the dramaboards whenever possible, it just isn't something that interests me. I think it would be only fair to mention that in an RfA. I also don't have interest or experience in SPIs, except for obvious quacking. If this information affects your opinion regarding my suitability as an admin I appreciate your frank assessment. Again, thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I would not change your username – my comment was just a warning that someone will object to it, not a suggestion that you should change it. As to AfD, closing discussions doesn't seem to be what RfA voters are generally looking for – they usually just want to see good judgement in AfD voting, and you seem to have that. And I wouldn't worry about lack of "drama board" experience – while I find them occasionally interesting (but boring far more often...), lack of participation there will actually be seen as a net "plus" among a lot voters... As I said, I think the biggest issue remaining on your end is lining up one or two high-quality nominators. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Same here 78.26. Unless you admit to microwaving kittens for breakfast between now and your RFA run, you can definitely count on my support (I've already watchlisted it) I think you'll pass regardless of username, but, unfortunately, yep, per IJBall, I can see opposes based on it. Valenciano (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit to microwaving breakfast for kittens... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• 9/10. To use the clichéd phrase, I thought you were an admin already, and a cursory inspection shows nothing concerning and much good. Also, don't feel pressured to change your username. RfA is an unpredictable place and if you jump through one hoop, another will likely appear. However, if you do run, I think your chances are high. BethNaught (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If I decide to officially take the plunge, and I'm about 80% there thanks to this feedback, I still think I should at least look at the cost/benefits of changing the user name. My view is that part of an admin's role is to make editing easier for others. To what extent might confusing my user ID with an IP address hurt the experience of others whom I interact with on an administrative basis? To what extent is it irrelevant? I know with certainty my edits have been taken for those of an unregistered user on occasion, although it happens less frequently, probably because of my tenure. So, would the user experience be improved for new users (and IP editors) if I were to change my user name? Ultimately, that is what is most important regarding the issue. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• 9/10 - There shouldn't be too many opposes based on your user name. At least, not enough to affect the result. sst✈ 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 - I've seen you around quite a bit and you've always come across as sensible and level-headed, so yes you should definitely give RfA a go. Ritchie333 11:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar

Jaguar (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 spent the past five years scrutinising guidelines and the community. Not sure if this will be a possibility within a few months but any feedback is welcome. JAGUAR  18:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• 4/10. The drama and disruption you caused over WP:ENGVAR is still too fresh in my memory (ANI, cleanup). Since it was 1.5 years ago, some people probably wouldn't care. But the thought of you doing something like that again, this time with admin tools, is enough to make me oppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I know. Though I haven't used the ENGVAR script disapprovingly since August 2014. In fact I've only ever used it a few times this year. JAGUAR  22:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• 4/10. The ENGVAR fiasco wasn't just a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it was a case of outright lying. I don't know the background to this tantrum a couple of months ago, but it also doesn't reflect positively, regardless of the history, if you're going to let WO/WR get under your skin like that. ‑ Iridescent 22:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• That's rather generous coming from you. JAGUAR  15:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• You're not helping your case by responding to criticism with a personal attack. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed. JAGUAR  20:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• 1/10. If you have designs on becoming an admin, start over. There's something decidedly odd about your editing history (70,000 edits last month?) which I can't quite put my finger on (the necessary tools are not working) and it doesn't look conducive to adminship. Otherwise keep up the good content work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10 - AfD participation a little weak, and as noted above (although I have no personal experience with it) the amount of on-wiki drama you've been involved in seems a bit high. APerson (talk!) 23:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• 2.5/10 - The main problem is with your AWB editing. Run maybe two years later. sst✈ 02:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)