Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Rubbish computer (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)

• No designs on running for a few months at the very least, but I'd just like to know what people think. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 19:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 3/10. Too much drama at ANI. Give it a year and maybe people will forget about that incident. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 1.5/10. I am always wary of admin hopefuls that make more than several thousand edits per year, as it may, may indicate hat collecting. At your current edit count, you would qualify for the first requirement of Master Editor II, which has a tenure requirement of seven years. You currently have more edits than the vast majority of admins, but I focus on what those edits are. Anyway, I am not seeing much experience in maintenance areas, and your work is being adversely affected by your focus on quantity. A large portion of your 51,000 edits are redirects and other gnoming tasks that don't demonstrate proficiency in Wikipedia. My suggestion: focus on quality, not quantity of edits. Esquivalience ^t 23:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 1/10 - How in gods name have you made 50,000 edits this year alone ? .... That's enough to make anyone oppose I think, That aside there's been no AFD/CSD work whatsoever so I don't think an RFA would go down very well (I've reverted the removal of this thread by the OP as I've noticed a pattern of constant adding and removing of this and it's rather disruptive! - Rubbish computer If you want this off of here then remove it but please don't add it back again .... It's clearly obvious you're not gonna get 10/10s here!). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

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

SSTflyer (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 probably won't pass RFA soon, given my account age and a few previous mistakes. If I obtain the tools, I plan to work mainly at closing deletion and move discussions (I already perform non-admin closures), and administrative tasks at DYK. sst✈^(discuss) 16:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• 5 2/10: Every discussion closer makes bad, even horrible closes one in a while, but this string of closes is concerning. Aside from that, I am also concerned because RfA participants looking at your contributions might see you as an editor desperately trying to acquire the golden fleece. Esquivalience ^t 00:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• 3/10 - A review of your talk page archives reveals a large number of comments regarding errors you make. Your edit count may look impressive on the surface but appears to be mainly (semi)automated edits. Your participation at RfA gives me pause - that is the one area that the community is trying hard to improve, so it's a bit ironic to find you here enquiring about becoming an admin. Do exercise great caution when getting involved in gender related areas, all such pages and projects and their talk pages are subject to special conditions.

I always question the motives of any user who joins Wikipedia with the primary motive of doing maintenance tasks (then getting a lot of them wrong) or wanting to be an admin so early in their Wiki career - we are here to build an encyclopedia. Most of your 50 'creations' are extremely short 1-line stubs and will not earn you the 'autopatroller' flag, and please remember that this is the English Wikipedia and readers are hardly likely to be entering Chinese page titles as search terms. Also, if you are translating or using content from the Chinese Wikipedia, you must make the required standard attribution. My advice, notwithstanding your DYK work, is to concentrate on adding substantial content to articles and/or creating new ones and come back to thoughts of RfA in a year or two. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• • I have never used or translated any content from the Chinese Wikipedia. All content I add is original content I wrote. sst✈^·discuss· 08:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• 2/10 - Suggesting that your account is recently created and allowing editors to review on that basis is problematic. Your alternate account goes back to 2011 and you have been continuing to use it as recently as October 13 2015. It should be revealed on your main user page per WP:ALTACCN. Failures of transparency like this can sink an RFA. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I have notified ArbCom about all my accounts. Is that insufficient? Anyway, I am not going to consider RfA for a while as there is no way I would pass. sst✈^·discuss· 08:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • It's fine that you have just added a statement on your user page. But it is beside the point. You stated above "...given my account age..." to suggest that you are new. That is deceptive. (You have been editing Wikipedia for almost seven years going back to at least 2009.) Your current alternate account is a "public user" account, it is still in use and your signature links to your main account. That is appropriate -- but then to claim it is secret due to privacy is false. These same types of problems were explained to you at the teahouse and on your talk page last June. You seemed to have ignored the advice in the discussion. The point is that a key consideration of RFA is trust -- and any perceived deception or lack of total transparency has sunk numerous RFAs in the past. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• 1/10 - We all screw up here but the recent closures (linked above) are enough to make anyone Oppose, I don't mean this in a nasty way but if you're screwing up simple things like closing an AFD under the correct outcome then giving you the mop would be chaos and as I said I think it's enough to sink your RFA I think, The prev account shouldn't really be an issue as you've disclosed the fact you had an account so I don't think it'd really be an issue. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah the previous account was still in use until October so that clearly would be an issue too, SSTflyer Considering I've found the account in 2 seconds flat wouldn't it make sense to just add it to your userpage anyway? ... People can easily find it so I don't get why the secret ? .... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

UY Scuti (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)

Hello there. I'm UY Scuti (aka. JAaron95). I've been here for sometime now, and I think it's time to see my chances of passing an RfA. While I'm not going to run an RfA in the near future, I'll take this poll as a feedback on me and improve upon it. Your constructive comments are welcome and will be duly noted. Thanks and regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 05:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• 7/10: Counter-vandal work looks good, content creation, check, but not enough deletion experience. CSD log with ten taggings shows failure to check the history on a few tags, AfD participation (33) fairly recent but decent and no late !votes skewing the results, and only 2 PRODs. Just a cursory look. Esquivalience ^t 14:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Does the non-automated counter only work for the username, and not the previous edits from a username change? Showing only 864 non-automated edits in the main namespace? -- samtar ^whisper 21:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Samtar: The tool is working good. I have 864 non-automated edits to mainspace. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 01:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• 7/10: Great contributions to a lot of admin areas, non-automated edit count is a little low but hey, another 6 months and I can easily see you fly through :) -- samtar ^whisper 11:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• I wouldn't worry about the lack of deletion work providing that isn't one of the areas that you intend to start using the mop in. Someone with your tenure and experience of both content creation and vandalism reversion should be able to pass RFA on the basis of using the mop to block vandals. Not every admin starts out in deletion or is needed there. ϢereSpielChequers 13:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I want to see where I can start improving on here. I've begun reviewing AfC drafts, I participate at AfD, and I've signed up as a Teahouse host and have begun helping Wikipedians who need it. That said, there's a lot more that an administrator does and I want to see where I can improve and/or increase my activity in. CatcherStorm ^talk 12:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• 1/10: One month of active editing is too soon no matter the edit count. Esquivalience ^t 05:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• 1/10: Sorry, but as I have said many times already (it amazes me that people will not read the advice pages or even the responses to other users on this very page): We are here to build an encyclopedia; it should never even enter the mind of a serious user so early in their Wiki career to want to be an admin. I would never vote for a user who has joined Wikipedia to become an admin, not now and not even later when they've done enough to meet voters' criteria.- -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: @Esquivalience: Yes, I've noted this. But above I asked "I want to see where I can start improving on here." CatcherStorm ^talk 08:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• 6/10 If that is the case, I think I will increase it by two i.e. 8/10 if you apply in late 2016 or early 2017, unless anything terrible happens meanwhile. :-p Jim Carter 13:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 for your industry, congeniality toward new users, and reliable judgment Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 4/10 – You should pass; unfortunately, with RfA, that doesn't mean you will pass. (Addendum: Missed the recent block for 3RR – that means you'll need to wait at least 6 months to have a shot...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• 7.5/10 Jianhui67 ^T★C 08:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10. Some voters may not like your fancy user pages. sst✈^discuss 14:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC) 4/10 per recent 3RR block. sst✈^discuss 07:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10. No doubt a future admin, but recent block and past activity at drama boards may bring extra opposition. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• 5.5/10. I'm rather concerned that you have 654 edits to ANI. Note also that some of our editors will even hit below the belt to brand someone as mysogininst, especially adminship and arbcom candidates, so be careful what you have on your user page.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10 - IMHO I think you'd make a good admin but atm I have to go with 4/10 due to the recent 3rr block (Although now it's getting on for 2 months ago I still believe people will oppose because of the 3rr block so IMHO at the moment I'd say it's best to wait a year or so where then hopefully the RFA would run alot more smoothly. –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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.[2][3] 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✈^(discuss) 02:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• 1/10 based on the ENGVAR mess, The fact you've made 70.000 edits last month alone and the personal attacks directly above, No doubt about it you've created good articles but with the 3 issues above I don't think an RFA would really stand a chance... –Davey2010^Talk 16:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• 7/10 Cloudbound can keep a cool head. Most valuable if you ask me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• I abstain from voting on RfA of users who have made 3 or more unsuccessful attempts. I learned my lesson when one whose 6th attempt passed only for them to be desysoped in a big way just over a year later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

TutterMouse (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) It's clear I'm a Gnome who's mostly good at cleaning up mostly so that'd be the sort of responsibilities I'd handle. The point of adminship for me is just an ability to help out in new areas but it's not the end of everything if I'm not cut out for such things. tutterMouse (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• 5/10 - nice gnoming statistics (14k+ automated edits!) but low non-automated edits (326). No created articles, but a really decent participation at AfD (with some nice stats to boot!). To meet RfA participant's expectations, I would recommend putting down the automated tools for six months, getting around 1000 non-automated edits and creating an article or two. As for being "cut out" for it, you show a great understanding of policy, and appear to be a very civil editor -- samtar ^whisper 12:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 – First off, I'm inclined to like your candidacy as your distribution of edits looks a fair bit like mine! Unfortunately, I'm not sure that RfA voters are going to view that as a "plus". I've also seen you around, and you're another one that I have to keep checking to see if you're an Admin already or not (that's a compliment...). And you do good work at WP:RFPP, IIRC, and I agree with Samtar's complimentary comments. The problems I see are already substantially covered by Samtar: zero created articles is guaranteed to engender some opposition; I'm guessing the vast majority of your mainspace edits are automated which will also cause problems; and, finally, relatively low edit counts over much of the past year will cause some RfA voters to question if you have enough "commitment" for Adminship. These things maybe shouldn't matter in an RfA, but I suspect they would in yours. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• 3.5/10: I would support you if you were to run for RfA but more than 30% of the voters would oppose based on your lack of content creation. However, this jumps to 8/10 after the creation of one good article (some require 1 FA or more). Esquivalience ^t 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10 - a disproportionately high number of (Semi-)automated edits. It is absolutely not necessary to have GA or FA but needs to have added sufficient chunks of sourced new content to be able to demonstrate a clear knowledge of page production. For more information, be absolutely sure to have read the pages linked above and this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector (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)

No designs on running, not even really sure I'd want to be an admin. But I do like statistics.

• 8/10 - over 1k non-automated edits, a fair few articles and a solid contribution history. Let down mainly by your AfD statistics, I think another 3-5 months of involvement the normal noticeboards + some better participation at AfD and you'd have a pretty clear chance of passing. How's that for having no designs? ;-) -- samtar ^whisper 19:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10. His AfD record isn't perfect, but he usually has good judgment. I would support. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, those are both interesting comments. Honestly I thought my AfD stats were alright and I would get hammered on content creation. I never really took a hard look at the stats, but the tool makes some incorrect assumptions to my detriment. For example, I've spent some time at AfD completing nominations on behalf of users who do it incorrectly (e.g. this one) and the tool then assumes I !vote delete, even if I explicitly state that I'm neutral or make a different !vote later. I suspect because of my gnoming that I'm more susceptible to this than some users. Also, I get that this poll thing is meant to be pretty informal, I just thought I'd point that out. If I were to actually run an RfA I would do a better analysis, this is mostly just for fun. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've always found your comments quite sane and helpful (at RfD, where I've seen you the most). You have the right attitude and I look forward to seeing you at RfA in the future. I don't have any problem with the AfD stats—people really need to stop making such a big deal of that. Definitely quite a few will balk at your edit count, but given your activity levels and the types of edits, you'll be in a good spot not too long from now if you keep this up. Your point about content creation is important, given the opinions expressed in RfA these days; a solid GA would help, but I think you can pass without one. No numbers here, sorry! — Earwig ^talk 02:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10 - I've certainly seen you around a lot and based on your various editing statstics I think you'd stand a reasonable chance of passing at RfA. However, I haven't looked at any of the the things that make up the gut-feeling part of my assessments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• 8/10: Overall very suitable, but I'd say to just create 5 more non-disambiguation articles to improve your chances. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ferret (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)

Good evening. I do not believe I am ready for an RfA yet, but I do have some interest in a future run. I have been steadily getting more active over the last year, after several years of lesser activity, with an effort to branch away from my home project of WP:VG by participating in Pending Change review and the SPERTable. A lot of my time is vandalism patrolling, though the scope is not as wide as I'd like yet. Looking for suggestions on particular things to work on. Thanks for your responses! -- ferret (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• 7/10 The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - with some respectable AfD stats and 2k+ non-automated edits, your main point of improvement is your lack of article creation -- samtar ^whisper 11:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding creation stats, would it be appropriate during an RfA to note cases of essentially starting an article, but not having credit as the original creator? My immediate example is that I "created" the current Fallout 4 article, but it already existed as a redirect at the time. Should I note "creations" that are not visible from a stats perspective? -- ferret (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll respond on your talk page to reduce clutter here -- samtar ^whisper 12:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• 9/10 - I've worked with this editor quote a over the years, and he has a great grasp on policy, is active in the WikiProject in discussing issues and creating consensus on handling things. He also works closely with me in conjunction with a few other editors in reporting vandalism and page-protection requests to me, and what he reports to me I agree with probably 99% of the time, and that other 1% are merely ones that come down to personal preference than him being wrong about things. This makes me believe that he'd be making the right choices she he have the tools. I personally don't have any requirements towards content creation/article creation at AFD, but it may be good to document that for some of the people that do. My only real doubt in things is really the savage nature that is RFA. I hope that someone doesn't dig up a time in 2009 where you told someone "shut up" or something trivial like that, and then all of a sudden there's a "civility" pile on or something. But that's really just "rolling the dice". (And that's just an example, I haven't witnessed anything in particular that would spark that sort of reaction...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. :) I've made some user page changes in response to some suggestions/ideas on my user talk about creation stats. I'm also looking into involvement in GAN reviews as an area to work in, and did my first review. -- ferret (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• 8.5/10 - A recommendation from admin Sergecross73 should not be underestimated and you would clearly have my support too, but take good note of all the caveats he explained on your talk page and be sure to read all the advice pages before finally taking the plnge. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I know this isn't supposed to be about me, but regardless, thank you for the kind words towards me, Kudpung. I'm glad to hear that you feel I'd have influence like that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

RingtailedFox (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 appreciate how other users think I'm admin material, I really do. While not quite as active as during my mid-2000s heyday, I still visit at least twice a day to monitor and clean up articles. If I were accepted as an administrator, I would continue what I have been doing, within the constraints of my occasionally-hectic schedule. Yes, I was blocked for a short while (back in... 2008, i beleive?)... It was over a rather heated argument with another user and their friend, but other admins repealed it before its expiry date after seeing that there were better ways of dealing with the whole situation. I don't believe that should cause any major concerns, as my focus on articles is mostly technical and grammar (with some facts-updating) these days, anyway. If i remember properly, I was nominated a few years back but people thought I wasn't ready just yet. I agreed with them, and since i was dealing with now-resolved health issues, I wouldn't be able to give Wikipedia the attention it deserved, if i were to be an admin. Thankfully, that's changed now, and I believe I could be a good, if inconspicuous asset to the admin group. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 07:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• 7/10 - Impressive statistics in article creation, non-automated edits and previous (edited after below reply) significant involvement in the appropriate boards. Would pass -- samtar ^whisper 07:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Edited per badly checked contributions -- samtar ^whisper 08:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• 5/10 - Good work on articles and you have more than sufficient tenure and experience. You mention a block which I didn't see in your record. Did you edit under another account name? We'd need to know that to properly evaluate you. Besides that, there are a few problems here. I'm not seeing the "significant involvement in the appropriate boards" that Samtar refers to. I looked through your edits for all of 2014 and 2015 and didn't find a single edit to RFPP, AIV, AFD, CSD or similar. Editors will look for experience in those areas and many will tend to play it safe (ie vote no) if a candidate can't demonstrate enough experience. If I'm struggling to see why you need the tools, other editors will as well. Your AFD history is sparse, only 3 edits in six years and outside the accuracy range that people will look for. I also see prod alerts and deleted articles among your record and talk page in the last 12 months. If you created unsourced or non-notable articles within the last year, that could be used as evidence of questionable judgement. Activity in general would be likely to trip you up. In the last 15 months, you've only exceeded 100 edits in two months, while in five of those months, you have less than 50 edits. That would likely provoke opposes. Sorry to play Devil's advocate, but I don't think you're anywhere near the certainty Samtar thinks. Valenciano (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Valenciano, they used to edit as User:Raccoon Fox (block log). I got there by clicking on one of their old signatures. Best, Yash! 15:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. That account was blocked more than 9 years ago as a compromised account (questions/concerns about that at RFA are likely.) Given its age, it doesn't alter what I said above. Valenciano (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • As I said, I'm flattered that i've even been nominated. I know I'm not as active as in the past, and if that's what will prevent me from becoming an admin, well... I'm fine with that. Not really seeking power or glory or anything like that, so I honestly can go either way about getting admin status. If I get it, wonderful. I could then offer support with back-end issues, like if MySQL hiccups and causes some error messages on the server. If I don't get it... that's also fine. I'll then continue to support Wikipedia with its articles and news stories. I remember what Uncle Ben told Peter Parker: "With great power, comes great responsibility!" RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• 4/10 - sorry to give such a low score of confidence in a pass, but Valenciano sums up quite accurately my own opinion. The RfA voters are a fickle crowd and non too objective, particularly (due to the lack of regulations) the trolls who are allowed to vote and comment there. You'd probably come out of an RfA looking like raw burger meat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'll still be able to contribute and edit, even though I don't meet admin criteria at this time, right? Am I allowed to politely decline this offer, since it looks relatively certain I'm still not ready? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 08:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There's only one person who can decide whether or not you want to go through RfA for 7 days, and that's you. This page here has no official status whatsoever and is intended purely to provide feedback to prospective adminship candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on what the week-long RfA requires me to do.  :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 15:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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✈^(discuss) 14:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, to be honest, it would be the same conclusion to the first one more or less, as your total contributions are only 15,000 (I never care about the numbers of this anyway) and your highest have only been 8,000 this year so people would definitely question and analyze this. As flamethrowing and intense as RfA can be, I would certainly give it time (time will never take away the RfA drama and stress though ). Keep to mind also that RfA is basically no big deal and only means making yourself vulnerable to troubles and targets from others (I would say the only benefits are the delete, move, protect and block tools, and simply take away all the drama parts ). SwisterTwister talk 09:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @SwisterTwister: TBH, I completely agree. Being able to respond more quickly to obvious vandalism (instead of hoping someone's paying attention to WP:AIV) would be a major plus, but it's not something I'm seriously considering for the time being. I'm more curious how others view my activity, especially in the areas important to some RfA voters (content contribution, AfD/CSD, etc.), and how I could improve. clpo13_(talk) 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 - Without delving deeper, you appear to be on the right track but you would need to demonstrate significantly more activity in maintenance areas. Looking at it, I don't think your previous RfA would go against you at all . However, you'll probably need to let dust settle around your block log for another 10 months and make sure it stays free of new issues, and by which time you will have an unbroken 12 month editing history although this might not be long enough for some of the newer voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• You'd get my vote, though the deletions of recent articles you created may need to be explained, though it seems that at least one of those articles is mistakenly credited to you. The block was removed immediately as inappropriate, so I don't think that this would be a problem if addressed directly. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think most (if not all) of those deleted articles were redirects to articles that were later deleted. For instance, Lionel Nichols was a redirect to L. Nichols Buttons, which was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Nichols Buttons. Thanks for pointing that out, though. clpo13_(talk) 18:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - not that I don't think you'd make a fine admin, but although your account age is certainly acceptable, most of your activity has been in the last 4 months, so it's the usual "give it a year, then run." Or 18 months. I see a lot of impressive contributions. One thing that may come up is that when "articles created" is examined, several of the more recent ones have been deleted. However, it appears you may not be the actual author of some of those, so that will need to be detailed at your RfA. Unless you write 20 FAs before running! The block was in error, I would count on it costing you one or two uninformed !votes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Armbrust (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · previous RfAs) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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