TheresNoTime (talk | contribs) →Armbrust: 8 -> 9 |
TheresNoTime (talk | contribs) →UY Scuti: 7 |
||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
*'''Comment''': Does the non-automated counter only work for the username, and not the previous edits from a username change? Showing only [https://tools.wmflabs.org/musikanimal/nonautomated_edits?username=UY+Scuti&offset=0&namespace=0&contribs=on&tools=on 864 non-automated edits in the main namespace]? -- [[User:Samtar|samtar]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Samtar|whisper]]</small></sup> 21:47, 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 [https://tools.wmflabs.org/musikanimal/nonautomated_edits?username=UY+Scuti&offset=0&namespace=0&contribs=on&tools=on 864 non-automated edits in the main namespace]? -- [[User:Samtar|samtar]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Samtar|whisper]]</small></sup> 21:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:*{{re|Samtar}} The tool is working good. I have 864 non-automated edits to mainspace. Regards—[[User:UY Scuti|<font color="CornflowerBlue" face="Times">'''UY Scuti'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:UY Scuti|<font color="Green" face= "Times">Talk</font>]]</sup> 01:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC) |
:*{{re|Samtar}} The tool is working good. I have 864 non-automated edits to mainspace. Regards—[[User:UY Scuti|<font color="CornflowerBlue" face="Times">'''UY Scuti'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:UY Scuti|<font color="Green" face= "Times">Talk</font>]]</sup> 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 :) -- [[User:Samtar|s''am''t''ar'']] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Samtar|whisper]]</small></sup> 11:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Armbrust == |
== Armbrust == |
Revision as of 11:47, 16 December 2015
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2
as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This is an optional polling page available to potential RfA candidates. It can be used to help see what the community thinks of your chance of success. Note that actual RfA results may differ greatly and that opinions given here may be based on only a cursory assessement.
Disclaimer: Although starting a poll here about your odds of passing an RfA can help you determine whether you're ready or not for RfA, nothing can replace reading advice pages such as Advice for RfA candidates and gauging your contributions relative to recent candidacies, both successful and failed. If responders indicate that you would likely pass an RfA, you are still strongly encouraged to seek a more indepth examination into your editing history to be sure.
Instructions
Potential candidates
If you wish, add your name below, then allow the community to provide feedback. Please read Wikipedia:Not now before adding your name to this list.
Responders
Responders, please provide a number from 0 to 10 (zero being the lowest and and ten being the highest chance) to give your view on the potential candidate's likelihood of successfully passing an RfA. You can opt to accompany your score with a short comment; please leave any detailed feedback on the user's talk page. A helper script is available that allows one-click rating.
If you see a candidate receiving a favourable response, consider offering an in-depth review and possible nomination offer.
Sample entry
==Example== {{User-orcp|Example}} *5/10 - Edit count seems okay, but could use more AfD participation. [[User:Place holder|Place holder]] ([[User talk:Place holder|talk]]) 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
6/10If 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)
7/104/10 – 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. –Davey2010Talk 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
LukeSurl
LukeSurl (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)
OK, I'll bite :). Like some of the above, I would not consider myself admin material, nor do I have any plans to try to become one. However the comments on the others' requests have been generous and interesting, and I'd appreciate a few similar assessments of my editing. Cheers --LukeSurl t c 16:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- 8/10 - extremely civil, helpful, and clueful (as your user talk page archives show). Minor quibble: your overall minor edit summary usage is at 86%. APerson (talk!) 18:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- 6/10 - If you go for it right now. The inconsistency in your edits per month is something that a lot many editors would object to. If you could show the same editing pattern consistently for 6-8 months more, I'd clearly give you an 8/10. Yash! 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- 6/10 - longstanding productive editor with clean block log. A proven civil collaborator. Some voters will see the inconsistent editing history as noted above, no matter how much I disagree. I think a bigger concern will be the percentage of recent AfD nominations that have been closed as "keep". 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- 6/10. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
ONUnicorn
ONUnicorn (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs) Why not? I'm not planning on running for RFA any time soon, but the idea has occasionally crossed my mind, and this looks like an interesting experiment to see what people think. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
4/107/10 - I'm struggling to find a diff in article space that is isn't Twinkle or fiddling with templates. Sorry, I need to find some evidence you won't rip content creators' heads off :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Are you sure you were looking at my contributions and not another users? I have never used Twinkle, and I rarely edit templates.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, well it looks like I must have done, sorry about that. I've had another look just now and there is some evidence of article rescue on Toxic Girl, and I think what I meant by "Twinkle" was "Twinkle-esque" by which I mean edit summaries like "Reverted edits by 'x' to version 123 by user 'y'" that don't actually give any reason why the revert was made. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- @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)
- 6.5/10 – This looks pretty good to me, all around. AfD numbers are OK (but could be better). But voters will probably like your sticking to the Help desk and VPP and WP:3O over the "drama" boards. The only real potential stumbling block I see is the the relatively long layoff in active editing between 2007 and 2015, and edit count just a hair under 10,000 (but ~50% of those in main space, which is good). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- 4/10 - I think IJBall hit the nail on the head. Excellent work overall, but because of the long layoff, I think a significant number would only count the last year of about 3100 edits. Give it another year of consistent editing, and my evaluation of your chances goes way up. Some may also be concerned about the less than 70% "correct" voting at AfD. I say baloney, but that's the way it can go. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Shoy
Shoy (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA) Out of curiosity. shoy (reactions) 18:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- 5/10 at the moment. There is a long hiatus, you have almost no edits between February 2011 and July 2015. At least 6 months of consistent activity is needed. Jim Carter 15:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- 7/10 content creation, use of buttons, AFD participation is all good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- 5/10 that hiatus is too long.I would like to see 12 months of solid editing. Propotionally too many edits are just putting project templates on article talk. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- 5/10 good content creation (including article creation on chemicals), good AfD participation, good communication and clean block log, but oh that layoff, including an entire year without activity. Only 1500 edits in the last 5 years. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Grapple X
Grapple X (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)
For what it's worth, if I ever do proceed with a request it would be intended mostly for advanced gnoming (manning WP:ERRORS, queuing DYK when it's running late, etc). I'm too ogrish to worry about being expected to club users and eat their bones use block functions. GRAPPLE X 11:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- 6.5/10 Quite promising. But at the moment I will stick to 6.5, due to low activity between 8/2014 and 8/2015. Some people like to see consistent activity for at least 6 months. And I would encourage more activity at WP:AFD. I may increase the number by 2 after three months of consistent balanced activity. Jim Carter 13:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- 6/10 - tenure and edit count is substantial enough, civil and communicative, but low activity in the last 3 years, and minimal AfD participation. Might pass if clear need for tools in area of expertise were clearly demonstrated. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Ansh666
Ansh666 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs)
Just out of curiosity. And, of course, assuming that I return to active editing soon. (Noting that responses here will in no way effect that.) ansh666 10:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
4/106/10 - it doesn't look like you've ever created an article (although I may have missed one), and that 66% AfD rate could be improved. APerson (talk!) 17:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
Wildthing61476
Wildthing61476 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs)
I did a self-nomination years ago in a RFA. As time has past (and after an extended wiki-break to handle real life), I feel that my time here on Wikipedia, along with my patience, my ability to communicate and my ability to observe and make critical decision that are for the best of Wikipedia would make me a good choice to become an admin. My time here usually is spent cleaning up after vandals, though I do edit in areas I have expertise with, namely topics about Baltimore and Maryland. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- 5/10 — I would probably support you in an RfA, but you haven't created an article in several years. Try starting an article and getting it to GA status, if that's not too much of a hassle. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- 4/10 — Your case reads like someone who took a relatively long "layoff" from active editing, and that you have only returned to active editing recently. Thus, I agree with Bilorv – you probably need 6 months more of active editing, and probably need to create a couple of new articles (and/or do the GA thing...). But your AfD work looks good, and I think if you do what's suggested, you'll probably look more like a "7/10" by next spring or summer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- 4/10, with a positive outlook (hope A. M. Best doesn't sue...) It's the layoff thing again, mostly, plus the low percentage of edits in article space. On the plus side, you are a prolific AfD contributor, with a nice mix of "keep" and "delete" arguments. You are very helpful to new editors, which is a big reason your article-space % is where it is. I'd give it a year on the current trajectory, and my estimation of your chance at consensus for admin goes way up. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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✈(discuss) 14:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, to be honest, it would be the same conclusion to the first one more or less, as your total contributions are only 15,000 (I never care about the numbers of this anyway) and your highest have only been 8,000 this year so people would definitely question and analyze this. As flamethrowing and intense as RfA can be, I would certainly give it time (time will never take away the RfA drama and stress though ). Keep to mind also that RfA is basically no big deal and only means making yourself vulnerable to troubles and targets from others (I would say the only benefits are the delete, move, protect and block tools, and simply take away all the drama parts ). SwisterTwister talk 09:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- @SwisterTwister: TBH, I completely agree. Being able to respond more quickly to obvious vandalism (instead of hoping someone's paying attention to WP:AIV) would be a major plus, but it's not something I'm seriously considering for the time being. I'm more curious how others view my activity, especially in the areas important to some RfA voters (content contribution, AfD/CSD, etc.), and how I could improve. clpo13(talk) 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- 7/10 - Without delving deeper, you appear to be on the right track but you would need to demonstrate significantly more activity in maintenance areas. Looking at it, I don't think your previous RfA would go against you at all . However, you'll probably need to let dust settle around your block log for another 10 months and make sure it stays free of new issues, and by which time you will have an unbroken 12 month editing history although this might not be long enough for some of the newer voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Vin09
Vin09 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs)
- Wants to develop Indian Village pages, which are in plenty
0 at this point. Too new of a user to run for admin. Also, you don't need to be an admin to write articles on Indian villages. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Whoops, hit the wrong button on the contributions page (older 50 instead of oldest) and thought you only started in October. Doh! Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Oiyarbepsy: Yes, I'm new. But still is there any mini-admin ship? I mean for wikiprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Andhra Pradesh, Wikipedia:WikiProject Telangana pages? As I work a lot in these areas and also Wikiproject India pages.--Vin09 (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, there is not any (at least for now). You can contact admins specializing in India related content for any admin work like Titodutta. You are expected to know this kind of stuff before you run. Read WP:RFAADVICE, as given at the top of this page. Learn what being an admin is, what work they do and why. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 16:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'll revise to 5. And if you want to edit articles all the time I can assure you that being an admin will only get in the way. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- 4/10 - RfA voters tend to look for at least a little experience in all areas that an admin will be able to work in. Your work at AfD might draw unfavorable attention. This discussion from this year raises some doubt. APerson (talk!) 19:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- 4/10 With over 39,000 edits and registered for 4 years I don't see quite how anyone could say you are too new, but for adminship you would need to demonstrate a lot more work in maintenace areas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Korruski
Korruski (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA) More out of interest than any serious interest in running - I realise that my tendency to edit in fits and starts and go quiet for long periods probably rules me out of actually being successful at RFA.
- 6/10 - Solid content creation (2 GAs); AfD work pretty good; you don't keep a userspace CSD/PROD log, so I can't evaluate that. (RfA voters are probably going to want at least a little experience there.) APerson (talk!) 19:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- 4/10 - I may be wrong, but I don't think this page was created to be a general editor feedback page. We had one of those and the community decided to do away with it. WADR, I don't believe you read and followed upon the infobanner at the top of this page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I did, as it happens, but I must have misunderstood how serious an intention of running I have to have before starting a poll, and I got the impression from past ones that several people had used this page to very tentatively test the water, which is what I'd hoped to do. Apologies for my mistake and thanks for your helpful response.--KorruskiTalk 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)
- 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)
GamerPro64
GamerPro64 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · previous RfAs)
Trying this out as well. I've tried RfA twice before, failed one and withdrew from the second. Though those nominations were at bad times so it was probably for the best. Love to hear what people think. GamerPro64 23:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- ∞/10: I still think you're 1st rfa was inappropriately closed, and I still believe you will make one hell of admin on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- 9/10: You meet the
general consensusmy 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 [1] 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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... –Davey2010Talk 16:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
UY Scuti
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)
- 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)
Armbrust
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)
Cullen328
Cullen328 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs) I have certainly thought about an RfA, so it can't hurt to get some feedback from the community. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- 9/10 - Great edit count (both non-automated and BLP), strong proof of contributions (68 articles created!), no blocks and an all-round civil and lovely editor. -- samtar whisper 09:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC) -- samtar whisper 09:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- 10/10. I don't foresee any problems. I pessimistically underestimated Beth Naught's support, so I'm going all-in on this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- 10/10 -- Please file your RfA nomination, it is long overdue. Jim Carter 11:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)