This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

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)

I last checked this poll nearly a year ago (See archive). Since then, I have done a couple more page creations and gotten involved in template and module editing. My primary areas of interest would still be a focus towards RFPP and AIV, in support of vandalism patrolling. -- ferret ( talk) 14:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am not providing a rating. I just wanted to comment that all the articles that you've either created or are maintaining are easy GA prospects (indeed, at least one is already GA). Why haven't you considered sprucing up the last mile and nominating them for GA? This is just a view, given that that might positively influence how editors perceive your content orientation (as 2 or 3 articles on their own might not be considered worthy content contributions). Lourdes 15:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• My plan currently is to make a push on some of these, after a busy summer mostly focused on templates/modules. I am also working on a draft today to try to satisfy an older request at WP:VG/R. -- ferret ( talk) 16:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I see a number of positives here: a substantial edit count, decent work at AfD, no problems with the articles you have created, no obvious temperamental issues, though my review has been brief. You've also done decent work at AIV and RFPP (X tools giving me some trouble there, though). One point that might work against you, though, is that most of your content work has been in the area of video games. In my experience, this area would be considered somewhat "soft" (whether correctly or otherwise); ie not an area in which you will gain experience with contentious content issues. Not a comment on the quality of your contributions, just something to keep in mind. Vanamonde ( talk) 16:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand what you're saying, but I think you're underestimating the amount of disruption and contentiousness that happens in the VG world. Extended confirmed protection came about partly because of an Arbcom case about a video game article. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Gamergate, 'soft,' Vanamonde93?!  ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say I thought it was soft: I said that in my experience, that perception exists. I stand by that statement, since this is a forum to assess general chances, and not my own views. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10: You only created 4 articles and a little experience at NPP. I doubt anyone to the path to adminship who created 5 or more articles per Kudpung's RFA criteria which I use the same RFA citeria as well. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think article creation is usually weighted that heavyily for an RFA. It shouldn't be - my ability to create an article feels pretty far removed from my admin activities. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• 10/10 - I work with this editor pretty much daily, and I can safely say he fully understands what it takes to be an Admin. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• 9.5 - I'm tempted to say 'long overdue'. Main: 11,581 (60.26%)Talk: 2,863 (14.90%)User talk: 2,224 (11.57%}. KGirlTrucker81 is not wrong at all to cite my criteria which have basically not changed for many years, but I believe the rest of Ferret's content work in this difficult topic area not only compensates what might be perceived as a possible lack of article creation, but it also demonstrates that it is through this kind of content work in a minefield of a topic teaches one all one needs to know about policies and guidelines. Temperament is also important for admins and he has the right one. I might even be persuaded to nominate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• 7/10 - There's not much content creation, you did contribute to getting Steam (software) to GA, but elsewhere things have been a bit minimal in this area, which is important in order to acquire empathy for those you will be blocking later. I suspect if you get the bit you'll be dragged up to ANI at least once in your first year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• 9/10 I think you have enough content creation and variety of experience so that you are likely to get only a few opposes based on content creation and will have a very good chance of success. No apparent negatives that I see on a quick look and I have seen you do good work in the past. Although I have seen your work and rate you very highly, one never knows how many opposers based on content will show up - and whether they think you have not had enough. I am reassured by Kudpung's comments in discounting this more than some of the other commenters here. Donner60 ( talk) 02:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

MRD2014 ( 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)

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

My previous RfA was in June of this year and ended with my withdrawal at 81/53/18, but I'd like to have a look at what my chances would be now. I do not wish to run for a month or so because of real life commitments, and because I'd like the two Fallout articles ( Far Harbor, Nuka-World) I'm working on to be finished with. Relevant logs, articles created, articles edited, etc are located on my userpage for easy access. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 05:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I curious as to why did you create this and in the edit summary state "created a stub for the application, maybe this will stop the creation spam". The app doesn't seem like a notable app and there is some obvious COI/undisclosed paid editing going on. More importantly the article was create protected on 20 September. What's your reasoning behind creating this? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  @ Lemongirl942: After the page had been created in a promotional manner by a single user multiple times, I added a request for creation protection. After researching about Sobrr, I created the page two days after its protection (it was only semi) because it's a notable application, and because I hoped it would prevent the promotional editing that was going on. The article could probably get out of being a stub if I put more time into it, but I'm working on other things at the moment. -- Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• 6/10 score right now, but ${\displaystyle {\frac {d}{dx}}\,\!}$ score > 0. I would have considered nominating you myself as I believe you addressed my issues in your previous RfA. Unfortunately, you'll need to satisfy everybody else too. Sobrr doesn't look like it qualifies for any CSD criteria and there is a write up in the New York Observer here, so as a way of getting round multiply created A7s, it's not a bad one - an admin could undelete the article and immediately send it to AfD (I did exactly this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OTAA), obviously a non-admin doesn't have that luxury. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I am reluctant to put a number on this because of the circumstances. You received quite a few votes the last time, indeed a majority, but you attracted a large number of oppose votes. I will give a comment. Quite of few of the users who opposed you cited "Too soon" as a reason. If you come back in November, even though you have addressed some of the substantive/experience concerns that were raised, many of these users may return and simply say that five months is not enough time for it not still to be too soon, even doing so without much analysis of the quality of your more recent contributions. I would strongly advise you not to have another RfA in 2016. In fact, I think it would be better to build up your record for close to a year from your last RfA in order to not see a crowd of "Too soon" !voters. These days we do not know how many users will show up and how they will !vote but more have shown up since RfAs have become more widely publicized. Some of the new and inexperienced voters often follow the early !voters or cite criteria that seem to be not very relevant as to whether an experienced and trustworthy user should pass an RfA. If enough of them go that way, an RfA can be in trouble, as you well know. See User:Kudpung's comments about the uncertainties associated with the increase in participants in RfAs since last December. He even has a few words about putting enough time between RfAs to build a record to overcome previous objections. You can find many comments by him on many of the requests on this page (or archives). Then I suppose you can judge whether these comments are good advice in your case or not. Donner60 ( talk) 04:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Jdcomix ( 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 am an experienced vandal fighter here, am starting to participate in move discussions more, and am an active member of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. I have made some mistakes, but I think I could have a shot at getting the tools.

• 4/10 - there's a little bit of content work on some physical geography articles, not much in the way of AfDs, and some things that really give me pause. For example, it was a bit silly to revert a troll on Nintendo Switch again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again and again when you could have simply asked for semi-protection at WP:RFPP? And in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump's razor, you said "Speedy delete, protect from creation, close thread, and warn the page creator. Completely fails WP:GNG" - what speedy deletion criteria deals with failing GNG? (Hint, this is a trick question - the correct answer is "there isn't one"). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you for letting me know of these potential issues, I will aim to fix them. I'd appreciate more feedback from other users, so I'll keep this open, but I appreciate the feedback. :) Jdcomix ( talk) 17:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  No worries, this is exactly why we have this sort of poll, so you don't accidentally file an RfA and come a cropper. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• 8/10 - I have worked with this user on Wikia, so I can confirm his claims where are true. He would be a wise choice for Admin here. I would vote, higher, but I doing know his wikipedia history, and so can't judge on his actions here. But either way, they have my support. Hurricane Layten ( talk) 23:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't a vote; it's a request for you to say what you think the likelihood that they would win is, regardless of whether or not you'd personally support. ‑  Iridescent 23:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• 2/10 at present; this is less than three weeks old so will undoubtedly be spotted at RFA, and stating that either (1) the Daily Mail or (2) "a trusted editor on the Hypothetical Hurricanes Wikia" are reliable sources would probably be enough to get an RFA shot down on its own; stating both will certainly do the trick. I appreciate sourcing issues probably won't be a field you want to work in, but realistically almost everything a Wikipedia admin does relates in some way to sourcing and verification so that's one policy area with which every RFA voter will expect every candidate to be intimately familiar. ‑  Iridescent 23:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 per Ritchie333. Those edits give me a pause. Your RFA is going to be instantly sinked due to my concerns. So, is an WP:NOTNOW. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 per above - Daily Mail and Wikia aren't reliable sources and it's not what I would expect off a possible future admin, I'm not pleased with the amount of reverts either but that aside there's next to none work on the admins areas (AFD, CSD, AIV etc etc etc) so IMHO at this present time I'm seeing no need for the admin tools. – Davey2010 ^Talk 18:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

I would like to "test the waters" re applying for adminship. Although I have 4000 edits over six years of editing on Wikipedia, I would like other user's opinions of my editing and what to do for the near future. I have made many friends whom I have eithe worked with or bumped into over the years, all in all they have helped me gain knowledge of how to edit constructively and keep the civility amongst Wikipedians alike. Nordic Nightfury 11:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - With a clean block log, some decent article creations and a awesome % of mainspace contributions it's safe to say you're a brilliant Wikipedian (thank you for your contributions!), but currently there are a number of things which would sink a RfA. I'd be more than happy to go through them, but the one I'd like to focus on here is need. The current RfA climate shifts pretty quick, and there's a lot of debate about what we should look for in our administrators - however, one thing which will never change is a demonstrated need for the tools. Going through your contribs and using Wikichecker I see no real need for the tools. Getting involved with WP:AIV, WP:UAA and/or WP:RFPP would be a great place for you to get some experience with the administrative side of the project. Again, thank you for your contributions here and please feel free to drop me a line if you'd like some clarity -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't provide the required predicted score because there isn't realy one to measure, and this is why: This page is not for providing feedback on a user's editing or for offering advice to editors who are not ready for adminship yet. Other opinions may differ, but I believe that admins need to demonstrate their readiness to read instructions. All I can suggest is that you read the notices at the top of this page and come back here again in a year or two, and you'll find that I will be more than happy to offer you an evaluation as detailed as needs be. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Given the interaction related to WP:ANI#User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (plus others) fails to see they are using incorrect evidence to use against me, resulting in bullying, low/10 is probably the score you should get, given that you palpably demonstrate your misunderstanding of some or all of consensus, AFD, and notability. -- Izno ( talk) 12:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• 4/10 - Based on the issue with your relists at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Nordic_Nightfury&diff=746140660&oldid=746140598#Sorry,_but_you_have_not_dealt_with_it, Although you file SPIs here & there, Do AFD relists and occasional AIV reports I don't believe there's any actual need for the tools and personally I believe the relist issue and not seen to be taking responsibility for the relists could very well sink your RFA, Personally I'd say wait a few years, Edit more in adminsh areas (AIV, CSD, AFD etc etc etc) & come back in a year or 2. – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Class455 ( 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'm just doing this as I am interested to read what my chances would be of passing an RfA. Anyway, I signed up to Wikipedia on October 7 2012 (just over 4 years), and was briefly involved for a little while back then, but mainly became involved in 2015 and have made over 4,500 edits to Wikipedia since then. I've been blocked from editing twice, but both of those were self requested as I had exams at that time. My main area of focus is counter vandalism, so the areas I'd work in is AIV, RFPP, to help clear the backlog over at UAA and also to grant users permissions at WP:RFP. Class455 ( talk) 15:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• 4/10: 4,500+ edits including 1,000+ mainspace edits is not enough. You barely particpatied in admin areas(UAA,XFD,RFP,AIV,ANI), despite registiring in 2012. I would suggest you come back with sufficent editing history whatever year intake. (Peferably 2 to 3 years.) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 16:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

KGirlTrucker81 I've been reporting to AIV, UAA and requesting for pages to be protected quite a lot, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. I tend to stay clear of ANI (unless there is a case involving me) to steer clear of any conflict. Thank you though for your input. Class455 ( talk) 17:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Class455: I know, but insufficent particpation at XFD gives me a 4/10 on my concerns. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So is XFD the only place you'd like me to participate more in? I saw a problem with the stats earlier. Some AfD's that I've participated in (such as the deletion discussion for London Buses route 53's deletion discussion and London Buses route 70's deletion discussion) are not listed on XI's tools because I changed my name. Class455 ( talk) 17:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I personally think you would do well in an RFA, Class455. You've got a good AFD record, and your edit count looks fine to me. As you offered to nominate me recently, I would be more than happy to return the favour should you run. Before that, though, I'd wait for some more people to respond here - perhaps some admins with some more experience? - and go from there. Best of luck. Patient Zero ^talk 19:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10: Two self-requested blocks, some content creation, and some good involvement at UAA/AIV. You do have some areas which could do with some improvement - your AfD stats, whilst okay, are a little light and your overall edit count is lower than what we've seen at RfA. I'm afraid this would, given the current RfA climate, probably sink yours for now. However, these two issues are pretty darn trivial and very easy to sort - I'd suggest getting involved in some WikiProjects you're interested in and working through their articles improving them where able. The key thing here is not to be disheartened and to continue volunteering here in whatever way you enjoy, and one day you'll have people demanding you run! As always, my talk page is open if you have any questions, and thank you for your contributions -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC))

EdChem ( 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 just got notification of my 10,000th WP edit. I've been wondering about running an RfA and would be interested in how my chances are seen. A few things about me:

• I try to keep my article space edits above 50%
• I have an FA ( rhodocene) and a GA ( Hans Freeman) both from a while ago. My contribution history extends over years but has some large gaps in it. Recent work (last 6 months or so) includes expansions of aromatization (still more to do here, should get to GA at least), Jason Graae, and asparagusic acid, along with new articles on Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks (images coming via OTRS), Timothy N. Philpot, predatory conference, and a chemical almost no one will have heard of, (+)-benzo[a]pyrene-7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide.
• I've had some disagreements including making recent criticisms of ArbCom over the Hardy case. I have also disagreed at times with Fram and TRM at WT:DYK, mostly over methods rather than goals because I want high quality but think some approaches have led to unproductive distractions. Editing the Elizabeth Teissier BLP led to some discussions (see talk) where I got frustrated, though the need for a spin-out article was not initially clear to me, and my draft work is neither complete nor size-appropriate for placement in article space.
• My rationale for needing the tools would be to help at DYK, where I have been creator / expander or nominator on at least 40 articles (some still under review). TRM's recent resignation of tools under an ArbCom case has led to numerous cases of him making reports that aren't actioned before reaching the main page, which is a problem I would hope to address. The wider question of reducing errors in the queues is also important, though no one person can solve that one.
• Happy to answer questions. I will be travelling for much of November, so I won't be opening an RfA inside that time even if your feedback is encouraging. Thanks for commenting.

EdChem ( talk) 13:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• @ EdChem: Nothing major, but could you just expand on this rationae- has led to numerous cases of him making reports that aren't actioned before reaching the main page- I don't follow? _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: TRM is making reports at WT:DYK about hooks either in the prep areas or the queues. The queues are protected templates and can only be edited by admins. I have seen cases where no admin took action so the queue went onto the main page with the issue unresolved. Some have then needed a new report to main page errors to get the issue addressed. TRM can no longer make changes himself, and only an admin can make changes. Is this clearer? Other DYK areas where admins are needed and sometime missing include promoting sets from prep areas to the queues, and addressing issues on the main page which have not been addressed prior. EdChem ( talk) 13:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@ EdChem: Thanks very much for clearing that up :) understood. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Seems generally qualified, but that he (like TRM) can't change DYK hooks at whim at the last minute, with hardly anybody being aware, is a good thing. His recent suggestions at WP:ERRORS for Ru ware, which I as nom did not see until after the nom came off the main page, would have led to inaccuracy. If thgis is the main thing he wants to do, I doubt I could support. Johnbod ( talk) 14:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• 7/10 - to be honest I think you should give it a go. You have a clear need for the tools (maintenance of queues and main page) and I have seen you around at DYK. I admire your stamina in taking on Elizabeth Teissier and its DYK which frankly I think should have been closed months ago as a bad job. I take a slightly different view to Johnbod, simply proposing a hook, waiting for consensus and then declining to act on it from feedback before hitting the main page is not so much of an issue. Your AfD score is okay but a bit limited, which is where a lot of voters like to look. To be honest I would probably support you; it's a question of how many "skellies" or grudges other voters bring along. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• 8/10 - a clean block record, an impressive article space percentage, plenty of articles created and some significant content contributions elsewhere. You have a demonstrated knowledge of what good content and bad content is through your AfD percentage (88%, which is okay) and a clear need for the tools. Your total edit count is slightly lower than what we'd normally see at RfA, but this should be negated by your content work. You're going to have some editors with grudges appear given the above described conflict. Points to possibly improve over November would be your AfD percentage and perhaps a bit more involvement in the vandal fighting side of things ( WP:UAA, WP:AIV) if it interests you at all -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

There was no "conflict" because I had no idea what he was attempting to do until well after his attempt had (thankfully) failed. But the main reason he gives for wanting the tools is so that he can just action his ideas by himself, and this should not be encouraged. Since he gives this as his main need for the tools, it is entirely appropriate to assess the quality of his edits in this area, as RfA always does. Johnbod ( talk) 15:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Johnbod: A couple of points, if I may:

1. If you look at the edits I've made to preps, I am not in the habit of making unilateral changes so much as minor tweaks on my own initiative. The substantive change I made recently to one hook was correcting a scientific error and I am very confident it was justified and correct - and I fixed the article too.
2. My intent was to action issues brought up by others at (say) WT:DYK, not to just act on my own ideas randomly.
3. On Ru ware, there are separate issues about notification and whether the hook should use US$ only for a sale in HKD. I would not have changed anything but the currency on my own and based on the WT:DYK report, but when I brought it to ERRORS I suggested changes to make a hookier hook, pointing to my reference source (written by a recognised expert) and left it for others to consider. Would you please explain, because I genuinely don't see it, what you think I did that was so bad? I'm happy to apologise if I have done something unwise, but without understanding your concern (and setting aside notification, which is a different and long-standing DYK issue) I can't see I have something to apologise for.

Dig up the ERRORS diff and I will. Johnbod ( talk) 15:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And sorry to all for the length of this post. (PS: After e.c., Johnbod, I have no issue with you or anyone else looking at my edits and records, this process would be valueless if it did not generate honest opinions and feedback.) EdChem ( talk) 15:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the purpose of this page is to provide a score and short comment, could I suggest continuing this discussion on a talk page? I guess this page's talk is good a place as any, thanks -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Started a discussion at User talk:Johnbod#Ru ware at ERRORS, in case anyone is interested.  :) EdChem ( talk) 16:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Supp.... oh, wait, can we not do that yet? Hrmph. Well, I'm no good at predicting success; RfA seems to have turned into a snake fight. 3π/10? Opabinia regalis ( talk) 18:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In 18 months, OR has got her tools back, joined the secret cabal, and made cat-fancying mandatory amongst all editors, so I predict in another 18 months, RfA could be simplified to "ask OR nicely, with kittehs, and you shall receive" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Did someone say kittehs? Trade kittehs for !votes! Cutest kitteh gets nomination! Babou 🐱 ( meow! 🐾) 00:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Johnbod for comments, and to Ritchie333, Samtar, and Opabinia regalis for comments and ratings. 3π / 10 is an impressive rating, though I was secretly hoping for (3π + 2e) / 7√5 :) As for 🐱, though I am more of a dog person, I do have a new friend whose cat brushes past me to own me when I visit his house. He's a kind enough cat to even let my friend live in his house! I am now considering a run in either December or January, so thanks for the encouragement, and if anyone has other comments / feedback / ratings, good or bad, anything is welcome. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 18:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC) PS: Update: re-sign to fix broken ping. EdChem ( talk) 18:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• I won't quantify my opinion with numbers, because I haven't done much research, as such, but I get a very good impression of this user whenever I see him commenting around the site. (Well, I say "him" — or does Ed stand for Edwina?) Maybe π squared / 10, something like that? Props for working in the difficult DYK area, and for managing to do so without getting everybody's backs up. You must be a diplomat, as well as an impressive content contributor. Go for it. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen, I appreciate the kind words. As for the rating, do you think that a square pi might coax out Bishzilla?  :) EdChem ( talk) 01:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Athomeinkobe ( 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)

A few months ago I placed a poll here and received some useful feedback. The main question I was left with is why do I need the admin tools. I have given some further thought to this issue and can identify the following areas where I feel I could put the tools to use:

1. CSD and PROD - following the previous poll I started keeping CSD and PROD logs. Neither is perfect but I think they sufficiently display my activity and ability in the areas.
2. DYK - I have nominated more than 20 articles and reviewed a similar number of nominations. I would like to help in the promotion side of things there.
3. AFD - admittedly, my participation recently has been limited to articles that have appeared in one of the alert lists I've watchlisted. The most important thing about closing an AFD is the ability to identify the consensus; that is difficult to demonstrate in non-admin closures, so all I can say is I am confident in my ability in that regard.
4. Main page errors - This is a page I have watchlisted and contribute to when necessary. Changing things on the main page is not something I would rush into on the first day, but it is frustrating to see problems identified and solutions proposed, yet nothing fixed for sometimes several hours. There seems to be a surprising lack of participation there (at least when I'm online), so I think I can make a useful contribution.

Thank you in advance for your feedback. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 04:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• 9/10 - good stats, good mix of article to project space, clear need for the tools (helping at AfD and main page maintenance), find a nominator (I'll do it!) and start an RfA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• As an aside, you may be interested in helping out with the DYK preps. Any editor can do that, not just admins. The only need for an admin in the DYK process is to promote preps to the queues. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 11:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• 9/10 - Prolific content creation, good involvement at AfD (88+%), some involvement in the admin areas and a need for the tools. You'd likely pass at the moment, and should find some nominators. It's clear you're not the type to be overly involved with anti-vandalism (not many edits to AIV/UAA) which could attract some minor opposes but it's safe to say these would be outweighed -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• 9.5/10 per above. Good luck on your RFA! ;) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• 9/10 - Demonstrated need for the tools and good judgement in edits. Excellent mix of contribution areas. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 9/10 - be sure to have read and fully understood all the advice pages and that there are no skellies for anyone to dish up, because if there are, they will. Check all your 100+ creations and ensure they are immaculate - no naked URLs, no tags, etc. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• 9/10 Most article creations look OK, but I think that you need to expand Ryukyu Broadcasting Corporation with more sources to remove the Expand Japanese template dated from June 2016 at the top. You should also start using Twinkle to automatically add common messages to user talk pages, as well as entries in the CSD and PROD logs. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

For me, not using Twinkle is a plus point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• 8/10 I think Ritchie333's choice to nominate you is a fine one. You don't have that much experience in deletion areas which appear to be the administrative area you have the most experience so if you were going to take any constructive feedback from undergoing ORCP, it would be to do more work in those areas to give the community a better indicator of your application of policies and though processes. Mkdw ^talk 07:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Class455 ( 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'm just doing this as I am interested to read what my chances would be of passing an RfA. Anyway, I signed up to Wikipedia on October 7 2012 (just over 4 years), and was briefly involved for a little while back then, but mainly became involved in 2015 and have made over 4,500 edits to Wikipedia since then. I've been blocked from editing twice, but both of those were self requested as I had exams at that time. My main area of focus is counter vandalism, so the areas I'd work in is AIV, RFPP, to help clear the backlog over at UAA and also to grant users permissions at WP:RFP. Class455 ( talk) 15:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• 4/10: 4,500+ edits including 1,000+ mainspace edits is not enough. You barely particpatied in admin areas(UAA,XFD,RFP,AIV,ANI), despite registiring in 2012. I would suggest you come back with sufficent editing history whatever year intake. (Peferably 2 to 3 years.) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 16:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

KGirlTrucker81 I've been reporting to AIV, UAA and requesting for pages to be protected quite a lot, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. I tend to stay clear of ANI (unless there is a case involving me) to steer clear of any conflict. Thank you though for your input. Class455 ( talk) 17:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Class455: I know, but insufficent particpation at XFD gives me a 4/10 on my concerns. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So is XFD the only place you'd like me to participate more in? I saw a problem with the stats earlier. Some AfD's that I've participated in (such as the deletion discussion for London Buses route 53's deletion discussion and London Buses route 70's deletion discussion) are not listed on XI's tools because I changed my name. Class455 ( talk) 17:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I personally think you would do well in an RFA, Class455. You've got a good AFD record, and your edit count looks fine to me. As you offered to nominate me recently, I would be more than happy to return the favour should you run. Before that, though, I'd wait for some more people to respond here - perhaps some admins with some more experience? - and go from there. Best of luck. Patient Zero ^talk 19:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10: Two self-requested blocks, some content creation, and some good involvement at UAA/AIV. You do have some areas which could do with some improvement - your AfD stats, whilst okay, are a little light and your overall edit count is lower than what we've seen at RfA. I'm afraid this would, given the current RfA climate, probably sink yours for now. However, these two issues are pretty darn trivial and very easy to sort - I'd suggest getting involved in some WikiProjects you're interested in and working through their articles improving them where able. The key thing here is not to be disheartened and to continue volunteering here in whatever way you enjoy, and one day you'll have people demanding you run! As always, my talk page is open if you have any questions, and thank you for your contributions -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC))

Any more feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Class455 ( talk) 09:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• As always, I will shy away from ratings, but the self-requested blocks (especially the fact that there's more than one) are going to haunt you for a long time. It's an overly dramatic way to take time off when you could just use the WikiBreak Enforcer – an option you should have been aware of, as it's explicitly mentioned on the page about self-requested blocks from the admin who you requested to block you. It brings up issues of maturity, temperament, and how you'll deal with stress (something that's attracted to administrators like metallic objects to a magnet). This doesn't mean never, but you'll have to put substantial distance between those blocks and any potentially successful RfA. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 17:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13 I only requested to be blocked because 1.Both were due to the fact I had important exams, and didn't want to focus too much on Wikipedia during that period of time as studying was more important, and 2. It was safer than risking something going wrong with the wikibreak enforcer, and losing access to my account if I messed up. I did consider using the enforcer, but because of this, I felt a block was better. I've seen Admins who have been blocked before and still get the tools, so when the time comes for me to apply sometime next year or in two years, wouldn't explaining the circumstances around the block help my case? My block was nothing to do with any stress. Class455 ( talk) 18:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10:. We've given you the basic evaluation you asked for based on what we think your chances are, not necessarily of what we think of you. There is no need for you to justify any reasons to us here why you might think you might be a candidate for adminship. It's the community you will need to convince in your (or your nominator's) nomination statement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung I just wanted some more opinions from more users rather than 3 people, and I was just explaining above why I asked to be blocked. After this has ended I want to work on what people have told me to do, then come back next year and see what my chances are next year. Class455 ( talk) 21:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007 ( 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)

At the advice of Ritchie333, I'm starting this poll to see what the community thinks of my chances of passing an RfA. I think the main criticism will be my application of A7 (I'm determined for my recent ANI to never happen again), but aside from that, I realise I probably need to increase my participation at XfD, and also use edit summaries more often. Is there anything I'm missing that may affect the outcome of an RfA? Adam9007 ( talk) 18:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• 6.5/10: You're not missing anything yet, but your RFA will be an 50/50 chance I think. Athough, looking your edit summary usage, yours is 93% compared to my edit summary usage is 99.2%. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 18:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @ KGirlTrucker81: You've said it's a 50/50 chance, but you gave a score of 6.5/10. I'm a little confused... Adam9007 ( talk) 22:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I gave this a 50/50 chance because looking at your talk archives, I see a few warnings regarding your removal of CSD tags. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• 6/10: First and foremost, the list; No blocks, a nice amount of content creation, 46% mainspace edits (3k of which are non-automated), good involvement at UAA/AIV and a very red CSD log - these are all great. Your AfD stats (88% of 160 votes) are okay to be honest, but could do with some improvement. Your ANI thread is recent, and was messy - after giving it a good read, I think its safe to say there will still be significant opposes relating to it. I'd suggest letting it cool a little longer. Bar that incident, and the things you mention above, I can see you as an admin in the near future. Thank you for your contributions, and feel free to drop me a message on my talk if you'd like to discuss this further -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @ Samtar: Do you think anything I've said in either of my essays will have a negative effect on an RfA? They are about deletion (an admin area) after all (bear in mind, I have things to change and add to them, especially given recent discussions). Adam9007 ( talk) 22:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• 4.5/10: I think my biggest concern at this point would be a lack of demonstrated need for the tools in my opinion based on where you contribute the most (CSD - good but I'd like to see you in other areas). Your recent comments at the AfD for Tyler Hammer also concern me a bit as you pointed to a personal website as a reliable source. I think with a bit more time you'll be up for it, but not now. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @ Dane2007: I should probably have made it clearer: I wasn't saying that's a reliable source, I was saying it's proof it's not a hoax. As I said on the AfD, it's not the same thing as non-notable. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• 6/10: The ANI incident is too recent, and deletionism/inclusionism debates are polarizing. I think you've moderated your CSD stance since that ANI incident, but I think you need a year of clear sailing to make it through RfA. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 04:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10:I tend to read potential candidates talk pages to get a sense of temperament, tone, civility, and ability to handle stress under pressure. These are now in Archive 2, amongst the dates of August 2016, but these are the live diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Let each reader decide for themslves, but to me an admin cannot unravel at the seams in this manner; and this is only about three months ago. I also take issue with the third bullet point on your talk page notice: If you have come to throw a wobbler, don't bother. It is offputting and administrators will need to be exposed to temper tantrums on a regular basis. If you are allergic to them, you might be too prone to block. Sorry, I weigh temperament and stability above all else in admins and I just don't see this as a role for you. I apologise, but these, at the very least, would be dug up and discussed during your run for the tools. I wish you the best. Fylbecatulous talk 12:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• 5/10 because it could probably go either way. Personally I would probably lean towards opposing because I think there might possibly be a maturity issue. I would not even accord the new New Page Reviewer right to an editor who enjoys tagging pages for problems, and I'm always skeptical about users who sport an I wanna be an admin ubox on their page so soon after registering. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10 I'm sorry, Adam. As you know, I have befriended you, and defended you when people complained at your talk page about your strict interpretation of speedy criteria. I like you and believe you are a valuable contributor here. But you have the wrong temperament to be an administrator. You are too rigid, too convinced you are right, too unwilling to accept advice or see another person's point of view. Those characteristics can be deadly for an administrator. And even if I personally supported you, I am pretty sure you would not pass an RfA. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @ MelanieN: If by "accept advice", you mean hear them, I assure you I do hear all advice offered. If you mean agreeing with it, that's different. I cannot agree with everyone, or keep everyone happy. It's very difficult to agree with every piece of advice given if there's so much of it contradicts each other. For example, this, and this about WP:NOTINHERITED and similar policies. Whose advice am I supposed to take? Whichever way I go, I'll have one person who agrees with me, and one who does not. Obviously, I'm not going to agree with something that does not fundamentally make sense to me, even if it makes sense to others (not that I haven't tried to make sense of their interpretation). As you probably know, the notion that WP:NOTINHERITED not only makes connexions with notable subjects not a free pass to notability, but also makes them A7s (the biggest source of conflict), makes no sense to me. The former statement makes sense, the latter does not. I cannot see where in policy the latter is stated. That doesn't mean I don't hear people when they say the latter; I just can't see how they are correct, not matter how hard I try, and no matter how many people say it. Nobody has yet adequately explained the notion or pointed me to any discussion; they simply cite the page. Yes I do sometimes (though not always) panic under pressure, and yes, I do have difficulty seeing things from a non-autistic person's perspective, but from what I've read/heard about it, that's just the way we autistic people are. So you're saying that my Asperger's is a problem here? I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of my behaviour comes down to. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm certainly not saying that, Adam. We have many good editors here, including I'm sure some admins, who fall somewhere on that spectrum. It can affect different people differently. Not everyone is cut out to be an administrator. In your case I'm not even sure why you would want to be. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @ MelanieN: I didn't have any plans for adminship when I joined, but it seems that there are some people who think I may be up to it. I don't want to let them down. Adam9007 ( talk) 02:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Adam9007 It's not a question of you letting anyone down. You came here for a brief, succinct appraisal of your chances of being an admin, and that's what you've got. You're really wasting your time here trying to justify to us at this venue why you should be an admin. Rest assured the community will probably tear you to pieces at RfA, and I'd rather you continue to take pride in your normal Wikipedia work rather than expose yourself to the soul destroying 7 days of debate at RfA which might finally discourage you from even wanting to continue on Wikipedia. It's happened to many others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 No matter what you've done or achieved since, no matter how brilliant you may be, don't even think about applying until this is at least a year old. Because right now it'll sink you even if you've saved Jimbo's life. Seriously, this is the torpedo. It'll be thrown back at you as an example of temperament, not being able to handle stress, unreliability, etcetera. I'm not saying that's justified or reasonable but it'll kill your chances nevertheless. Sorry. Yintan  15:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10 The number here does not reflect my wish, but my sense of how the community would respond. I have read some of your work, and the links other editors have suggested, and decided to interject after reading your response to MelanieN and the comment about "your Asperger's." IMHO, your fellow editor's comments were direct, but also heartfelt and balanced. Such is the type of friend I would like to sit on my side. Allow me to remind you that being an Aspie may be a plus for you if you manage to curb the edges-- a burden for many non-Aspies, also. Numerous WP editors have turned it to their advantage. In fact, some of the most tactful and gifted people I have seen are Aspie/high functioning autistic. It is hard work, I know, but it is worth it. And as it has repeatedly been mentioned here, you have the essential traits of a good editor and are committed to the community. More time in preparation, paying attention to the suggestions here will do wonders to your candidacy. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 19:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @ Caballero1967: Thanks. But how do I turn my Asperger's into an advantage? I've been trying to do that since I started, and so far, I'm sorry to say it's been a huge negative. I'm pretty sure my Asperger's helps me see things the way I do (such as the stuff I wrote about WP:NOTINHERITED), but not only has it not helped, it's made things worse for me (because few others see it the the way I do, although that does not necessarily mean I'm wrong). Adam9007 ( talk) 04:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @ Adam9007:. I followed up on your talk page. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 17:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

I'm curious as to my chances of passing an RfA. I do a lot of New Page Patrol, and have recently started keeping a CSD log and Admin tools would be very useful there. I have done a lot of requested moves work as well, and is another area i would use the admin tools (moving over redirects and multiple page moves at once - RM closing is very awkward without admin tools).

I am not considering a run any time particularly soon (definitely not in the next 6 months), and plan at some point in the near future to go do some work at AIV (I don't have any experience there and I realise it is an important area for an admin to be familiar with). Are there any other areas that I am lacking in that I should focus on as well?

The main reason I wanted to do this poll is that I had a very rocky start to wikipedia, and was topic banned fairly early on after taking an experienced editor to ANI, which I now know to be incredibly misguided (also my behaviour before was needlessly inflammatory at times). However, I learned a lot from the experience, and actually believe that I am a better editor as a result of the TB but I want to know whether this experience will disqualify me from the mop.   Insert CleverPhrase Here  22:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• 4/10 right now. In six months 6/10. In a year, 8/10, and that's when you should begin seriously considering RfA - if by then you are still interested in being an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk)e
• 2/10 - I don't see a clear need for the tools as of yet and your contributions on areas like WP:ANI, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:AFD seem to be sporadic and/or limited. I think at least a year of consistent editing and tending to these areas is necessary before any potential run. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10 per Kudpung. Also, a 7/10 in a year in my sorcere. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 for not reading the instructions at the top of the page, the ones that say: "This is an optional polling page available for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges in the near future....This page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors. If you are seeking general feedback on what you can do to improve your contributions to Wikipedia, contact a friendly, experienced editor on the editor's talk page and request a review of your work, or a recommended reviewer." Valenciano ( talk) 08:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I did read the above statement. Perhaps 'near future' doesn't mean the same thing to both of us. I came here primarily to ask about my early topic ban, as well as to gauge how close I am currently. I thought that this would be the best place to ask about whether my early history would disqualify me, as I suspect it may for some people, but not for others. Some specific answers about this point would be useful.   Insert CleverPhrase Here  09:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This forum is only for providing a rough estimate of your chances at RfA now, taking everything into account, which we have done. We cannot speculate on how much the broader community (often over 200 voters on an RfA) will react to your earlier topic ban. As advised, you should review plenty of previous passed and failed RfA and draw your own conclusions from those - you'll find plenty of examples. And please read WP:RFAADVICE again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk).

Mike1901 ( talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · previous RfAs)

I was last here around 11 months ago - and am wondering if I ran now, what my chance would be? (as per the description!) Note I'm not planning to run immediately - it's more trying to get a view on what would happen if I were to run, to inform my growth as a Wikipedian :-) Many thanks! Mike1901 ( talk) 14:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• 8/10 - I would personally !vote support as I know you have a nice mix of vandalism patrolling, a CSD log with lots of red, and you have helped me to improve Marylebone Station to GA status. Not much AfD work but that can be easily improved by taking part in some more debates. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• 5/10 - As Ritchie333 said, I think some more AfD work would improve your chances. You also only have 26 requests for page protection edits and 62 AN/I participation edits. I'd like to see more work in those areas. You do have a very good CSD log and you have a large number of edits to main space, so I do not see any roadblocks there. If you increase participation in the areas above over the next 3-4 months, I would easily change this to 7/10. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  I disagree that more participation at ANI is a good idea; in fact I think the opposite. You might get a reputation as an "admin wannabe" and people have opposed over excessive clerking there. Unless your diplomatic skills are excellent, you'll find yourself picking up enemies if you try and settle ANI disputes, who then have a tendency to come along to the RfA when it happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  @ Dane2007 and Ritchie333: Yes, more participation at ANI is an bad idea. Right now, I minimaly participate at ANI unless there's an case involving me but stay away for the most time. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Personally, I stay as far away from ANI as possible. The only reason I've been there recently is because of a major harassment problem a user was having with an IP. — Gestrid ( talk) 03:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• 5/10: Not much XFD participation but for now, focus on discussing XFDs while doing anti-vandalism work for the next 4 months. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Why does everyone think anti-vandalism work is so essential? I had none when I passed RfA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  For the same reason that everyone (including yourself) think article work is so essential. -- Izno ( talk) 00:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  There is something about participating in anti-vandalism that shows you a more holistic view of WP while making you aware of its fragility. It works better with those who have lots of content editing already (as it happened with me). Also, regular anti-vandalism helps to create a sense of urgency for the project and habits of contribution. There are pitfalls too, for sure. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 22:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  The best thing to do would be to improve programs like ClueBot NG, providing data sets and evaluating the Bayesian algorithms. Still, I don't think that the community cares that much overall, and if he doesn't want to do it, he doesn't have to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  I agree that anti-vandal experience should not become a requirement for admin, but it helps. And if the community does not care much about it, perhaps we need better ways to communicate its importance.

Attempts to improve the bots' abilities have been ongoing. See for example in the Stiki community. I think that most of the editors involved in anti-vandalism would prefer to invest their time in improving and expanding the project. But as the bots become better in defending WP, vandals improve their tactics. There is something I find more problematic than classic vandals: the systematic manipulation of the text by individuals, organizations and even nation states. Anti-vandals attempt to evaluate these new contributions, and pass judgements on questionable edits, which the bots have pass along for further analysis. I would not be surprised to see that Wikipedians who have contributed to anti-vandalism would have a broader knowledge of the project since they have to dig in on multiple subjects to make informed decisions. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 02:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Anti-vandal work, in my opinion, is one of the best things a potential admin can have on their resume. It ties into a bunch of other work that ultimately only admins can act on: SPI, AIV, UAA, and a bunch of other acronyms. — Gestrid ( talk) 03:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Couldn't have put it better myself. Patient Zero ^talk 11:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we're just talking at cross-purposes with definitions; what Caballero is describing is what I'd call POV pushing, not vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to deviate from this thread's purpose anymore. Gestrid reinforced what I tried to explain. Anti-vandalism leads to many key areas, which among those are the ones Ritchie333 mentioned. Overall, it strengthens the editor's grasp of the project. I am certain that Mike1901 will benefit from it and will help in a future RfA as long as they explain how the experience made them better editor and ready for the mop. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 13:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks all who've responded thus far for your views! To pick up on the topic of ANI (and as it would likely be unearthed at any RfA I submitted - so might as well get it out there now) - I was put off after an issue a while back where I NAC-closed a discussion in good faith and got promptly shot down for it. See the close [6] and associated talk page discussion [7]. Mike1901 ( talk) 10:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• 8/10 Rated against the current RfA climate (which I've had a good dose of recently). You have a clean block log over the ten years you've had an account and work in many of the administrative areas of the project. You've "been here" for less than that but with 10k edits it balances out. I share the concerns that others have highlighted regarding your AfD record, so I would advise getting a couple more under your belt. If you're feeling brave I would recommend beginning to talk to a nominator whilst addressing the concerns raised above -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• 8/10 I second Samtar's comments and suggestions. You would be a nice addition to those carrying the mop. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 15:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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

I have recently been making non-admin closures at RfD, among other tasks, I have also been revewing new pages and recent changes, reporting suspected sock puppetry and vandals, etc. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 06:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• 7/10 - this is an odd one. I have seen you around at CSD talk and RfD, and I can't quite put my finger on the exact problem, but let me say if you ran for RfA and I had a dog, it would bark at your nomination. The AfD stats are okay, as are the CSD and PROD logs; though I notice Kudpung has alerted you to some mistakes on your patrolling. You don't obviously meet my criteria for content creation at a first glance, but I do see some updates to Donald Trump related articles that show you can write prose that is properly cited to sources, so it's not a complete write-off. Your comment at User talk:Champion#Mistake on the Donald Trump page was a bit of a dick move if I'm honest; I don't really believe you are unable to find a source showing how old Ronald Reagan was when he was president, and it's pretty easy to conclude that Themariobros45 was talking about Reagan's age when he left the presidency, and that Trump would have to have serve a full two terms to be the oldest president at any point in office. You could have just told him that, rather than giving him technically correct but practically meaningless advice. I think if you ran for RfA today I'd probably vote "neutral", but I think you'd probably get in towards the lower bar of percentages. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• 6/10 4.5/10 per Ritchie333: That "I wanna be an admin" on your userpage can increase oppose votes as I'm always for opposing. XFD participation is okay as the same concerns per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 13:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• 6/10 3/10 Champion did not add the "I wanna be an admin" Ubox until April 1, 2014 (I wonder if that date is significant). He was a bit older then, but as he had still only made a few hundred edits it comes as a bold statement for one with so little experience at the time. Like KGirlTrucker81 I'm therefore very skeptical of people who appear to join Wikipedia with the intention of policing it. Champion probably needs to have a broader and more profound knowledge of policies and guidelines before attempting RfA otherwise he's going to be tripped up by awkward user questions - although there are no age limits, RfA voters tend to aim for the jugular when a younger user is in the running. I'd say give it another year, there's no hurry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have already removed it. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 00:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• 4/10 - I'll rip the bandaid off and start with the negatives...Your overall activity (as measured by contributions by month) seems to be sporadic and extremely limited for quite a while. You don't have the pending change reviewer flag, which I really like to see as it exposes you to a helpful way to "filter content", but you do have the patroller right so that might even out my concern although there were issues there as well. Now looking at the positives...you do participate regularly with sockpuppet investigations as well as reporting vandals. You do participate at CSD regularly and RfD. So while I gave you a lower score now....I think if you focus on these areas, I could definitely increase that number. I hope this helps! -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am beginning to focus on those areas. To tell you the truth, I was never serious about becoming an admin until recently, so I am devoting most of my time to those tasks now. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'll just add that personally, I could never support someone for adminship who firmly believes that newbies should be allowed to disrupt the project while cutting their teeth on its maintenance tasks. One either learns these things by lurking and seeing how experienced users do them, or they go to one of our schools to learn them. I believe that even in the USA, people are not allowed to drive on the highway alone before they have passed a car driver's licence. In most developed countries nowadays, one even has to pass a written exam before being allowed out on the road at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  @ Kudpung: Anyone who has a "learner's permit" can drive on any road, so long as they are attended by someone with a license; anyone with a full license can drive alone on any road. -- Izno ( talk) 14:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's what I said, wasn't it? But I'm not really interested in what you do in the US - the analogy was the important thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• 5/10 Fails my criteria. If I have concerns with your editing just looking at your talk page, RfA would embarrass you. Chris Troutman ( talk) 03:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)