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

• Albert einstein 1110 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 0/10 - User:78.26 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 - davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 --Jayron32 00:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Supdiop (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

• 1/10 [1]--Ymblanter (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 1/10: Hat collecting of
  Autopatrolled; hat collecting generally. Esquivalience ^t
  02:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• I am not going to provide a number. Nobody knows how much you would improve after 1 year, but read this:
  discuss
  05:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 2/10 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• If you run right now: 1/10.
  discuss
  13:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 1/10 Jim Carter 14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10, considering your reaction after your RFA earlier this month failed. EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 1/10, considering the disruptive way you behaved after your RfA. Admins need to be calm in stressful situations. But, maybe in a year, you'll have matured as an editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 1/10 what?
  ^talk_contribs
  00:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 It may seem to be hat collection because it is.... F**k autopatrolled right and f**k content creation.
  Yash!
  01:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that there are now enough opinions here to provide the candidate with a good impression of their likelihood of success, perhaps we do not need any more. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I got what I wanted. This is enough for me to stop thinking about my future RFA. :D - Supdiop (T🔹C) 13:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Mww113 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · previous RfAs)

I'm reasonably certain that if I had an RfA today, it would not pass. I'm not planning on having one anytime in the near future, but I'm interested to know how the community thinks I could improve and how they might respond if I were to have one. Even for non-RfA purposes I think feedback and healthy scrutiny of my contributions thus far could be helpful. Mww113 (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• 1/10 if you were to run now; you would fall into the upper-
  WP:NOTNOW range. However, wait a few more years (twelve months at minimum), increase your activity, and continue contributing, and you should pass a RfA. Esquivalience ^t
  01:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• 1/10 Concur with Esquivalience on the unfortunate editcountitis crap. It's real. Also, you have just one article creation (which might have been created by someone else?) You'd get raked over the coals for that. Your first RfA was highly premature, which you know. But, the advice there was solid as it is now, with the exception that 2000 edits is nothing these days, and nowhere near enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• not giving number, since it is not a number you are looking for. Continue productive editing, and focus on what you enjoy for a year (or better, more). If you love creating new articles, do that. If you like pulling random books out of your library and adding information to existing articles, do that. If you like finding mispellings and correcting them, do that. If you like watching recent changes for vandalism like a hawk, do that. Or assist at the teahouse. Then you will be able to state why your editing would demonstrably improve with the tools, and why wikipedia would be a better place if you had them. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Not now. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10, because at your current cadence it would possibly take another 16 years before you have something tangible for me to evaluate and chances are that I might not even be alive by then to be able to vote for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I suggest this one be closed and archived, as it seems like there's consensus that this is an (upper)

Yossiea~enwiki (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA) I'm more of a maintenance user so it will be interesting to see. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• 4/10 - at the moment. You need to improve your AFD participation and increase your edit count. Jim Carter 15:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• 5/10 - there are RfA voters who like to see at least a little bit of content creation.
  talk!
  ) 17:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• 3/10 - all positive attributes aside, there have been fewer than 500 edits since 2011. Within those 500 edits is a block, although I'm not sure how much weight will be given to this, given it is for 1RR, which seems an easy mistake to make, and one that doesn't fit your normal editing pattern. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• 3/10 So far there is very little content creation, although AFC participation is good. Most of what I see is automated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

• Hi, Harish. It never hurts to get feedback, but you really don't have enough edits yet for us to judge your suitability. Once you've made several thousand edits, you should come back and ask again. You can get experience by participating in debates at
  WP:SPI. Once you've demonstrated your understanding of policy and shown how you interact with others, we can make a better judgment. Right now, it's too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk
  ) 01:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10, 3 month tenure is an absolute no-go.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10, participation to low to be measured. Ask again when you have 3,000 edits with most of tem to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• WP:NOTNOW --Tito Dutta (talk
  ) 12:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 -- 102 edits are too low. Jim Carter 12:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 - no basis for evaluation of suitability nor need. Thank you for your interest, though! Just edit constructively the areas which interest you, and a demonstrated need for admin tools will probably appear, and become readily apparent to the community as well. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

dr.aazamparvez (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)

• 0/10 - please read Wikipedia:Adminship is not for new users. Less than 100 edits is far too new even if the account has been around awhile. I would be looking for at least 9 of the 18 months and at least 4 of the last 6 months to be periods in which you were reasonably active. I am also looking for editors with non-script-assisted edit counts well into the thousands and which have a enough article, discussion, and other edits to demonstrate that you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well enough to use the administrator tools effectively and responsibly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 No one should ever join Wikipedia with immediate thought of becoming an admin. Although you have been around for getting on for two years you haven't even made a user page yet. Y9u have made 18 edits to mainspace. My advice to you is to start contributing some content to the encyclopedia and banish all thoughts of wanting to be an admin until you are approaching 18,000 edits. That may take several years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• 8/10 --
  discuss
  12:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 7/10 - you exist in the sweet spot of not having been here too long and no active blocks, but search your name at wikipediocracy; if you appear at all, they will notice...! Montanabw^(talk) 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• 6/10 - you might get some moans over very slight idiosyncrasies in English, not that I think it would be reasonable in your case, but !voters can be strange. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Imagine I had another year or two of experience doing what I've been doing for the last six months. I would also appreciate suggestions about what to change for that year or two. KSFT^C 21:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• After an year, a 7/10 perhaps. My 7 might turn into an 8 or 9 if you could show some work in the GOCE-DYK-GA-FA-FL area, by working in other admin-related areas and by not getting into any serious trouble.
  sh!
  18:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yash!: I've been planning to do GOCE work. I didn't realize it was considered an admin-related area. Also, do you mean improving articles for DYK/GA/FA/FL or their administration? KSFT^C 19:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Those are not admin-related areas, and they have nothing to do with admin tasks. Admin-related areas are
      WP:UAA, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk
      ) 22:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @NinjaRobotPirate: Okay, that's what I thought. I've made fortyish reports to AIV, I've tagged several articles for speedy deletion (not sure how many--they got deleted), I've made a few contributions to AIV and UAA. KSFT^C 23:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
        • WP:BLPN, too. I guess GOCE work would show collaboration? Dunno. Really has nothing at all to do with admin tasks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk
          ) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • sh!
      00:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've been meaning to get more involved at AfD. I understand your points about content creation (although I don't quite understand why it's necessary to get, as it's been called, the "mop"--content creation doesn't seem related to mopping). I keep seeing mentions of "dispute resolution", but I can't figure out what non-admins can do in that area, other than have disputes that need resolutions. KSFT^C 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
        • sh!
          03:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 for not reading the infobanner on the top of this page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kudpung: Which part of the infobanner didn't I read? KSFT^C 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @KSFT: Maybe, this. Cheers! Jim Carter 04:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• After reading the above, I feel I should add my two cents. Being an admin is supposed to be no big deal. Edit what you wanna edit and do a good job at it. Don't change what you do to make some RFA voter happy, cause you won't make them happy and they'll be a jerk about it, as you see above. Haters gonna hate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Vincent60030 (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)

Note: I don't think I'll pass but I just want opinions here. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• 2/10 - Very little chance right now. Only 2,200 edits. While you do have AFC experience, you don't appear familiar with most of the maintenance areas admins would be involved in, such as
  one article created, a stub. Thanks for your contributions overall, but I'd advise holding off for at least a year. Valenciano (talk
  ) 16:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 - No AfD at all, for one thing. Voters at a RfA will look for at least a little experience in every area of adminship.
  talk!
  ) 15:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 -You're right, no chance of a pass any time soon. You'd probably realise this if you had read all the advice pages. It doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong with your editing but there isn't enough of it yet and won't be for a long time. Also do remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the website is simply the way it is delivered. See
  WP:TOONEW. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 22:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Statement: I need more opinions from other users please. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I doubt you will get anything different from anyone else. ansh666 23:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• • I think it's perhaps time you read the advice and caveats on the top of this page after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Tybomb124 (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)

Give me a 10/10 please. I need to be an admin. I will be SO HAPPY if I get it.

• 0/10 - You don't have any AfD contributions, and
  talk!
  ) 04:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 - Lack of experience, based upon your low edit count and lack of AfDs. Also, your attitude is completely wrong -- samtar ^whisper 09:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 - This is a place that allows other users to comment on how likely they think you will pass. 368 edits, seriously?
  (discuss)
  10:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 - for not reading the instructions above and wasting our time. This kind of thing is more likey to set back any chances you have of being an admin than advance them. I detect a lack of maturity and a failure to undersrand that although Wikipedia is based on a web site, it's serious stuff. -Try to get some ideas to add content to articles - constructivey please. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10 Adminship is not something to beg for. Jianhui67 ^T★C 13:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• My goal is to improve and fix Wikipedia, and I have been active in doing admin-like works lately. I'd love some thoughts on this. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• 0/10 for now. Only 2 real months of activity, less than 1,500 edits and lack of experience in maintenance areas. Only 3 contibutions to AFD, one of which seems to be about a notable Albanian. CSD tagging is way short of the accuracy that I and many others in the community would look for. This nomination for example, just 2 minutes after the article, about a clearly notable topic, was created and I disagree that it's similar to the 2012 article, which it will naturally share similarities with. Another 12 months of editing, greater accuracy in deletion areas and we'll see. Best of luck with your editing. Valenciano (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  It would be unlikely that the parliamentary election would have the exact same candidates, so I thought that it might've been a copy of the previous election. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It is unlikely, but not impossible, see for example the

Spanish general election, 2008, where the main 3 party candidates were the same. Even though you were right about the candidates being different, that doesn't justify it and that's a textbook case of why people like admin candidates to have created articles (which you don't seem to have done.) If you had, you'd know that it's quite common when creating an article to use similar articles as a starting point, especially for things like infoboxes, and change the content accordingly and add appropriate references. During that process, people sometimes forget to update some of the content in their first pass, but do it in a second go. You didn't give the creator time to do that, nominating it after 2 minutes of creation and a quick look at that initial version would show it wasn't a copy anyway, since half of it is devoted to changes to electoral law which took place in 2015. If there are problems with an article, deletion usually isn't the answer, commonsense is. Is a general election in a European Union member state really unlikely to be notable? Obviously, the answer is no, so if there are problems, just fix them yourself, wait a while for the creator to do so or drop a note asking them to do it. A rush to delete notable topics won't go down well at RFA. Valenciano (talk

) 21:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I also forgot to note that the swing, polling percentage, and statistics related to the election were the exact same as the previous year, 2012. Now that must have been very, very unlikely. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Another bit of advice. If you do make a mistake, it's better to hold your hands up and admit it and move on. Arguing on, trying to justify it and have the last word won't go down well at an RFA. Valenciano (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• 0/10. With only around 400 edits to mainspace at your current rate of editing you may be ready to consider adminship in about 3 years (which is about right for many candidates). I am concerned that you are over-eager to be an admin - it should not even enter the mind of a new user. See
  WP:NPP for a while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 22:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• 0/10 – Only 2 months of recent active editing makes this way TOO SOON. I suggest this one be closed, and archived: CatcherStorm can feel free to ask again in about 6–9 months time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• 1/10 - Please read
  (discuss)
  02:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Eat me, I'm an azuki (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)

• 0/10. 324 edits to mainspace, please read
  WP:RFAADVICE -- samtar ^whisper
  08:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• 0/10. With only around 400 edits to mainspace I am concerned that you are over-eager to be an admin - it should not even enter the mind of a new user. See
  WP:NPP for a while until you have read those instructions too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 10:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Samtar (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs) Just thought I'd ask, seeing as I'm one of very few non-admin ArbCom candidates. Your advice and brutally honest thoughts are really appreciated samtar ^{t} 14:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• 3/10 -
  NOTQUITEYET. As the others said, a higher edit count (particularly in main space) would help towards a future run. Also, you probably want to get the AfD numbers up. And creating more articles would be good too... Addendum: Also, if you can manage to help on the "tool" end, that would definitely help a later RfA run IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk
  ) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 2/10 - editing tenure is technically longer than mine, but has really only been active the last 4 months. Get anohter 6, at the least. I really like this editor's communication style. Respectable CSD history, AfD participation is so far underwhelming. Show me a rescued article, that will get you points. Tons of potential here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• 3/10 for the courage of standing for Arbcom, but IMO adminship must come first with at least 3,000 edits to mainspace.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• 2/10 - Unfortunately I don't think RFA will go well because well you've only been here a year and the next to none edits at Mainsapce is abit concerning (I look for 45-50% in Mainsapce and a 2/3 year tenure) so personally I think it's best to stick at Mainspace editing and keep the ocnstant editing and perhaps retry in a year or 2 –Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

78.26 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · previous RfAs) There have been several instances lately where it would benefit my own editing, and I believe would be useful to the community at large. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• 8.5/10 You look like a decent guy to me. :P Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, wow. I've seen you around a lot, and I thought you were an admin already. You need to do an RfA. KSFT^C 16:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9.5/10 - After going through your edits, there is just a little question that pops in my head: What has kept you from running?
  sh!
  17:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9.5/10 - You tick all the boxes, more than sufficient tenure, experience in maintenance areas, article creation, clean block log etc. The only issue that I could see putting people off would be your user name. Consider changing that prior to an RFA and you should walk it. Valenciano (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• 9/10 - If you have read and understood the instructions at the top of this page, check this out and if you more or less check or the boxes, go here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sparklism (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA) I'll play along too :) — sparklism ^hey! 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9/10: 20 articles created (6 deleted), 10k+ edits (1000+ BLP mainspace, 3794 non-automated), no blocks. I think if you RfA'd in 9 months (same level of contributions) with some more dispute resolution thrown in, you'd be golden. (adding to my new list of RfA Hopefuls) samtar ^{t} 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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