Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 3

Music1201
I have worked in several maintenance & anti-vandalism areas in Wikipedia. I know that me becoming an admin is a long way away but I'm asking that if I continue my current patterns, do you think I will have a successful RfA in approximately 8 to 12 months? Thanks &mdash; Music1201  talk  00:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTYET – The way this works is we rate your changes of passing RfA right about now. And with only 3 months of active editing, your chances are pretty much nil. If you want to run in 9 months, come back then and ask again – at that point we may have a better chance of appraising your chances. But, right now, "What do my chances look like in a year?" is entirely too speculative a question to even bother with. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The best advice is to read WP:RFAADVICE and follow that. Some of your AfD votes are "per nom" or "not notable".  If you want RfA voters to take notice of you, you should try to be more verbose and persuasive.  Also, you might want to work on doing more non-automated edits to mainspace. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to give you a rating because it's far too soon to assess what your chances are. However, you definitely need to get more involved in the content side of Wikipedia. Even just the creation of a couple of B class articles will get you far. At the moment you only have two page creations. One is deleted and the other is a short one line stub. I also agree with NinjaRobotPirate. "Per nom" votes could be the reason for a number of opposes at RFA. Omni Flames   let's talk about it  07:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Asking about becoming an admin when you theoretically reach a year of editing sounds a lot like hat collecting. Why not spend the next few years editing and then think about it? Showing up here now is going to hurt your chances down the road in my opinion. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 12:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You've only been here 3 months so even if you did run for RFA in a year it'd still fail, Editors here usually run after 2-4 years of being here, My best advice would be to read Advise for RfA candidates, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

AustralianRupert
G'day all, I have been editing Wikipedia since January 2009. I am largely a content contributor, but I have also found myself doing some admin type work in my role as a co-ordinator of the Military history project. This has seen me reviewing articles, assessing them, closing reviews/determining consensus, participating in discussions about policy, etc. I have also gotten involved at AFD, and have been working on clearing out Category:PD-Australia images with unknown US copyright status and Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons by transferring files to Commons. If I was to become an admin, I would be interested in using the tools to delete image files on Wikipedia following successful transfer to Commons. I would also be interested in getting involved in history merges, having had to request a few of these in the past. I have been thinking about potentially running for admin for a little while, and would be interested to hear what others think about my chances, and to hear any suggestions about things I should do to improve my chances. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 8/10. Unless you have lots of enemies, I think you've got a good chance of passing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 8/10 I know you by reputation from your work at MILHIST. On that alone you could probably pass RfA. You have significant history with AfD and overwhelming vote with the end result (assuming that's good). Obviously your content contributions are considerable. Although I don't know the ins-and-outs of the issue, I know some editors are opposed to moving files to Commons because of the differing rules on what images can stay resident on a particular wiki versus commons. That could be a political wedge. I don't see much meta-involvement from you outside of MILHIST, AfD, and FAC so that may come up. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Chris, thanks for the feedback. To clarify, I'm only interested in moving files that are unambiguously PD in their home country and in the US. The others, I understand, are hostable locally. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9/10: Excellent content expansion and quality content portfolio (will buy you plenty of support at RfA), measurable maintenance contributions. Esquivalience  t 15:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9/10: I agree with the other comments. I also cannot judge whether the file move issue is a problem but it does not seem to me to be an issue that would generate much opposition or overcome your good record. So I will go with the 9 rather than the 8. You are a great content contributor and editor. You have a high proportion of non-automated edits, which some !voters especially like. Yet, you have made significant contributions to some "maintenance" areas and are well-versed in policy. In some of the recent RFAs, a larger number of participants have appeared, probably because of the centralized discussion notice. That seems to have led to a larger number of support votes for most of the qualified candidates (at least in my opinion). I think more people are looking at the overall record and trustworthiness of a candidate and a lower proportion seem to oppose based on non-participation in a few of the more obscure administrative areas. If you have not done so already, be sure to read the advice pages noted above or on the main RFA page. A good nominator can be important, especially in getting off on the right foot. I would certainly support you, for what that is worth. Donner60 (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9.5/10 Your excellent record as one of the Military History Wikiproject's coordinators for most of the time since 2010 (including two years as lead coordinator), fantastic content contributions, considerable work on various "back office" parts of Wikipedia and general common sense make you an excellent candidate for the admin tools. My only pre-RFA suggestion is that you give yourself a quick refresher on how admins are expected to contribute to conflict resolution and use the blocking function - the kind of questions and topics covered in Peacemaker67‎'s RFA should be a good guide. I don't see any reason why your RFA wouldn't be successful. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick, good advice, I will take a look at those areas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9.9/10. Nick has good advice. Please run. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, Ed, I will toss my hat into the ring. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you'll want me to co- or nominate you (but if you'd rather go with others, no worries, will be supporting in any scenario). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed, Nick has offered to nom, but it can't hurt to have a co-nom too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

FiendYT
I am currently not even close to anywhere near the level for adminship. I'm working to that point though, and would like to see if I would be qualified for adminship in next few years. I currently work in the areas of content creation and anti-vandalism. I do my best to help clear out AFC and other backlogs. If I continue my work and keep improving on it for the next 2-4 years, do you think I'll be ready for the mop. FiendYT  ★  00:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We can't say what will happen that far in the future. The best advice is to read WP:RFAADVICE and follow that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an awful lot to like about what you've done around here so far. Per above, we can't judge what will happen in a few years, what the RfA environment will be, and what areas of Wikipedia truly catch your interest.  A couple of pieces of advice that I think would help you:  Learn to find better sources for your articles, right now your understanding of the notability guideline might be called into question.  Spend some more time at AfD, doing more !voting than nominating.  If you think one of the articles is notable, but it lacks sources, rescue it, that counts for a lot.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Fadesga
Hi. I want to assess my chances for administership. I am active in the Spanish, German, English and other Wikipedias. My global edition numbers are more than 220,000.


 * 3/10. Low. I'm really sorry to say it for such an excellent and prolific contributor such as yourself. You have more than sufficient tenure, with 115k edits over 4+ years, no blocks and 900+ articles created will be a big bonus. But several things will sink an RFA now. The main one is that you don't appear to be involved in any admin style areas. You don't have a single deleted edit, which, when it comes to RFA, is a red flag for me. Editors who work in new page patrolling will usually tag articles for speedy deletion and will have deleted edits as a result. That means you haven't been involved in WP:CSD so people have no clue how you'd handle it and would vote against on that basis. WP:AFD likewise, you only have 6 edits, only one in the last year and outside the accuracy range, with a couple of the "votes" just being "Keep: I agree with User:X." I don't see any evidence of involvement in similar pages like WP:AIV, WP:RFPP etc. A last negative would be the lack of edit summaries with 41% of your contribs showing no edit summary. Valenciano (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNOW, just keep doing tasks, I suggest you to do anti-vandalism work, 2/10 for me. KGirlTrucker87talk what I'm been doing 15:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 4/10 As Valenciano states, your longevity and edit count are fine. I notice, however, that many of the articles you've created are stubs and often translations of articles on other wikis. For example, how does Lothar von Faber pass notability criteria? Is being listed by the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities in their index sufficient? That's questionable and I don't think you can hang your hat on such edits. Furthermore, the one message presently on your talk page is a warning about a copyright violation you introduced to an article. 900+ articles created sounds impressive but how many of those are GA class or better? I also agree with Valenciano states, if you're serious about being an admin, start logs for your CSD, PROD, and AfD participation and build a history where we can determine your cluefullness. One of the boilerplate questions is where you intend to be active as an admin. To that end, how have you demonstrated your readiness for those areas? The mop isn't a "time served" award. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with Chris here. The notability of Lothar von Faber is well-established in the article. The references are in German of course but that does not matter for establishing notability. The entry in the Neue Deutsche Biographie is already enough I think but if you add to that the book about him, it's clear that WP:GNG is met. Of course, it would be nice to translate the whole de.wiki article but for now, the stub is fine. Pichpich (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 4.5/10 - You are a very good editor, but I'm not sure if you will do any admin stuff. The lack of edit summaries and no admin stuff will make me oppose, although I only expect 95% of stuff to have an edit summary (90% for a extremely strong potential admin), you don't meet that. I would vote an oppose in this situation. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore
I'm dipping my toe in the water yet again to see what the community thinks of my chances if I were to be nominated for adminship. While I know the fact I don't have any GA or FA is a mark against me, I feel that my way of communicating with other editors, ability to listen and work rationally with editors, and knowledge of Wikipedia would be an asset to the project as a whole. My focus, should I be given the tools, would be more in the areas of vandal cleanup and page maintainance more than anything else, however I am willing to assist where it is needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Rick, I really enjoyed that beer you gave me the other day :) One queStion for you: of your 30,000 edits almost 13,000 are deleted edits. Why is that? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for the beer, hope you enjoyed it! Mostly because I do a lot of work in recent changes, and tagging pages for deletion. So a lot of these would be CSDs that were deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) You're an admin now, you can check his deleted contribs ;-) Ajraddatz (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * oh yes, so I can :) I'm still finding my way around the new buttons! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've looked back at the last 1000, they're almost all speedy deletion tags.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Rick, followup question – if you do a lot of CSD work, why don't you have a CSD log (and a PROD log)?... My advice: contact your friendly neighborhood Admin, and see if they can help you "reconstruct a CSD log" from your deleted edits (I've done this myself on my end, though my CSD log is probably minuscule compared to what yours is...) – if your Admin application is relying a lot on your CSD work, having some kind of CSD log will help you at RfA... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I will do that in the next few days, great suggestion! RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can also do an edit summary search to show standardized Twinkle edit summaries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that too, I asked about the CSD log as well to see what I could get going. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support you if you ran. You do an insane amount of useful and high-quality work, and in areas where you would benefit from the sysop tools. It seems you are competent in these areas (no declined speedy tags that I see, reports generally actioned). You also seem to have a strong track record of positive interactions with other users. I'm sure other people will tell you all about how your automated edits are too high, etc, but I like to focus on the things actually relevant for using the sysop bit :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6/10: Per a cursory look, great CSD contributions, measurable AfD record. However, your lack of content expansion will lead to significant opposition. A short B-class article (GA and FA are great) or at least something that proves that you can write well-sourced and neutral articles will dramatically improve your chances at RfA. Esquivalience  t 00:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 7/10 - Excellent work on the maintenance side of Wikipedia. However, I agree that you'll need to do some more content work if you want to pass an RFA. You've created 15 pages, but only one of them was made in the last 9 years. Omni Flames   let's talk about it  11:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9/10 - CSD log and the AFD log look great, You probably would get Opposes due to lack of content creation but IMHO you don't need to create content to be an admin - You've been here for nearly 10 years, have a clean block log and obviously participate in admin areas so you tick all my boxes!, I would certainly support if you did run. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9.5/10 Excellent maintenance work. Admin standards are too high as is, so I don't need an admin to be great at content work if they are solid in other areas. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9/10 - The opposes are probably going to be due to the lack of content creation. However, you assume good faith, fight vandalism, and are active in areas where admins are needed so I'd definitely support you! The only thing is that you aren't a reviewer yet in 10 years, and I'm a reviewer in a few months. Interesting.  Peter  Sam   Fan  15:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 8/10 - per above, but if you created even 4 "C"-class articles of 5000-character prose count, I'd move your chances to 9 or better.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions)
 * 6/10 There is a significant thirst for new admins now, so it is quite possible that your RfA will pass now so to speak, as is. As noted above, there will be considerable level of opposition due to lack of recent content creation. You do great work at CSD, AfD and AIV, and in other maintenance related areas. However, out of 15 articles you created, 14 were created in 2006-2007, and the only recently created article Robert Long House, is basically a stub (even though it is rated start class). That will certainly be seen as a weakness and will generate considerable opposition. As others above, I recommend that you try creating several new articles and taking them to C or even B class level. Also, try taking some of them trough some sort of content review process such as DYK, and maybe try to get at least one article to a GA level (e.g. maybe try to expand Robert Long House and raise it to the GA status). It is not as hard as it looks, and even if you decide that in the long term that's not your thing, it will still give you valuable experience. Then not only will your RfA chances be basically 10/10, but you'll get a better understanding and appreciation for the content creation side of Wikipedia. That's not a bad thing for anyone wanting to be an admin. In any event, I suggest adding the list of articles you created to your userpage. (And before going to RfA make sure that those articles are in decent shape and don't have ugly maintenance tags, copyvio problems, etc). Nsk92 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Traditionalist
I would like to see the opinion of other Wikipedians on my chances to become an administrator. I have an account since October 2011 and my contributions are, admittedly, less than they should be. Thank you in advance.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The question, I suppose, is to what extent you believe that the English revolution will begin in Ireland. Muffled Pocketed  11:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose that I will not live to see it.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 2/10 As you know, your edit history is too thin. You created a fair number of articles but they're all of poor quality. You have almost no AfD history and I don't see a PROD log or CSD log. Further, your userpage is a problem for me. While Wikipedians, like everyone else, have political and philosophical beliefs expressing those beliefs (especially when you say you hate or despise something) is going to alienate users that you think you should hold authority over. Try reading about adminship and consider if this is something you actually want to do. Then, think about what you need to accomplish to win the community's trust. It's hard to take your request seriously when you've obviously given no thought at all to the process. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 12:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As you stated, I do not whole-heartedly want to become an administrator. This request is more like a straw poll to test what impressions I generate.--The Traditionalist (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 1/10: absolutely not, just based on your user page. Yes, I know I have cat babel, but it does not raise the fur of others. You are going to have a difficult and contentious time with all your stated biases. Sorry.  Fylbecatulous talk 12:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are just fishing trolling to test what impressions you generate, then I will add: after reading all your userboxes, I need a sedative. Fylbecatulous talk 12:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, sir, I am not at all trolling. I simply want to test this publicly.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Please forgive my pejorative. I am amending my comment to something my cats would like. I do wish you the best.  Fylbecatulous <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 13:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Our doogs like fish skins too :) <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  13:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 3/10. I don't think there's anything actually wrong per-se with holding strong opinions - after all, my userpage quite clearly says I hate The Sun and the Daily Mail, and at least you are honest and up-front about it. However, that immediately makes me question your judgement on a site where WP:NPOV is a core policy. I wouldn't want you using your tools anywhere near Gerry Adams or Good Friday Agreement in a million years, and I would hope you are savvy enough to realise that. However, I think if you ran for RfA, you will generate a huge amount of discussion as to what other political discussions would you be unable to adjudicate on because of neutrality issues? And also, as soon as you start using the delete and block button, even if you think you are neutral, people on the other side of the debate (WP:DERRY, anyone?) will automatically assume you are using your tools because you disagree with them. I fear you'll be yanked up to ANI and possibly Arbcom in a bloodbath, and the personal attacks (albeit relatively innocuous) on Neelix on your talk page don't help matters. So I would give it a miss. Ian Paisley got away with calling the Antrim Coast Road "one of the most beautiful in the whole of the United Kingdom", but you can't (at least not in a WP article). Sorry. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that I have demonstrated my neutrality by making helpful (albeit gnomei-ish and not content-related) edits in many articles about Liberals, Labour party supporters and (to a lesser extent) Irish nationalists, and also many Americans. Also, I made a call for neutrality here and here. Furthermore, one of the wikipedians I admire the most, Brianboulton, is almost certainly centre-left to left-wing but I admire his diligence and hard work. Finally, one of my userboxes states that “this user admires many poets who held different political views than he does, because they were magnificent poets” which, in my eyes, at least, is a good example of neutrality.
 * P.S. Imagine that my userpage did not contain all these and, instead, was blank or contained basic information and my preferences on art and literature. I would still hold the views I hold but you could not say from my contributions. May I ask for a review based solely on my contributions?--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S.S. After this discussion I made edits which completely respected its consensus, even though it was different from my view on the matter.
 * The question on the table, though, isn't "am I a good editor" (no idea) or "should I be blocked" (not on evidence), but "would I pass an RfA"? You can do plenty of good work on the encyclopedia without going anywhere near the tools, as I think Brian has demonstrated in spades. Indeed, just like you shouldn't be able to work out anyone's POV for their edits, you shouldn't be able to tell if an editor is an admin or not, as they'll be able to resolve disputes on their own without reaching for the banhammer. However, this place lets anyone edit here, and I think you need to realise that not everyone who comes here is capable of calm and rational discourse with a respect for alternative views, and as an admin you'll quickly find yourself a magnet for having personal attacks thrown at you for simply doing your job. You can delete all the userboxes from your user page, but all you then need is one person to supply the diff of you doing so at an RfA, and a bunch of people will be asking you what you have to hide, which is potentially even worse. As Chris said above, you haven't really done much that shows you're particularly interested in the admin side of things, and the main evidence I can see is from clearing up Neelix's work. So, is getting the tools really something you want? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly am not as interested in it as most other people here. It occurred to me this morning.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question, though. What would you have to say about my contributions if I had a blank userpage and the userboxes were never there.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The trouble with hypothetical questions is that you only get hypothetical answers ;-) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely! This is what I want.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, I was quite impressed with the tactfulness I got in response to my slightly loaded question... <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  14:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if it interests anyone, but I just remembered of an instance of me being completely deficient: this every-day discussion's ending.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, you bumped into did you? He's our P.R. man  <sub style="color:green;>Muffled  <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  16:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be positive here: whilst I don't think WP is any place to express one's political affiliations (feel free to disagree; many people do!) I do believe that in a year or so you could stand a chance. Maybe not now. -- PatientZero <sup style="color:#0000FF;">talk  16:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can some please chuck a human baby sandwich, I think it must be feeding time.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm always impressed by your positive aura, I expect that must be it. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose it takes one to know one. The difference is, I'm never particularly impressed by anything you do.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I dodged a bullet there. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  20:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ...seeing as I'm here, no, I don't think Traditionalist should be an administrator. In fact, I note above that Traditionalist themselves doesn't particularly want to be an administrator; which begs the question: What on earth is this thread about?   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly it is about whether the Traditionalist thinks it is worth getting feedback on whether the traditionalist should think about thinking about being an administrator at some point in the future. I will get my coat. Irondome (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ironically,, that makes more sense than this shameful vanity fest.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Contra some of the other opinions presented here, I think it's a good thing that you list your political views on your userpage if you feel strongly about them. It's good disclosure of a potential conflict of interest, though you seem to be able to edit in a neutral manner currently and I doubt that would change should you become an admin. You don't need to be neutral on an issue to be able to act in a reasoned manner taking into account both sides of an argument. On a side note, you also seem to have some political views which aren't as "mainstream" on this site. Nothing to do with your chances of passing an RfA, but hooray for diversity of opinion! Ajraddatz (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind words!--The Traditionalist (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

4/10. I don't have a problem with someone with different views, but you should probably stay away from articles like that if you were to run for RfA. Other users, however, will probably not be as accepting, so I don't think that you would succeed. I would probably vote a "weak support" in this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte
I don't know if I want to partake in an RfA just yet, but I'd like to somewhat gauge an idea of where I am at the moment. I've been on Wikipedia for 1 year and a few months, got over 13.5k edits and Rollback, Autopatrolled, Pending Changes and Page Mover rights (along with Extendedautoconfirmed, of course). The few things holding me back are my AfD votes, which are just over 80% accurate, which isn't that bad, but I think I could do better. <font face="Papyrus"><font color="#ff0000">Anarchyte <font color="#000"> (<font color="#EB4E4F">work  &#124; <font color="#EB4E4F">talk )   09:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 9/10 - I've seen you around RM a bit and your work there is, excellent I must say. Your AFD stats are not too bad to be honest, 83% is a decent success rate which I wouldn't worry too much about, although it could of course be slightly better. Your CSD log is massive, with few blue links, which is a hude plus for you. The only reason why I'm not giving you a 10 here is because of a bit of a lack of concentrated content work. You've create around 30 or so articles which is great, and all of them look in good state, but other than those articles I don't really see a lot of article improvement. You're edit count and tenure here are also a little low. You've only made around 3000 edits to mainspace, of which nearly half are semi-automated. You've only been here for just over a year, which some people may consider too short. None of these things are things which I would personally oppose for, but it's possible that some people might. Anyway, I recommend you go for it. You'd certainly have my support should you choose to do so.   Omni Flames   let's talk about it  09:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words . The reason the majority of my mainspace edits aren't "writing" per se, is because I like to work in the inner workings of Wikipedia, such as reverting vandalism (hence the automated edits). I do enjoy writing (my favourite article that I rewrote would have to be Rust (video game)), but I'd much rather patrol RM, AfD, the Pending Changes log and the recent changes log. <font face="Papyrus"><font color="#ff0000">Anarchyte <font color="#000"> (<font color="#EB4E4F">work  &#124; <font color="#EB4E4F">talk )   11:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a fair reason in my opinion Anarchyte. As I mentioned, it's certainly not something I would oppose for, all I want to see in order to support you is some decent work on at least one article, and you've clearly met that. In my opinion, content work isn't really important to adminship, as the two are relatively unrelated. I just wanted to say that it could be a potential reason for opposes.  Omni Flames  let's talk about it  11:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 7/10 Great work overall, but you will get some flak on content creation if you go to RfA right now. So I suggest that you address some issues there first. First, add a full list of articles you created to your userpage. Second, make sure those articles are in decent enough shape and don't have ugly maintenance tags, like "refimprove", "citation needed", etc. E.g. your recently created article Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) from April 2016 does have such a tag. So does 2016 Australian school bomb threats. Third, many of your articles are very short stubs. Try expanding some of them to something longer, such as start-class or C-class. You have done some GA-reviewing, and if you can take one of your own articles to GA level, you'll be in really great shape for RfA and will have no problems at all there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already made a list of all my created articles that are still standing. It's located at User:Anarchyte/List of articles created. <font face="Papyrus"><font color="#ff0000">Anarchyte <font color="#000"> (<font color="#EB4E4F">work  &#124; <font color="#EB4E4F">talk )   22:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry I did not see it. I would perhaps make a link to this list a little more prominent on your userpage. I remember that I did look for it before commenting here originally but missed it then. You do have other lists, such as "Most recent creations", "GA reviews", that are much more prominently displayed. Ultimately, the list of articles that you created is more important, at least in my opinion, so I would make it easier to find. Nsk92 (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed it so the most recent 5 creations are shown and only 3 GA reviews are shown. Is this what you meant? <font face="Papyrus"><font color="#ff0000">Anarchyte <font color="#000"> (<font color="#EB4E4F">work  &#124; <font color="#EB4E4F">talk )   06:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that looks good now, especially since the "Article creations" section now has a link to your full list of articles. Nsk92 (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I've reassessed all my created articles. I can't really expand the Oberkirch article because there are no available references for it in English, which is a big problem. That article was also made as a result of a split. <font face="Papyrus"><font color="#ff0000">Anarchyte <font color="#000"> (<font color="#EB4E4F">work  &#124; <font color="#EB4E4F">talk )   08:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The corresponding article on German Wikipedia for Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) is much longer and has a bunch of sources in German. You could at least add some of them as non-in-line-citation sources. You could also use GoogleTranslate to see if the article can be expanded at least a little using the info from the German Wikipedia article. At the moment it does not look good that the article cites a single source and there is a refimprove maintenance tag on the article. I'd also still recommend that before you go to RfA you look through all the articles you created and see if there are obvious maintenance issues that need and can be addressed quickly; and if yes, I'd address them first, before going to RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I expanded Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) and added a few more references. I also went through all my other pages and tried to remove fix the tags; it went fairly successfully except for Running with Rifles which will probably need a full rewrite, tbh. And Dirty Bomb (video game), which I don't know what to do with because the sections that have problems may fall under WP:GAMECRUFT, should I just straightup remove those sections? <font face="Papyrus"><font color="#ff0000">Anarchyte <font color="#000"> (<font color="#EB4E4F">work  &#124; <font color="#EB4E4F">talk )   07:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for taking care of Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch). I am not sure about Dirty Bomb (video game), as the topic is too far from me. Perhaps it'd be OK to source that section to some primary source, but if not, I'd leave it as is. There are several references in that article which are bare URLs now; I'd at least reformat them. Nsk92 (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 8/10 - your mainspace edit count is a little low, although I don't think that's indicative of any problems, as I can tell you're more into your AV work than your article creation (as am I!). I'd say go for it, although be prepared for Oppose !votes from some people based on this. -- PatientZero <sup style="color:#0000FF;">talk  13:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 9/10 - Excellent work. You would be a great admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know RfA well enough to give you a numerical assessment. You check most boxes for me; my only two concerns would be that content work is a bit thin, and that you have occasionally been hasty with nominating something at AfD. You should try to address those points before you run. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4/10 Sorry for this. You have a very wide and very significant experience across Wikipedia. And you are an admin in the making, if not already, for me. But I notice a few reverts of you which cause me to pause with a bit of worry. For example this and this revert do not seem good faith edits which you reverted. They seem to be vandal edits which you failed to identify and wrongly classified as good faith edits. Again, in this pending change review, you seem to have reverted a good faith edit using your pending changes review tool (as Julia Roberts does appear in Mother's Day). WP:Reviewing advises that "even if an edit may appear suboptimal, this is in itself not a reason to revert." Even if you felt strongly about this addition and wanted to revert, I would have expected you to either mark this as a "good faith edit" revert or use the "undo" button, but you did neither. This can affect newbies like anything. These are reverts that I saw in your recent contributions. There may be more like this earlier. Maybe I am reading this all wrong. If that's the case, I am sorry. If I am reading this right, then take precautions in your reverts. Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the criticism . For the Tennessee Volunteers edit, I reverted that for AGF because the IP had never edited anywhere else, so I was assuming that they wanted to contribute their opinion, even though that's against policy of WP:NPOV and possibly WP:COI, depending if they were connected with the TV. I left them no talk page message for that reason. I see Saint Kitts as completely GF; it seemed like a test edit, I must've forgotten to enter a talk page message there (sorry). As for reviewing the pending changes, I don't use the undo button because the only options are "Accept" and "Revert". There's no need for rollback to have PC so I use the revert button as an undo button. If that's wrong, I can change that. Also, I've since readded the information to Julia Roberts, I reverted it in the first place because there was no reference given and per WP:BLP, the majority (if not all) of things should be referenced. <font face="Papyrus"><font color="#ff0000">Anarchyte  <font color="#000"> (<font color="#EB4E4F">work  &#124; <font color="#EB4E4F">talk )   12:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You are absolutely trustworthy so there's no question of not trusting you with the admin tools. The only small issue is your technical grasp of the revert functionality, which for an admin has to be perfect. Imo both the edits you identified as good faith edits are vandal edits. In my opinion again, the revert button should not be used as an alternative to the undo button, especially when the worry is that newbies will be pushed away, specially when the issue is about a celebrity and her very well known movie that can be searched in a handful of seconds on google search. I will vote support for you if you stand in the Rfa, more so given your answer above. The 4/10 is only to give you an insight into the behavioural hit that a newbie might take. Thank you for taking time to respond. Xender Lourdes (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Xender Lourdes, there's nothing wrong with using the revert button in place of the undo button, as long as you leave an appropriate edit summary. In this case, pending changes revert is exactly the same as the undo button, except for the fact that it mentions that the edits are pending. I really don't know what you're going on about here.  Omni Flames  let's talk about it  21:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The undo button (which allows you to additionally edit the page while undoing and provide a citation to a good faith edit) is similar to the manual revert (clicking on the edit button and doing the same), but not to the simplistic automatic revert button provided in the pc, which doesn't allow you to edit the version, although allowing you to give a reasoning. If one is using the PC automatic revert button to revert good faith changes especially of a newbie ip, it is preferable to write clearly that these are good faith changes that are being reverted than just mentioning that the previous version was better. Otherwise, use the undo button (or the manual revert, if you may), edit the good faith edits to your liking, provide a citation if such exists, and give a decent edit summary (again identifying the good faith edits as such). If it is a good faith edit, as per our pending changes reviewer guideline, "Accepting, immediately or after some modifications, is the default position, and even if an edit may appear suboptimal, this is in itself not a reason to revert, as for all edits, since they may yet be improved... It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting..." But of course, I am bantering now. Hope the difference in the undo and automatic revert button is clear. Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Should I go for it starting this weekend, or should I wait a bit longer? I understand my article creation is lacking but I don't think that's a big deal as I like to work in behind-the-scenes-type areas. <font face="Papyrus"><font color="#ff0000">Anarchyte <font color="#000"> (<font color="#EB4E4F">work  &#124; <font color="#EB4E4F">talk )   09:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do it now. No need to wait. Xender Lourdes (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say be bold and go for it now. Best of luck! -- PatientZero <sup style="color:#0000FF;">talk  10:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 10:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would, however, suggest caution in taking advice from those not qualified to give it: they could skew your perspective (intentionally, or unintentionally). That's the problem with a small page such as this- not enough eyes to make a meanngful judgment! Good luck with whatever course of action you choose to take though. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed 
 * I understand that I'm late to the party here, but I second what others have said. I reckon you should do for it now. Yes, your content creation is a little lacking but no one should expect you tp be perfect in every area. As with ThePlatypusofDoom, I'm willing to nom or co-nom you if you need one, but I may not be the greatest person to do so. Best of luck with whichever path you choose to take, you'll certainly have my support.  Omni Flames  let's talk about it  06:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been here long enough and done enough editing to run an RFA. You seem to have the right mix of contributing content and doing enough maintenance work to need the tools. One problem, looking through your deleted edits one of the first I saw was an A1 in the same moment that an article was created. A1 and A3 tags are not supposed to be added to articles in the first few minutes. I didn't check enough edits to see if this was an isolated incident or part of a pattern, but I'd suggest rereading the deletion rules and maybe some of the essays. If it is part of a pattern but you now learn from this then I don't see that an RFA in a few weeks would be problematic, providing you use Question 3 to cover the matter. Two other issues came up on your talkpage, firstly don't worry about your signature as long as you stick to colours that have sufficient contrast with white - ie don't go too pale. Secondly we expect admins to be able to communicate and sometimes that works best by email for example requests for revision deletion. This isn't a dealbreaker, but if you don't want to disclose your usual email address, why not get a free one that you just use for Wiki stuff?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , makes a valid point. I am sure you'll consider what he says and take more care in your CSDs. I also noticed a CSD nom where you have A7'd an educational institution. I am confident that given your generally very careful use of tools like Twinkle, you will make minimal mistakes as you go ahead (everyone makes mistakes, we just try and minimise them). Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the A1 nominations, I try to wait 5-10 minutes before tagging, but sometimes I forget to check the history before tagging. Even then, I check my CSD Log for those entries to see if the creator has added content and then I remove the tag. I'll try to be more careful when tagging with A1-A3. As for that A7 mentioned, I also tagged in for A11 in case the A7 failed. It seemed pretty promotional for an education insitution so I threw both of them on. I see now see my mistake and that won't happen again . I might grab up a hotmail email just for Wiki purposes if the RfA passes.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   22:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, would you be able to nominate me later today? I have my answers for the questions down packed.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there is a queue, I've been talking to another potential nominee for a while. Plus I'd like to see a few weeks of CSD nominations after you slowdown on the A1s, and as I said the one I spotted was one of the first I checked, I'd check a lot more before nominating someone. But if you haven't run by early July feel free to email me a draft of your intended answers to the three questions. That isn't me advising you not to run for another month, someone else might do the checks that I don't currently have time to do and nominate you if they think that A1 was an isolated mistake. In the meantime the advice to get a DYK is good, your content contributions meet my standards, but some are more picky on this.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  11:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All good. Thanks for the advice. I've had a look at my CSD for the whole of this year and I've only nominated ~10 pages for A1 so far. As previously mentioned, I try to be restritive when tagging with that criteria, but sometimes (like the one you mentioned) some slip threw the cracks. said they'd also take a look at my edits before I started the RfA so I'd need to wait for him anyway. Thanks!   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to nominate you, but you may want someone who is more experienced to nominate you. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 7/10: Generally good maintenance contributions: CSD log for this month is fine aside for some faulty A7s, AfD participation is also fine (based on policy and valid concerns), counter-vandalism looks good. However, some voters will need to see evidence of content expansion. Looking at your mainspace edits, you mainly make gnomish edits instead of content-expansion edits. Contributing to an article to GA-level will dramatically bolster your chances. — Esquivalience (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, my thinking exactly. Nsk92 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 8/10: No real problems with AfD / CSD logs, no obvious evidence of incivilty or twinkleitis, using self-written edit summaries. The only concern is that content is a bit weak, with a little bit work on Rust (video game) but otherwise just odds and ends. It might be an idea to get one article through WP:DYK which hopefully should not be to onerous, just for the experienced. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken 3 articles to DYK.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   22:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Ritchie333 meant getting articles that your created through DYK. You actually do have one of those, List of most disliked YouTube videos, but from the structure of your userpage the fact that you were the original creator of the article is not apparent. The article listed next to it, Survival Island 3, was nominated by you for DYK, but created by another editor (you do have a few edits there). For the third article, We Don't Have to Dance, you were its DYK reviewer. The main point is that in terms of enhancing your overall content creating experience, the best thing would be to take (some more of) your own articles through some form of peer review process, such as DYK or GA. Nsk92 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly this. I have User:Ritchie333/GA, User:Ritchie333/DYK (this is a bit out of date) and User:Ritchie333/saves (the latter contains articles I have prevented from being deleted by improving them). I have these pages partly so I can remember what I worked on, partly as an ego massage, and partly because it was easy for RfA voters to see what I'd done. Something to definitely consider. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

CCamp2013
I have been a part of the wikipedia community for a while now and I spend more and more time on here, learning new tools. I'm interested what people would think about my chances if I were to be nominated. I think I have a lot of experience with vandalism and disputes with other editors. I have had few conflicts of my own with other people and the ones I have had ended in a talk page discussion and I respected the outcome. I'm always trying to strive for a better quality wikipedia and putting ideas out in the wikisphere to make it better. I think everything I have learned so far will make me extremely helpful to Wikipedia. I think my areas of focus are pretty clear, however, as I explore the world of wikipedia, I go where I am needed. Chase (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 0/10 Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's true: you would get clobbered at RfA. You have only 16 edits in the Wikipedia namespace, 2 of which are to the present page and four more are requests for permissions for yourself. This is nowhere near the minimum expected for RfA candidates, especially since these expectations keep rising! If you want to be an admin, you will need to get involved in admin-related areas including speedy-deletions, articles for deletion, counter-vandalism and so on. Pichpich (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 0/10 As well as what has been said above, I saw the note that you had been warned following a complaint at WP:AN3, and that's going to result in a pile-on oppose if you ran today. You need to put some distance between you and that. Sorry. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was the one filling the complaint. Chase (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear right now wouldn't be the best of ideas - focus on some content creation and AfD discussions, as well as continuing doing whatever it is about Wikipedia which you enjoy Talk page is always open if you have questions and the such --  samtar talk or stalk 15:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 0/10. As of right now you do not have the relevant experience; furthermore, the recent edit-warring is of concern. I do hope you have acknowledged that your behaviour was inappropriate, and I do hope you post here again in the foreseeable future. If you adhere to our policies and guidelines for the next six months, I may be inclined to support. -- PatientZero <sup style="color:#0000FF;">talk  17:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 0/10 - Sorry to pile on but the edit warring (regardless of who filed it) would sink your RFA quicker than you can blink, I concur with the above in a nice way you should perhaps come here in a year or so and try again, – Davey 2010 Talk 20:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 0/10 only 16 edits to the WP namespace, and the edit warring is very recent. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 0/10, per the above, you need more edits & more experience. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 0/10 - I almost never take edit count into deciding factor, although 1,500 edits is too little for me. Try again in 12-18 months. &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Joseph2302
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interested how likely people think it'd be that I could be an admin at some point in the future. I have 3 FLs, 1 GA and numerous DYKs. been involved in COI, new pages/AFC, and AfD. Block log isn't clean, but all of that stupidness is behind me. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 2/10 You claim "all of that stupidness is behind" you and I hope that is so. You were blocked for socking in February of last year and blocked again in April of last year because of schizophrenic vandalism. Your good editing of cricket articles becomes worthless when viewed against the backdrop of your apparent lack of judgement. For two such events barely more than a year ago I am neither willing to assume good faith nor forgive your missteps. However, to be complete I will note that although your AfD stats are typically in line with the end result (assuming that's good) you do tend to be a deletionist. You may take flak over that. Your edits have some cross-wikiness which is good. Your account is a little newish for RfA. Your edit count isn't really impressive because of heavy Twinkle use although I'm fine with that because of your countervandalism. Your edit history is good, overall, so it's a shame you had two costly emotional outbursts. Maybe the consensus of the aggregate is more forgiving. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that means over a year with no mishaps- and that's well over what than we ask for a WP:STANDARDOFFER. Although admittedly, that isn't usually a springboard to adminship either. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  17:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I'm expecting the block log to significantly reduce people's votes- I'm more interested in what they think about everything else. Unfortunately, I can't change the past, but I can make the present/future positive. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, your knowledge, understanding, and application of the policies and guidelines is second to none; perhaps just a trifle inflexible sometimes? No disrespect you understand, just painting pictures at this point. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  17:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't ANI and I'm not complaining about Joseph2302. I'm just trying to be honest. I opposed Piotrus's last RfA because of dishonesty although he's been an exemplary contributor to Wikipedia. With Joseph2302's inexplicable errors I really can't let that go. Had they violated WP:NPA after being taunted by trolls I could understand. Had there been an edit war over some content disagreement even that I could forgive. Socking and vandalism a year ago with no real explanation why makes me wonder about the candidate. Joseph2302 is otherwise a good editor and I encourage them to continue. If not for those two blocks I'd have little problem supporting an RfA. I think my distrust is better heard in this forum than on an actual RfA in front of scores of other editors. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Your good editing becomes worthless"...? A tad over the top, I think. To the extent that this page is about making predictions, sorry, Joseph, but I don't think you'd pass now given that background. I do wish though that we had more admins who actually understood the behavior they're blocking people for. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 5.5/10. Due to your blocks, I would probably have a weak support on this one. I do think that you would be a decent admin, wait until August. If not for the blocks, I would give you a 8.7/10. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 17:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 0/10 for this dated a few days ago. With a bit more tact and diplomacy, this autobiography could have been shuffled off to userspace, or possibly transwikied elsewhere, instead it has developed into a bloodbath at AfD. Please do not bite the newbies. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For 2.5 months, this user has been harassing multiple users to get their autobiography accepted. There's a point when you just need to give up and walk away, and I'd reached that point. Also, the AfD is only happening because they wouldn't accept a speedy deletion, and so harassed the deleting admin into restoring it. They're clearly not here to contribute, and aren't ever going to listen to advice. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And if you'd checked properly, you would have noticed it has previously been moved to draftspace, and the user had moved it back to article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Got to agree with here- the editor in question's behaviour declined to the extent that it went to AN/I for harassing multiple users. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled  <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  13:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. "He started it" and "They've behaved worse than me!" are never excuses. See WP:BOOMERANG (or Requests for adminship/Thomas.W to see how these things might play out). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 3/10 If you were up for RfA today, I think that !voters would get hung up on a few issues.  Being blocked for sockpuppetry seems like a fairly big deal, especially since you denied it.  I appreciate that you apologized, and perhaps have avoided further violations.  But I think most !voters will not be able to get past that.  Your AFD stats seem OK but not great.  There are quite a few nominations that were kept. See AFD Nom Stats. This one stood out to me as one suggesting you might need better knowledge of policy like WP:BEFORE.  Along with AFD, !voters may also be concerned with the absence of a CSD log.  You seem to have plenty of CSDs.  It may be helpful to make it easier for !voters to see that you understand the criteria for speedy deletion by activating a CSD log. Looking at the most recent RfAs, I'm sure some !voters will say it's toosoon, and note that your account is not very old.  I imagine they may also question the skill with which you edited early on, given the sockpuppetry history. There seems to be evidence to suggest that RfA is a broken process, and that we are moving further and further away from WP:NOBIGDEAL.  My suggestion would be to continue editing, keep clear of the issues folks have raised here, and go for it in few months.  Good luck if/when you do.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13
I'm a regular closer at TfD, where I probably close 80-90% of the discussions each month. I've also recently become involved in CfD, where I cleared a backlog of over 200 discussions down to a couple dozen in around half a month. In both of these areas, non-admins can close as delete, since the next implementation step doesn't require admin tools (orphaning a template or emptying a category). After completing those actions, I've listed hundreds of templates and categories for speedy deletion as per WP:G6. My CSD log had over 500 entries since April, when I realized it wasn't already active, and they're almost entirely in this area. I probably have near a thousand speedy deletion nominations not listed there, both from before April and when I occasionally use AWB for tagging categories/templates from mass-nominations. It would be useful to be able to delete templates and categories directly instead of nominating them for speedy deletion, especially in situations where many categories or templates are being deleted. I've had to spam 300 categories with speedy deletion tags in the past, and that's a huge time waste for everyone involved. My biggest negative is that I've been on the site for a similar amount of time to Anarchyte, which is guaranteed to draw at least 20 opposes by itself. Any feedback is appreciated. ~ RobTalk 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 8/10: More optimistically, as you have a sizeable portfolio of content (more than enough) and lots of gnoming, and I do not find any rookie mistakes on a spot check. — Esquivalience (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 6/10 at the moment but should rise fairly soon. I'd give it a couple of months at minimum; this incident affected a lot of pages and your response to it (which could be summarised as "I just did it without looking at what I was doing"—there's no way you could have thought Częstochowa or Ohio Theatre were really about "fictional women" if you'd been paying attention) wasn't exactly what one wants to see in someone asking for access to the delete and block buttons. Assuming that was a one-off incident, it ought to be forgotten fairly soon. &#8209; Iridescent 20:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. That tagging was done by my bot, so I quite literally wasn't paying attention; the categories requested by the project were fed into the bot, and the bot ran its programmed task. As per the established best practices for WikiProject tagging, a discussion was held on the project page spanning multiple weeks on whether the categories should be tagged. All subcategories to be tagged were explicitly listed, and I did no recursive tagging beyond that list (i.e. no tagging of sub-sub-categories, etc). I deferred judgement on whether the categories/articles were within the scope of the project to the project participants, since I have no knowledge of the appropriate scope. Unfortunately, neither the editor who provided the list of categories nor the other editors who supported the tagging foresaw these issues despite manually reviewing the categories, partially because they had a different view on the scope of the WikiProject. Regardless of the origin of the issue, I'm responsible for my bot's edits. I manually rolled back all edits from that run after some project participants who hadn't participated in the earlier discussion objected to the tagging. While I continue to assume good faith when editors tell me they've reviewed the categories, you're correct; it's hard to imagine editors actually looked at those articles and didn't voice any concerns. Since that issue, I've modified my operating procedures for when I do tagging runs. I now manually spot-check each category myself in addition to the best practices linked above. ~ RobTalk 20:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7/10. To be honest, if somebody comes with a cast-iron reason for the tools (in this case it's "TFD and CFD have horrendous backlogs and I want to fix that") with no evidence that the editor will run amok, then it will be an easy "support" vote for me. It's exactly what I did for 's RfA, where his technical skills acted as a "trump card" over everything else. As for whether or not everyone feels the same, who knows? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would vote support. I would recommend starting with noncontroversial stuff. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If I do opt to go through RfA, I'm going to make it abundantly clear that I have no interest in the typically controversial areas. ANI, AIV, UAA, RFPP, AFD, AN3, and speedy deletion are all great areas to volunteer, but I'd rather clear the many uncontroversial backlogs requiring administrator attention than elbow other more experienced admins out of the way to fight for the scraps of work left at those areas. I could maybe see myself clearing a backlog at WP:RFPP if one develops and a lack of response is causing active harm to the encyclopedia, but that would be an exception to my activity, not the rule. I'd like the tools to enhance my existing areas of activity, not to branch out into new and boring? drama-filled? exciting areas.  ~ RobTalk 18:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good strategy. But be advised: someone will pre-empt you on that, and mark you down for attempting to pass RfA on false pretences! <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  18:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm going into this with eyes wide open (if I go in at all). The state of RfA is such that plenty of people will mark me down for various things that fall under assuming bad faith, others will say I'm too inexperienced (with 40,000 edits and a bot approaching 100k!), and a third group will say my lack of interest in the "typical" areas is somehow a drawback. All I can do is answer honestly, go in with no expectations, and continue working to better the encyclopedia after everything's said and done whether or not I have some extra buttons to help out. ~ RobTalk 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 8/10. Personally I think your case is much stronger than that of Anarchyte, even if the length of tenure looks similar. Your content creation record is much more impressive, with several GA's and quite a few DYKs, and in general with a much greater number of articles created. We do need specialist admins, and TfD/CfD is an area with huge backlogs. I did a quick spot-check of some of your CSDs and did not find any problems there. So it seems to me that a considerable number of people who are opposing or sitting-out Anarchyte's RFA would actually support yours (and if you notice, his RfA is not all that far from passing). Still, I would suggest waiting at least a couple more months, if only to let the current drama subside somewhat (whichever way Anarchy's RFA will be closed, there will certainly be quite a bit of handwringing at WT:RFA for a few weeks afterwards). Also, even if you don't plan to be active at AfD, it is still a good idea to brush up on various obscure aspects of the deletion policy. You may get asked questions about that during an RfA anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback and advice. I'm probably leaning toward running at the moment, but I do have to give some serious thought to the timing. In mid-July, I start the first portion of my PhD program in economics. This doesn't mean I'll go inactive, by any means, but the first year of a PhD program is quite stressful. I don't know whether I'd want to add the week-long heavy stress of an RfA on top of that. I may be in a position where I have to choose between July 2016 or at least August 2017 after the comprehensive exams, which are "pass or get kicked out of the program". ~ RobTalk 23:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 8/10 - Negative - You've been here just over a year, Positive - You've done a ton of great work at TFD and CFD clearing the backlogs etc etc as well as the fact you've created over 100 articles, I believe you'd be a net positive and as you'd help with backlogs you'd be a massive help here, If running I'd wait for a few months until the other RFA dies down abit otherwise you'd probably gain the same !votes (then again you could gain some in a few months however it wouldn't be so bad), Despite the fact I only like to support those with a 2 year tenure I would Support you with out a doubt, You've outweighed the negatives with the positives so personally I think you'd sail through it, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 22:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 85% - You've got a much stronger case than Anarchyte. You have great content work and you have excellent experience in a couple places where admins are sorely needed. You'd have my support! -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7/10 - Generally better judgment and higher maturity than Anarchyte. SST  flyer  03:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus
So I've been here actively for a while (before that it was just sporadic) principally writing new articles and expanding old ones that handle of South American volcanoes and some volcanoes elsewhere, as well as policing images (at WP:FFD, at uploading and WP:MCQ) and new pages at times. Recently WP:Files for discussion has been a bit backlogged as only a few administrators work there and I've considered to help out there, seeing as I do understand copyright issues - which can be a difficult area to handle - to some degree. But before contemplating that further, I wanted to know what other people think about my chances.
 * 10/10 - you've got the content experience and a clear need for the tools in FFD, a backlogged area desperate for admin attention. If you're up for it, let me spend a day thoroughly checking out your contributions and if there are no "skellies", I'm happy to start an RfA for you. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 8/10 Your longevity and edit count meet expectations. You've created a fair number of articles and I note you have three GAs, El Laco which you created as well as Aucanquilcha and Uturunku, all of which you've DYK'd, too. I'd also note the articles you've created are all very technical volcanology-related articles. The fact that you're multilingual is also interesting. One problem I can see is that your AfD participation is thin. You vote heavily with the outcome (assuming that's good) but there might be concerns by some of your experience there. I'd support you assuming nothing untoward is discovered. Your semi-automated edits are very low so that won't be an issue. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 6/10 - You can count on my support vote, and there is much to like. I've seen you around and have previously thought you're admin material.  There are 2.5 strikes against you.  Most importantly, based on the last RfA, you've only been "seriously" editing for just over a year.  I know you've been here for 5 years, but the edit count really increases June last year.  Less important, but I expect it to generate less opposition, is the number of "mainspace" edits compared to Wikipedia-space edits.  Some will like this, but others will oppose for this reason.  Nothing you can do about that, but see first issue.  Least important, you don't have a CSD log, and you're AfD participation is somewhat slim, as noted above by others.  You're "percentage right" is perfect.  It's not 100%, but when you "err" (ahem) it is to keep, and the inclusionist cabal (which is stronger on RfA, while the deletionist cabal seems to have the run of AfD) will like that.  Your content creation is stellar, no problem there.  Wait 8 months.  It's not fair, but this is an evaluation of what is, not what should be.   <font color="008B8B">78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 04:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He has a CSD log here and the AfD stats don't log his contributions to FFD, which seem to be substantial. Perhaps the RfA might get stuck on cross-examination of copyright law, but I can't see how at the minute. When I see a candidate with a "specialist skill" not too many existing admins have, it puts a big weight towards support for me (eg: see Cyberpower678's RfA) and I am quite confident the RfA regulars can demolish any opposition without too much effort. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  06:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed it, I see. Yes, that CSD is substantial, and looks good to boot.  Thanks Ritchie.  I'll move it to 7.5, and if you really feel the NOTYET crowd can be cowed, that would be delightful, I see no other substantive objections.   <font color="008B8B">78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 9/10 – If someone has common sense, uses diplomacy, has been around three years with 12,000 edits, does content work, makes reasonable posts to admin boards, and wants to contribute to an area like FFD which is in need of admin help, I'd say go for it. Note that, since you are claiming the ability to sort out copyright matters, you might get questions in that area in the RfA. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 10/10 - You're a content creator, Been here for well over 2 years, Want to help in FFD & the backlogs .... There's nothing that you could be opposed for although I'm sure someone will try and find a reason, I personally think you'd pass easily. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 9.9/10 - 'nuff said. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 9/10 – anyone who has not only a 10/10 support from Ritchie333, but also an offer to start an RfA for you wins my trust. I hedge the 9 out of 10 by one because the process is unpredictable and until the questions and comments come out in any request...there is always a slight unknown. <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 12:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 9/10: You might get some opposes based on pie chart nitpicking; but qualified candidate. — Esquivalience (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7-8/10: I'd probably support you, personally, but are you up for seriously nasty editing disputes?  Gamergate trolls?  Enforcing 1RR or other discretionary sanctions on, for example, the GMO issue or resolving a hot debate over abortion or climate change?  The stats counters love nice numbers that line up with supermajority percentages; I care about whether an editor is being outed and harassed in real life due to standing up to bullies or enforcing sanctions on strong-minded editors.  What kind of disputes have you been involved with and how did you handle them?  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  02:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

VegasCasinoKid
After 2 years and 2000 (including deleted contribs) edits across with wiki, I'm giving this a try. I'd like to see what other editors think of 2 years of good contributions. I am fully aware that gaining access to advanced functions is not the purpose of my editing rather it is granted for the purpose of continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia as I would do without the access. I don't think it hurts to put my history to under the looking glass to see what areas need improvement. So I leave it to the community to give an assessment of my edit history. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3/10 - No blocks, and a decent (62.8%) AfD involvement, but I think the 756 non-automated edits and not-so-great content creation could do with some work. I think a bit more time providing reasoned AfD votes and involvement in WP:AIV/WP:UAA paired with putting down the automated tools for a bit could really help --  samtar talk or stalk 11:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * pretty straightforward. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2/10 - Hi VegasCasinoKid. I'll try to give you an honest review here. You've done some work at AFD, which is always good. However, your AFD stats show that you're vote has only matched the result just over 60% of the time, which is not great. You generally use an edit summary, which is a plus. Anyway, there are two main problems with you applying for adminship in my opinion. Firstly, your talk page. It's filled with copyright violation and deletion notices. Secondly, your edit count. You've only got around 2000 edits total, and only around 700 of the are non-automated ones in the mainspace. That's not very many. You're really not very active, looking at your edit count, you only make on average around 30-50 edits a month, a tiny number. I'm also struggling to see any real content work, you've created 16 articles, but many are deleted and some appear to have been tests. Overall, I'm sorry but you've got no chance of passing RFA. My advice is to get more active, broaden your editing areas and come back when you've done more content creation/improvement.  Omni Flames   let's talk about it  11:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The latest copyright image notice was resolved with the posting a fair use tag on the image page and the image survived the deletion discussion. There are many copyrighted images and logos on the project, you just have to make sure they're tagged (and used) properly as I have learned.   VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1/10 - the speedy deletion notices on your talk page are the kiss of death. I'll let you off for trying to create an article about yourself as the first edit, as that's a rookie error, but you are still getting speedy deletion notices dated this year. That suggests you don't understand the notability and deletion policies properly, and so I cannot trust you with the delete button at this time and would have to vote "oppose", and would use what I have just said as the oppose rationale. Sorry. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole purpose was to get an assessment rather then try to nom. I've read the GRFA page but I wanted a review from editors to see what I was lacking (I knew I didn't edit frequently, but was wondering if there was anything else that was working against me.)  It's true I have a deleted articles, but my most recently created article New Rangers Ballpark seems to be a success and I have a good deal of contributions to it.  So the best I can do is learn for the mistakes and move on.  Your best teacher is not found at school.  His name is Experience.  Thank you for your input.  VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3/10 With your speedy deletion tags and image deletions on your work, I don't think that you will pass RfA. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4/10 Sorry, but you don't have a chance. You have about 2,100 edits, and I have *cough* over 5000 *cough* Edit counts aren't everything, but most people will look at that. The speedy deletion notices are not going to help you either.  Peter  Sam   Fan  23:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 0/10  I think the folks above were being polite about your AFD stats, green cells in the 60s will look pretty bad.  Also, this one from only a few months ago stands out.  Your edit count by itself wouldn't be an issue for me, except that your contributions raise some red flags.  Besides AFD and the speedy deletion templates mentioned above, there seems to be too little experience with, and demonstration of knowledge of deletion policy.  There also seems to be little work in the area of counter-vandalism.  Also, a lot of your edits to User talk pages appear to be template welcome messages, which comes across like an attempt to artificially inflate your edit count for RfA.  I would suggest that you start learning policies well, especially ones related to admin functions.  Continue editing for a few years and try this poll again.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1/10 - 2k edits? No way you would pass in 2016. Also per concerns raised by other editors above. SST  flyer  03:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3/10 For me, 2 years and 2K edits? No. 2 years and 10K edits, maybe.  While edit counts are not everything, the low count is coupled with insufficient content creation.  Without having a single DYK or GA, you have no idea what most editors go through. Of the 16 articles you created, 9 were deleted.  (In contrast, I've created 236 articles, of which 5 have been deleted) I want someone who has the mop to understand the issues, and I am concerned that you do not fully understand what encyclopedic work is all about.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  02:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While I don't disagree with your assessment of this editor's chances at RFA, I think that "no idea what most editors go through" is an overstatement. Most editors never even attempt anything as complicated as DYK or GA and cannot boast a 98% survival rate for articles they create.  This editor's experience is much closer to "most" editors' experiences than yours or mine.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But most editors are not good admin candidates, and I think you misunderstand Montanabw's point anyway. Also, there's nothing complicated about DYK (which is trivial, both in the sense of easy and not important), or even GA (which is important and tedious, but not complicated).  Actually getting through FAC, yeah, that can be complicated, in several senses.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 0/10: I agree with Ritchie333, Becky Sales, Montanabw. Yours would be a WP:SNOWBALL close against. Low levels of content work are a strong indicator that a candidate will not understand the WP:ENC and WP:HERE nuances in disputes and be able to handle them productively, instead taking a "punish everyone who is arguing, just to shut up a dispute I don't understand and can't be bothered to figure out" approach, which is probably our #1 problem with bad and questionable admins. A history of being on the wrong side of what content is appropriate is even worse in the eyes of many RfA !voters. An over-50% deletion rate of articles you've created? , as Will Smith would put it. I would expect to see a rate more like 5% or less (with amnesty for merges – people care about whether you're injecting unencyclopedic content, or potentially encyclopedic content with poor or no sourcing, not whether people later want to move good content around). Two of the most typical points of RfA criticism are going to be AfD track record and deep understanding of CSD.  Someone who has more than half their articles nuked clearly has neither of these under their belt.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Guthix no more
Hello! I know that my account is ridiculously premature for admin-ship according to current standards, but am curious nevertheless about the role of admins. Why can sysop not be granted to users who only plan on fighting vandalism? Any abuse of the blocking tool can be easily reverted in seconds...Also, why do users need to gain 5k+ edits, especially if they don't plan on user interaction, just with blocking trolls.


 * ...rating and optional brief comment...
 * Welcome! The worst of it is, that making such an enquiry generally leads seasoned editors to consider instinctively it indicative of socking. Cheers! <sub style="color:green;>Muffled  <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  19:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I can answer these. Patrolling WP:RFPP and WP:AN3 I see a surprising number of people who don't really understand what vandalism is, and an administrator wrongly accusing a good-faith editor of vandalism harms the encyclopedia enormously. The last (only?) time I reversed a block I got hauled up to WP:ANI and a few admins suggested I should be desysopped (it all got sorted out in the end though and we made up) - I am never doing that again. And finally, your definition of a "troll" may be different from mine, and in a good month I do easily over 1,000 edits, so doesn't take too long to get 5K if you're serious about this place. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for the input. After properly editing for a couple days I see what you mean about WP:NOTVANDAL, as well as the scrutiny that an admin would come under for such errors. Also probably should say that new users mess up with simple things such as how wikipedia operates.....(messed up an AFD request. heh.) Guthix no more (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , I would suggest (thanks nevertheless to my very good friend  for his valuable input) that  you  evaluate your  own chances at  adminship  by  reading  the advice pages linked to  above, and for your general education about  all  things admin, follow the discussions at  WT:RfA, but you'll need a thick skin ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Athomeinkobe
I saw a link to this page posted at WT:AFC and figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. As a brief introduction, I've been active on Wikipedia for about two years now. Contrary to popular belief, there is more to Japan than just anime, so I am trying to broaden the coverage of the country in my own little way and my current efforts are towards getting political articles up to scratch. I have written one good article and about 20 DYK articles (including current nominations). On the maintenance side of things I am currently active at WP:PNT. I would not call myself overly active at AFD, but I've participated in about 100 discussions and nominated a few myself. I notice others above have mentioned a CSD log. I have not kept a log myself, but hazard a guess that I have tagged about 100 articles for speedy deletion and very few of those would have been wrong. The same goes for PROD nominations of articles. Perhaps someone can confirm the contents of my deleted contributions. That is not to say I am focused on deletion though, I would rather see content kept if there is the prospect of it being improved and notable and try to communicate with other authors wherever possible. Thank you in advance for any and all feedback. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: Thank you for your reviews so far. I have started CSD and PROD logs; is it necessary to go back and add old entries? As for why I need the tools, I would be most active in what I already know, reviewing CSD and PROD nominations. I have performed a few non-admin closures of AFDs in the past. Being clear cut, they would not provide much insight into my ability to assess consensus, but I am confident in my ability in that regard. I find myself wanting to move a page occasionally but cannot due to edit history already existing at the target destination, so being able to handle that myself without having to ask someone else to take time out to move a page would be useful. Finally, I use the pending changes reviewer tool a bit, and via that find other pages that are subject to vandalism but not under protection. I've requested protection for articles in the past, so am familiar with the process and would be happy to work in that area if it is backlogged. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 7/10 Block log is clean. Your AfD participation is fine. I would definitely get those CSD and PROD logs together. I'll stipulate to your content contribution. I recommend stating why you need the tools and where you'd be most active as an admin. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7/10 - 8/10 without doing an in-depth investigation which I reserve for actual RfA candidates. The choice whether to run or not is yours and you are aware that even the best candidates attract some nasty and disingenuous comments, so 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 6/10 - You have my support. However, you have not demonstrated a need for the mop. SST  flyer  06:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah
I'm returning again to RFACP a few months shy of the RFA I made one year ago. I made an RFACP a few months after I ran in order to get an assessment and honest opinion from anyone willing to give them, and the advice I was given was to wait about a year (and obviously take the good advice I received from my RFA). I can honestly say that I'm happy that I was asked to create some content and wait a year instead of just being given the mop (no joke). I did learn a lot, and I wouldn't have contributed some article work if I had passed. After establishing a longer track record of contributions in the areas I truly enjoy, as well as continuing what I've been doing that was appreciated, I'm back again to ask the community... am I ready? Do my contributions and interactions with others show that I can handle the mop? If there's something I'm still lacking or need to drastically improve, please tell me and I'll absolutely take it to heart and plan accordingly. If I decide to RFA again (which may or may not be somewhat soon), I want to do it right this time and do it to serve the community. As always, I thank everyone and appreciate any and all feedback you leave, whether it be good or bad. All I ask is that it's honest :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 8/10. Of course. You have satisfied all the concerns about content creation, and you are an excellent editor in every aspect. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 8/10, based on the most recent RfA voting criteria (because it seems to be inflating massively) - you have a number of articles, all of which are decently sized and referenced, with one being a GA. You have 100k+ edits, have been here for over two years and have a very decent 90%+ AfD vote statistic. You're heavily involved in the correct admin areas (AIV, UAA etc) with little mention in the wrong places. You're very civil, clued up on policy and extremely helpful. In short, I believe you have a very good chance of passing a RfA, and the project would be lucky to have you in the corp -- samtar talk or stalk 08:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 9/10 - go for it, man! You would be a perfect candidate. :-) You're helpful with newcomers, and as Samtar said, very civil indeed - I remember asking you for help when I was a newcomer myself and I couldn't have asked for better advice. I admire your AV work, and I don't see the automated edits as a problem considering you have worked on a considerable amount of articles. Best of luck! -- PatientZero <sup style="color:#0000FF;">talk  08:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You've got two experienced editors supporting you here! That's good news. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  08:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 6/10 - I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your GA reviews Talk:Tsing Yi North Coastal Road/GA1 and Talk:Widest path problem/GA1 are not up to par. The former article is only about 3K of prose and I am incredibly suspicious of it meeting the "broad in coverage" part of the GA criteria, while the latter might be well-written (I don't know), with all due respect I didn't peg you as somebody who would be able to pick through IEEE technical documentation to confirm the content is factually accurate and properly verifiable. Similarly, from the other side of the fence, Talk:Sakurai's Object/GA1 seems to be pretty slap-dash, and required another editor to come in and question it. Now, I'm not expecting you to go to the other extreme of Talk:Widener Library/GA1, but I do expect GA reviews to have some "meat" on them that show you've read the article and are prepared to constructively criticise it. I think the most "perfect" GA candidate I saw was Talk:Symphony Six/GA1 and even there there was the possibility of adding comments or suggestions. I suspect the likes of will pounce on this and !vote oppose, and frankly if they did, I'd say they had a point. I realise GAs aren't mandatory to pass RfA, the AfD score is pretty good from a numerical point, and you have put up civility from a number of unpleasant trolls on your talk, but I think the attention to detail is going to be your downfall at an RfA. Sorry. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just going to drop you a line about Talk:Sakurai's Object/GA1 on your talk - Oshwah didn't review that, I did, so I don't know what this takes any bearing on his chances at RfA? -- samtar talk or stalk 11:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "the other side of the fence" .. it was one he nominated, rather than reviewed. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean now, thank you for clarifying :) -- samtar talk or stalk 11:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I see a similar trajectory to Requests for adminship/Thine Antique Pen. Okay, that was a "near miss", but that's unfortunately what I predict RfA #2 will be, although it might go to a 'crat chat. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You gave Anarchyte a higher rating than Oshwah? (I did too, but I agree that I messed up, it should have been 7/10 instead of 9/10.) Also, your criteria for adminship are too high, candidates don't need to be able to write a featured article, just have a knowledge of how to write an article, which Oshwah obviously does. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the the review for GA for the road article was sloppy, but the other topics that you bring up are perfectly fine. We don't need admins to be content contributors, because if you write articles, why do you need to be an admin? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion between myself and Ritchie might answer a couple of questions for you -- samtar talk or stalk 12:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would love to support Oshwah (though to be brutally honest if he ran tomorrow I would probably go "neutral") and see him get the mop and start clearing the backlogs, sure. However, I interpret the poll as the likelihood of the candidate passing RfA, which means I need to put personal opinion aside and think about how everyone might vote. I would really rather do this now than have the RfA run and crash at about 60-65%. I think I got it wrong with Anarchyte and did kind of apologise for voting oppose after the RfA finished. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I respect Ritchie333's input and honest opinion 100% - it's about my true chances of passing RFA, not just individual desires. The review for GA for the road article was my very first one; I probably made mistakes when doing it (just as any person in a new area may do). I'll take another look at the review and take the feedback to heart. If it is, indeed, not up to par and I made a mistake in the prose area, then I'll honor it and use it as a learning opportunity to improve future reviews. I enjoy performing GA reviews, but I'm on the fence; what should I do to remedy this?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 10/10 If I had been around in your last RFA, I would have voted support anyhow. Admins do not need to be content creators: let's think about it: the majority of tasks admins do are blocking users, protecting pages, and unprotecting pages, which have almost nothing to do with content creation. You are kind and civil, and you know your stuff, so yeah. 10/10.  Peter  Sam   Fan  13:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll plug User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content again, but here's a problem; let's say you are looking at WP:AN3, and you count up the diffs between editors without understanding the context, you block everyone with a nice twinkle template .... ten minutes later you're yanked up to ANI with people demanding you explain yourself. The last RfA I opposed that passed anyway was (actually I switched to neutral at the last minute because I thought "heck, they can't all be wrong") ... just a few days ago I see he's getting Best known for IP's back up for bad accusations of vandalism and attempting to take a straight content dispute to AIV ... resulting in yet another ANI thread and rolled eyes from those of us who've seen it all before. I'm genuinely not trying to have a go at Widr here, just saying that I don't oppose RfAs for no reason because I'm a nasty old grump. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Playing devil's advocate here a bit (and I do see what you're getting at to an extent - but surely Widr has been a net positive as an admin, in particular with their work on the AIV queue? I see  as similar - someone who'll be primarily sticking to anti-vandalism work, which is what he does best currently? Even if he makes the odd mistake which ends up at AN/I (and from what I've seen, Oshwah's judgement is fantastic so this shouldn't happen too often, if at all) surely it's a net benefit that someone with such a consistently strong track record in anti-vandalism isn't taking up other administrators' time requesting things he could do himself if a RFA passes? Mike1901 (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 9/10: Strong support. While content creation is very important experience for an admin, it is not the end-all, be-all, of an admin.  Oshwah has proven to have good judgement, is a hard worker, keeps a good attitude in the face of adversity, and has a large amount of experience across the project.  I do not think the GA reviews are sloppy at all. Waggie (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 10/10 - I supported the last time and I sure as fuck would support again - I personally don't believe you need to write an article to become admin however many people here have different preferences - Anywho go for it. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 9/10: You would make a great admin. You do a wonderful job all across the project and the mop should be of assistance for you. — MRD2014 T C 02:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Although such opposes are silly, I predict that you'll get some "OMG, less than a year since last RfA!" I like your chances better if you therefore wait until September before running again. Pichpich (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7/10 – I'm a little discouraged by recent events (including the near-abuse of WP:NOTQUITEYET which I originally authored, and which I suspect will be pulled off the shelf even for your next RfA...). I personally think you should pass, but I suspect the self-proclaimed "content creators" might be after the scalps of editors such as yourself at RfA... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is abuse of WP:NOTQUITEYET. This calls for a new essay, called WP:"Not Quite Yet" Abuse. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 5/10 Mainly per Ritchie - but also I think you'll get opposition because you appear to be desperately trying to "tick all the right boxes" for the quickest RFA possible. There's a nose for that amongst voters, rightly or wrongly, and I think it might rear its head here. I'm trying to give an honest assessment of your chances, and that's the best I can do. I wouldn't support yet, but I'm certain I would in future once I didn't feel you saw adminship as your main raison d'être. There are other grumpy old farts like me, and you will meet them. Good luck whatever you decide. Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7/10 I agree with much of what Begoon and Ritchie333 have said. The first thing I do when the candidate has hit RfA before is examine the opposes at that last RfA. Steel1943 said "a whopping 45% of Oshwah's edits are in the "User talk:" namespace" which you've addressed through a lot of countervandalism. User talk is now only half of your edits which is still awfully high. Kraxler said you "racked up 15,000 semi-automated (Twinkle) edits this year" and on that count, fully 76% of your edits are Huggle, alone. That's going to give a lot of folks pause. You meet my criteria and I might support you as a vandalfighter, as that's what we need most admins for. Not everyone else will agree. I'm also curious about this GA review as well as this one. There were no comments and nothing to be fixed for either one to pass? That can happen but I find it unusual. If you go to RfA I might ask. I recommend you eschew RfA this year and participate in a WikiProject and develop more articles. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So? Admins like Widr and Boing! said Zebedee only work behind the scenes as admins, but they both are very good admins, Widr is a ridiculously effective anti-vandalism patroller. I'm thinking that Oshwah will behave similar to the admins mentioned previously. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  22:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a poll as to someone's suitability as an admin. It's a poll about their chances of passing an RfA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You should have read my comments more carefully as I said "You meet my criteria and I might support you as a vandalfighter". I'm trying to illustrate how I think the RfA will shake out for Oswah's benefit and I find your "So?" comment impertinent. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 7/10 - Over 100k edits and a measurable record at both AFD and CSD. You're also incredibly good with new editors and you always remain civil. The main problem for you will be your GA reviews and your lack of concentrated content work/creation. As others have said some of your GA reviews have been a little below par. You've done some content creation, but not a lot. Although you have two GAs, one of them I'm rather unconvinced is at GA level, as it's very short and not very broad. Other than that though, I think you'd do well. I wish you good luck if you run for the mop, you'll have my support.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 04:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You may want to wait, see this for more. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that, the proposal you linked to is still really in a very early stage, and the exact features of the process are still being discussed. An RFC hasn't even been held yet, and when it is, who knows what the outcome will be. Even if the proposal is accepted, it will likely still be a long time before that happens, I would say that any kind-of consensus regarding the idea is at least six months away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omni Flames (talk • contribs) 06:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 6/10. Though you've done a lot more things this year, and I don't think that a year is too soon to try again, for me, lack of content creation is still a concern. Though the wikignoming tasks are important, even critical, the bottom line is that the big nasty fights are about content issues.  It is important to know what editors who create content go through, how our emotions flow, why certain seemingly minor issues (say, citation formatting or capitalization protocols) matter, and so on. At the very least, trot over to the next ArbCom case, examine the situation and offer a neutral opinion. Or perhaps spend a bit of time at 3O or DR/N.    Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  02:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7/10. Generally concur with Samtar on the positives, but Ritchie333, Begoon, Montanabw have valid points. As for FAs: It may be technically true that admins don't really need to be FA writers, but, as a statistical matter, enough editors want to see this, or a least a bunch of GAs, that lack of it will impact an RfA negatively. I agree with the assessment that admins must be serious content creators or they will be out of touch with how WP really operates at the most important level, and will have a tendency to treat content disputes as excuses to hit everyone on the head with the same hammer.  We've witnessed this so very many times. As someone who devotes most of my content work to making miserable stubs more encyclopedia-worthy, instead of working on GA/FA nominations, which seems like obsessively polishing one's silver to me, I would not hold lack of FAs against anyone as long as their content work was stellar otherwise. But I may well be in the minority on this. PS: I agree with the advice to wait, and to avoid the impression of going through a "how can I pass RfA" checklist. The more it looks like you're desperate to get the tools, the less likely they are to be granted.  Reapplying after some exact temporal milestone like 6 or 12 months is a major red flag to a lot of people.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish - I really appreciate the point you made about a "red flag" I might be to others regarding being "desperate" for the tools and appearing to "tick all the right boxes" - just for running (or even appearing to want to run) after a "milestone" of time has been met. I honestly didn't think of it like that nor did that really cross my mind; I could see where talking about "running one year later" would (inadvertently, of course :-D) translate negatively towards the community. Am I desperate for the tools or only contributing just to be an admin? Of course not :-). I'm contributing and doing just fine without them. But I can see where these thoughts and statements could come off completely the wrong way. Thank you :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm not implying any motive on your part, rather warning that people leap to negative assumptions at RfA. I would study recent RfAs (especially narrow cases in the last year), and see what people look out for, work on that stuff (e.g. super-solid understanding of WP:CSD and WP:CHECKUSER, whatever), go about your business, and wait for an unsolicited nomination from a non-controversial admin (keeping an admin-hopefuls userbox or being in the category those uses may facilitate that happening), see if they can find a similar co-nominator, and make sure one or both of them are willing to ask for diffs and stuff for any really weird opposes, because if you do it yourself it'll look like combativeness.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 5/10 - that's not an interpretation of my opinion on your editing, but an expression purely on what I think your chances are in the current climate at RfA. The recent 'reforms' of RfA have greatly increased the participation of voters (which was intended), but he inherent problems of RfA were not addressed and have increased in direct proportion. In short, this means that the outcome would be unpredictable. Enthusiastic new voters would see a wow-factor in the high edit count and support without making further research, while opposers will pounce on the very high number of (semi)automated edits. Regular, experienced voters will dig deep and there's no knowing which way they will turn. I did not participate in the previous RfA because it closed before I got round to it. Among the most important contributions were the vote and (hatted) comments by . If you run again, chances are that I might support, but do take good note of what  says above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Mdann52
Been a while since I last run, just want a gauge on what people think now. Mdann52 (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3/10 - I'm genuinely sorry to do this Mdann, I don't like giving people bad news that will make them upset, but the honest truth is that this will be RfA #4, and at RfA #3 exactly one year ago (a co-incidence?), the main criticism was your poor performance at AfD and apparent lack of the procedures outlined in WP:BEFORE. The only speedy logged for 2016 is File:Karen Dawisha meeting Vladimir Putin.jpg, which was ultimately kept. Your AfD stats are still around 55% and there's been very little activity for the whole of 2016. I realise there are extenuating circumstances with things like Articles for deletion/Douglas D. Taylor (2nd nomination) where you simply passed on an OTRS ticket as a neutral observer, but if the subject was clearly that notable, there was nothing stopping you from saying "by the way, I'm voting keep, I just want the community to confirm this can be restored". Everyone is going to be watching your AfD score like a hawk as it's how you failed the previous RfAs, and that's pretty much impossible to weasel out of without having an immaculate track record in it over the past year. I know you're keen and willing to do the job and do a lot of good work around here, but I can't vote support unless I see proof that the aptitude is there too. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * CSD F8 was what the file was deleted under - as it was uploaded to Commons, it shows as a bluelink on my log. Just a note for future reference. Thanks for the feedback noneless. Mdann52 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1/10 - The short version is, you've already had three bites at the apple and you haven't done enough to change any opinions. Don't go to RfA ever again. The longer version: I'm torn on my opinion. For any of these polls I always look at the candidate's previous RfA and your AfD record was a large issue for opposers. You have more blue links on your AfD log than I'd want to see and your AfD stats paint you as a deletionist. I've looked over some recent AfD noms of yours where the outcome didn't result in deletion like Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov and Dubrovnik Annals. Your rationale wasn't bad and I think I agree with your arguments. However, in each case there were enough Wikipedians that saw it differently. For those that judge your cluefullness by your agreement with the consensus you fall short. Sadly, you'd've been better off gaming the system by finding AfD's underway and just voting with the consensus "per nom" rather than sticking your neck out. I can see where you're coming from with this AfD nom although you're apparently wrong on our BLP policy. You have blue links on your PROD log like where I agree with your rationale but someone else countered. A cursory examination would only tell !voters that you're out of step with the community when I think you're making fair calls. The other problem the last time around was an OTRS issue that, while I didn't bother to research it, might not be far enough in the past for the aggregate to overlook. Which brings us to the final problem, it's only been a year since the last RfA. Are you in desperate need of a hat? Are there editors you are seeking revenge upon? Is anyone clamoring for you to get a mop? I don't see a reason we need you as an admin and three RfAs in less than three years is giant red flag to me. In each of your past RfA's you've had as many oppose votes as you've had support votes. In your first two RfA's you didn't even have admins nominating you. If you're that far on the outside politically then I don't see how you'll ever pass RfA. I think you could make a good admin but that's not how our system works. With the right sort of moves over the next five years you could change perceptions but right now I don't see a way you could pass. You're a good contributor to the wiki and I'd be happy with that.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1/10 – What they ^ said. I'm wondering why you want this so bad.  Not everyone is really suited for adminship, as presently (and arguably, poorly) conceived.  I've been here over a decade and learned I don't want to be an admin after observing what so many of them go through  being approved, and what a negative effect is has on their article content productivity in most cases.  I'm also a curmudgeon, so I would never pass anyway. Maybe you're more cheerful than I am, but the lesson to be learned from my old barely-past-noob RfAs is the same one to absorb from your own string of RfA declines: If your WP activity does not radically change in ways that address why an RfA failed, the next one will fail, too.  I'm not sure anyone has ever passed RfA #4 or later; it's probably a lost cause. If your life's dream is to be a WP admin, then see WP:CLEANSTART.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last comment: nope. Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5, Requests for adminship/Zoicon 5, Requests for adminship/Guanaco 5, Requests for adminship/ST47 5, Requests for adminship/Hdt83 5 and Requests for adminship/Everyking 6 (admittedly a reconfirmation after a desysopping, but nevertheless...) all passed on their 5th or 6th tries. You're right though, in that your chances certainly decrease with every subsequent RFA.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 07:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised! But anyway, it's very rare, and that was the point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3/10. I disagree with Chris troutman that you should never go for an RfA again. However, now is not the right time for the next attempt, IMO. Your first three RfAs will be a significant burden, and the first question the people will ask is: What has changed since the last RfA? Right now you don't have a good answer (other than, the passage of time). Your AfD stats are still at about 65% agreement with the consensus outcome, which was a significant issue in the opposition in your last AfD. The same stats show that in your most recent AfD record you had 129 "delete" votes, 3 "speedy delete" votes, 4 "keep" and 1 "merge" votes. That's a rather radically deletionist record, which might be worth reflecting upon, at least in terms of what kind of AfDs you are participating in. I see that you are currently doing some ArbCom clerking. That's important and rather thankless job but I am afraid in an RfA it may actually play as a factor against you. Many RfA participants tend to see, fairly or unfairly, that sort of thing as evidence of being too interested in power. I personally do not, but I think that ArbCom clerking is better left until after one becomes an admin, if only because sometimes clerks need to have access to protect, block and revdel buttons. Also, the issue of content creation will certainly come up. Right now X! tools show that you created a total of 18 pages, 12 of which have been deleted. You do have a link at your userpage to one article, Oblivion (roller coaster), that you helped take to the GA status. But that was 3 years ago, and that's where your major content contributions seem to end. That won't be enough, come next RfA, particularly given your pretty radically deletionist AfD record. I would recommend resuming some article writing in a more systematic way and perhaps developing a more specialized area of expertise (not related to centers of power like ArbCom, ANI and such), perhaps something to do with files or templates or categories or copyright or some such thing. Nsk92 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Rahmatgee

 * 1/10: Less than 500 edits, and only 77 in the last year, = a lack of provenance for the community to adjudge. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  06:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 0/10 - I'm sorry but with only just over 400 edits during a period of around 6 years you've got no chance. RFA !voters expect to see some activity, and you've had very little recently.  Omni Flames  ( talk ) 07:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 0/10 – Even setting aside the obvious lack of activity that would result in a speedy WP:NOTNOW close, this recent AfD vote would sink any RfA. No understanding of the speedy deletion policy (what criteria did that qualify under?) or how GNG works (failing the PROF criteria does not imply failing GNG). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 0/10 - you will get a SNOW or NOTNOW close within 12 hours. Please read WP:NOTCSD carefully. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)