Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 4

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

Hi. Lot's of people ask me why I am not an admin yet. I did a self-assessment and quite honestly, there was an area that frightened me, but I don't know how the community would assess it.

In the content contribution area, I think I should mention the promotion of Microsoft Security Essentials article into FA state. I also worked a lot on citations in article and am working on the Codename Lisa/Websites and their publishers draft for WikiProject Computing right now. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Now that you've said that, you basically have to disclose what area is concerning. If you didn't do so in question #3 and people saw this post (which they will), you'd be opposed for lack of transparency. It's probably best for you to do so now so you can get the best feedback. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have a Wiki-hound on my tail. That's what concerns me. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) As far as I'm concerned, as long as you handle it maturely, that's a plus. Admins are often hounded, so some experience there isn't a bad thing. They'll probably show up to the RfA to vote oppose (same happened in mine with a handful of editors who disagreed with me at some RfCs), but that probably won't sway the RfA unless you didn't act well in those disputes. Your AfD stats are a bit weak, which is likely to be a larger problem. You may want to spend some time at AfD improving your stats before running. I'd consider 80% to be a bare minimum for matching + no consensus. Preferably, you'd want 85% or higher. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• 5/10 - Clean block log. Your edit count looks good and your longevity is a little on the new-ish end of the acceptable range but passable for me. Your article contributions, mostly redirects, are really weak. You created Server Core as a redirect and another editor has put all the work into it. Why not get Universal Windows Platform apps to GA? That would help a lot. Your AfD log paints a real deletionist streak, so that's worrying. Your semi-automated editing is low so no issues there. If a single wikihound bothers you then adminship isn't for you. Admins take an unreasonable amount of crap so get used to it. While your profile doesn't identify your gender many will assume based on your username. Misogyny is common online, too. That's no bar for RfA as Anne Delong can attest. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• "If a single wikihound bothers you ..." It certainly does not bother me. How can I be bothered when the community has shown zero tolerance of this ruinous trickster so far? I was afraid of his impact on my candidacy and Rob 13 put my mind at ease about it. I have upheld the professional decorum in dealing with him and will continue to do so. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Great username. Can't remember the episode. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• 6/10 I suggest that your low content creation would be your biggest stumbling block. Many editors would argue long and hard that you cannot be an admin without having sufficient content creation expertise yourself. At this point, RfA would be a gamble; it could go either way. Suggest you have a read of Kudpung's RfA criteria if you haven't already. Schwede66 22:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Since when has a lack of content creation ever stopped people from becoming administrators? In fact, not creating content almost seems like a reason to give someone the tools nowadays. Cassianto^Talk 23:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been following RfA since the reform, i.e. since applications are advertised on top of watchlists. Many editors comment on content creation, and if the amount of content created is low, many editors use it as the main basis for their oppose !vote. I'm not saying that this is right, and I cannot comment how this has been historically. I'm just giving my impression on what Codename Lisa would be exposed to in an RfA. Schwede66 00:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm one of those editors. Content creation in an administrator is essential. But we've made the likes of NeilN and Liz administrators and I don't think they've made so much as a stub between them. I fear that the lemmings at RfA who snow support just do so because they can. Cassianto^Talk 06:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and Liz really struggled at RFA and barely made it through due to her lack of content work. NeilN got some opposes for it too. Omni Flames (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

5/10 - I've had a close look, and your AfD stats are getting better, and Universal Windows Platform apps seems to have someone picking a fight with you. However, having tags on Server Core as well, may give people too much pause. However, you do have the technical skills to do techy stuff that admins need, which stands in your favour. I'd probably vote "neutral" if you ran for RfA now, others might not be so forgiving. As for content - my views are here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

...seems to have someone picking a fight with you." It is the hound I mentioned earlier. His block log is rather sizable and that's not his only IP. I think he is trying to get me to insult him; I have no intentions of doing so. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• User talk:Codename Lisa/Archive 23#IPBE would sink any RfA nomination, I'm afraid — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 based on the above link from MSGJ. Whether or not the CheckUser results were sound, the way you conducted yourself toward the end of that thread doesn't show the level-headedness needed by an admin. I understand that people can say things in the heat of the moment, but that was so far outside the bounds of what's acceptable that there's no chance of an RfA passing soon. You'd need to put much more time between that comment and your RfA for it to have a chance of succeeding. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Agreed. In fact, I would oppose simply based on that. I have low confidence in this user becoming an administrator, I am afraid. --Zero^talk 15:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  @BU Rob13 and MSGJ: Thanks a lot. Please tell me more about this. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10. zero based on that archived talk page link alone. I would say your chances of ever succeeding in a request for adminship are none unless that discussion, consequences and your short-fuse responses towards the end vanish from Wikipedia's history. Since they are now linked to this inquiry makes them all the easier to be used against you. Please carry on as an editor. Fylbecatulous talk 14:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10. That talk page link will lower your RfA chances drastically. I would wait a couple years, then you might possibly have a shot. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In veritas (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · no prior RfA) I am thinking of running for adminship next month or in September. I am highly active in CSD tagging, anti-vandalism, and AFC reviewing. I have also created some articles, and I do some content updates and copyediting. Any thoughts or am I too soon? Thanks for your opinions -- In veritas (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10 - You've been editing less than a year and you have 230-some non-automated edits in the article namespace, which doesn't meet my criteria and you should know better than to ask this early. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10 - I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but you have very little chance of becoming an admin this year. Your CSD log is pretty good, so keep up the good work there. You should probably try participating at AFD more. The main problem is that you've made under 3000 edits, which is well below current RFA standards. Only 230 of them are non-automated mainspace edits. My advice to you would be to get more active, because you've only made a total of 2000 edits this year, and many people will oppose you for that. Also, you've been here to less than a year, which is a little low. Omni Flames (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - With only 732 edits to mainspace, without even insisting on a ridiculously high edit count, your RfA would either be immediately SNOW closed by another user, or it would become a bloodbath. I suggest you go back to the top of this page and really read the advice pages you were linked to. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - You ask if you are too soon. You are. I'm not seeing any particular problems, and I thank you for the work you have done, but at your current edit rate I think asking again in about 2 years would be about right. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - You've been here less than a year and have only made 700 edits to article space so without a doubt your RFA would sink very quickly!, I would strongly suggest you edit focus less on becoming an admin and more on articlespace and perhaps retry in 3 or 33 years time, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10: Way too soon. I strongly suggest that you rack up more edits, especially in content areas (you should preferably have at least 1 GA). I strongly suggest that you read WP:RFAADVICE. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 Very, very little chance. I would probably !vote "neutral" in this case. Although you are obviously a good editor, you don't have enough edits for many people to support. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - You have been here for less then a year, clearly too soon. —MartinZ02 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Take a looksee. I've been here a while, mostly gnoming. I've been in a few conflicts, though none particularly recent (one that might deserve comment in an RFA-namely my involvement at Template talk:Infobox book w.r.t. Wikidata). My AFD !vote % is usually explained by reasoned rationale. The low number of BLP edits doesn't worry me--I understand the value of the policy. Would be RFAing based on need for the maintenance tools available to an admin (CSD:G6 for e.g. moves would be a big one), and possibly page-watching-protection/blocking rather than active counter-vandalism/NPP (which I don't care to perform in the former and in the latter I think I've clearly got 0 experience, besides a declined CSD here and there... clearly nothing to stand on). --Izno (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10. Sorry, if you want to work in deletions, your AfD score isn't up to par. In particular, things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogue Initiative will gather instant opposition; your keep !vote was refuted by a highly experienced admin, and the article was then speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11 not long after. You will need to put a lot of distance between yourself and that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think that AfD is as much of a problem as you think it is. Looking at the version which was deleted, I can't see any promotional language, let alone enough to make it eligible for G11. The article in USA Today combined with the other sourcing in that article makes the "keep" outcome very defensible. I'm quite surprised that it was speedy deleted instead of allowing the AfD to conclude. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

    You'll need to take it up with DGG, Drmies and JamesBWatson, though the odds of all three being wrong are extremely unlikely in my experience. As for the other stats, some of the wrong calls are contentious or near misses but what I really like to see at AfD is one seriously convincing counter-argument that makes people reconsider, and I just don't see that in this list, plus there are not many AfDs and no real evidence of serious content work (essential for RPP in my experience); just gnoming work or culling out sections with a vague wave to policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

    I'm not saying "keep" was the right call, just that it was defensible. I've not looked at the sources deeply enough to determine if I'd prefer deletion or keeping. I don't consider it a wrong vote as much as a difference of opinion, which is healthy. If anything, an admin leaning slightly toward keep is probably preferable at RfA given its recent track record. I do agree that content creation is a must. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

    Some of this is MyRFA-type-commentary and some of this is ORCP/meta-type-commentary: I've made a conscious effort since recent times (2014?) only to comment on AFDs that I feel could (vice would) be turned by my argument, so I think that should explain why both the quantity (I don't haunt AFD) and the % is low (and why there are so many close calls, both in the direction of consensus and not). I'm not interested in bolstering already-clear AFDs where the result will be evident a day into the process, which I could trivially use to WP:GAME the counter and even the list of recent AFDs. That works against an evaluation of my general character. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

    Above said, I think this "no consensus, defaulting to keep" AFD should illustrate my understanding. I don't know if I actually have a knife's-edge-not-quite-right understanding of GNG, but I think it shows that I'm able to evaluate sources to determine a topic's possible notability, which is the important part of an editor's involvement there. I think without my contributions there, that goes to a clear delete. Here too goes to a no consensus/clear delete without my involvement. Lastly, I managed to get Shudde to cite me here. --Izno (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

    Remember that the poll isn't how I would specifically vote (which, FWIW would probably be "neutral"), but rather how you'd fare during RfA itself. If there were some obvious "hell yes, we need him on board" things leaping out then I'd give a much higher score because I'd be able to bat your corner, but as it is there's just seem to be a clear need for the tools, which makes people pause a bit from my experience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

    Indeed. I was trying not reply there because I too recognize the point of this process, but did want to take the opportunity to comment on some statements (which is good for me, I suppose, if I should run the gauntlet). --Izno (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

    Between DGG and me, I'm usually the one calling for the speedy; here it was the other way around. What I'm saying is, if DGG decides to speedily delete something it's usually a pretty clear case. In this case the overly promotional language is lacking--but if you consider that the article does not make any kind of claim about any kind of actual product, it's pretty obvious that we are dealing with nothing more than a kind of announcement of services.

    But my question for Izno would be what they thought of their keep rationale in light of my commentary, which I stand by. Admins need to be able to judge things such as this--the keep stands or falls with the quality of the source and the depth of coverage. Mere mentions just do not amount to coverage; DGG has looked at more of these kinds of articles and references than I have, and I think his judgment will not differ much from mine. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

    I'll reply at User talk:Drmies for anyone interested. --Izno (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• In interpreting accuracy with deletions, it needs to be taken into account the difficulty of the decisions. Anyone can establish a perfect record at AfD by keeping and deleting the obvious, Anyone who deal with ones that are not so clear will sometimes find their opinion different from the close. If someone takes a position different from mine but which has reasonable support they are not making an error, even if the consensus turns out to be with me. What questions about AfD need to show is first that a candidate is not making unreasonable or non-policy-based arguments, and deals calmly with disputes in the discussions. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• 4/10 You say that a significant reason for you wanting the admin tools is that you intend to use them in the CSD area (even if primarily for technical deletions like CSD:G6). So your experience in the relation to the deletion policy will be scrutinized closely in a potential RfA. Since you don't appear to maintain a CSD log, the RfA participants will likely concentrate on your AfD record. Your AfD !vote % can perhaps be defended. However, there is a bigger problem there. The "AfD votes" tool gives only 138 AfD votes for you in total, for the entire period 2007-2016, with only 22 in 2015-2016. The tool probably missed some of your AfD votes but still, these numbers are way, way too small, particularly given the absence of a CSD log. Content creation is going to be another issue. The "Articles created" tool shows you having created a grand total of 10 articles, one of which has been deleted since then, two are lists, and three are disambiguation pages. So actually only 4 of these 10 pages appear to be articles, the last of which, The Night (Valerie Dore song), was created in 2009. I do understand that you are a mainly a wiki-gnome and that perhaps article writing is not your thing. Still, what you have in terms of content creation is not going to be enough, by far. People are going to bring it up in an RfA and this issue alone will become a significant source of opposition. If you are serious about wanting to be an admin I suggest doing the following. First, start maintaining a CSD log. (I assume from your number of deleted edits that you have actually nominated quite a few pages for CSD, but just did not record that fact). Second, start participating in AfDs more actively. Third, get back into article writing a bit. It is clear from your early contributions that you are, in fact, capable of doing that. Get a few of your new articles through DYK and maybe try to bring at least one to GA. Go for an RfA about 7-8 months from now. Nsk92 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  I see some CSD nominations (F5, G13, G6 and G8 in the samples I saw) and a number more of XfD nominations outside of AfD.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10 Your edit count isn't what I'd expect from a ten-year editor but it's passable. I don't see a CSD log or PROD log, which I think speaks to your lack of preparation for RfA. I won't repeat the comments already made about your AfD history. As Nsk92 has pointed out, your content contribution isn't impressive. List of star systems within 20–25 light years is ok but significant contributions came from other editors. To that end, you seem to be seeking a mop as another method of wikignoming and I don't see how a consensus would form to support that. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  you seem to be seeking a mop as another method of wikignoming: Emphatically yes. For example, there's a project sitting around with the Ships naming guideline wherein a change was made that brings the guideline more in line with WP:CONCISE. I'd like to work on that project, but I quickly found that most of the redirects already exist and have a substantial edit history. I took a look at how a page mover would accomplish the same task and quite quickly came to the conclusion of "that's really dumb" (and I understand why page movers can not move over pages). Now, I could go and request page mover and start working on that backlog and show the need for the tools that way (which could backfire at RFA, mind you, "oh, you have what you need"), or I could request the tools beforehand and not waste the time. --Izno (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Izno: So if I understand you, you're requesting the mop to move pages over redirects, which the page mover user right doesn't allow. I can see that rationale. We return then to the political issue of not having sufficient content creations. If you can find the right admin to nominate you maybe you could succeed but I'm not sure how willing the aggregate will be to giving a mop for wikignoming. It's not without precedent but I imagine many of those RfAs happened years ago. Could you talk up working at RFPP and the like? I think we might buy wikignoming if you can point to specific backlogs you want to work. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  how willing the aggregate will be to giving a mop for wikignoming My assessment, based on the comments I've kept an eye on at WT:RFA, is unwilling (reinforced below by Kudpung, who has made many of those comments that I've observed). --Izno (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• 1/10 - I'm sorry,Izmo, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogue Initiative really is the deal breaker here. Nominated by one of our most experieced editors (and Arbcom member), that was a purely procedural AfD of the kind one doesn't normally argue with. It will take the RfA voter communty at least a year or more to get over that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10. I would weak support in this case, and I do think that too much value will be placed on that one AfD. Your AfD history will make many voters oppose. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10 I have to disagree with BU Rob13 on the impact of the AFD. The arguments used are not strongly established in policy in my opinion. The notion that three sources is enough to meet "significant coverage" for a company is well below the community status quo. The reason for this is even highlighted in this example. The USA Today article is a rehash of the press release by the company. The LA Business Journal article actually cites and links the very same USA Today article. This is one reason why the threshold is generally higher for companies. Unlike other topics, large companies invest considerable amounts of time and resources into generating coverage in the form of press releases and native advertising. Companies that would not otherwise be noticed. I realize BU Rob13 has only been an admin for a month and not very involved with AFD in general; perhaps only a handful of closures as an admin and participated in less than 200 in their lifetime. But this is where experience comes in because AFD is very different than TfD. Closers are expected to be able to identify and spot these issues, especially ones that recur time and time again, so that they can weight AFD arguments against the community status quo and the intention of the policies. I haven't been closing at AFD for quite some time and even myself feel a bit out of touch with the community there but it did not take long for me to spot these glaring issues. Mkdw^talk 22:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm revising my assessment to 0/10. The notion that rehashed press release from the company as expressed by the candidate here indicates to me they do not understand some of our most core policies such as WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:SIGCOV, particularly the sections WP:NRVE and WP:SPIP. I'm sorry but failing to see how that would be hugely problematic to the integrity of the project is very concerning. Mkdw^talk 04:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

MorbidEntree (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA) I am looking to see my likelihood of passing an RfA (obviously). I have dabbled in many areas of Wikipedia, including MfD, AfC, Gnomish activities, and general improvement to articles. I appreciate everyone's feedback on this. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 00:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• 3.5/10: regardless of the quality of your edits, which seems to be good on a quick perusal, with about 5 months of regular editing and a bit over 6,000 edits you wouldn't really stand a chance. Best to wait a little while. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Actually more like a 1 or 2 out of 10. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10 - Clean block log. You've only created seven articles, two of which have been deleted, and none of which are GA class or better. You have only six AfD votes, which shows you gave this zero thought before asking for comments. I might add, out of those six AfDs, two of those were noms of yours that resulted in speedy keep. So, your cluefulness rating is at about zero. Your CSD log is ok but it's padded with U1 and G13 deletions. Your PROD log has two entries and one of those is blue. Your contributions count is ok but only a third of that is in the main namespace. Only about 700 of those edits are non-automated, so there's no way the consensus is going to support you. You have more deleted edits than live edits in the main namespace. Finally, your userpage is problematic. Not only are you over-sharing you've given the consensus something they might look askance at. You fail my criteria, so I'd recommend you spend time reading and editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Chris troutman: Just for clarification, I mentioned AfC in my opening comment, not AfD. Unless you were just commenting on my activity at AfD. Also, which part of your criteria do I fail? --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @MorbidEntree: I don't care about your dabbling. AfD is a major discussion point at RfA because how an admin closes the discussion may result in deletion of content a contributor spent time on. Had you read the other entries on this page, you'd see that. RfA is an open-book test. If you've read my criteria you see that anyone that tumbles into this unprepared fails because there's no excuse. Having only six AfD votes with no real countervandalism experience and no meaningful content contributions and showing up here is laughable. Because Wikipedia is an online text-only environment, it's vital to widely read across wiki and to take in the discussions. You haven't done that. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: this user box will result in a lot of oppose votes. You would be best to remove that, and to also get it our of your head that adminship is something you need to achieve. It'll come to you when you are ready. Schwede66 01:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I removed that in my userpage too, so I can focus on improving the project for the first four years. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 01:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10 - Despite registering in 2014 you've only been active this year, Your participation at AIV / UFAA is extremely low and to top it all off you've only made 6 !votes at AFD.... To put it bluntly you don't have a chance in hell at RFA, I would strongly advise you forget about adminship for the next 3-5 years and just concentrate on editing this place. –Davey2010^Talk 01:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 - per Davey2010, I suggest you should wait a least 4 years to forget adminship, do some countervandalism work, and voting a lot of AFDs. even AIV and UAA too. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 02:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• I like your enthusiasm - I would love to see better reports at WP:UAA though. I don't have a list, but a lot of the reports I've seen from you haven't been very good. My advice would be to just stick around and involve yourself more deeply, particularly in articles. Combatting vandalism and helping out at the admin noticeboards is nice, but it doesn't give you a deeper experience in policy, IMO. As I see from the plans on your userpage, do those things - get them to FA or GA status, become a trusted figure in a certain WikiProject, or a topic. Then I would say you would be better equipped. I wouldn't mention a specific year figure, but you need some more experience . MikeLynch (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10 - Chris' comments cover everything I want to say - though I will point out that a quick read of WP:RFAADVICE would have saved you some time. Kudpung's RfA criteria is one of the most detailed and fair that I've found, and it'd do you some good to read it and forget about adminship for a while -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• 2/10 - You will still get some support. SSTflyer 02:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10. You only became active in March 2016. It's essentially impossible to successfully run for adminship without at least a year on the project, and even then you'd need a very solid "need" for the tools. Most of the things you cited as past experience are areas where the tools aren't usually needed, so you don't have that. I doubt anyone could pass with only ~6 months of experience, though, regardless of clue and need. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Adamtt9 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · no prior RfA)

• What are your answers to default questions 1 and 2? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - Obviously without clue. No AfD !votes, at all. More than a hundred articles started but all just sports results with very little prose. No DYKs or GAs. No apparent work with WikiProject Tennis after joining years ago. Now that you're collecting hats realize that it'll be pointless to ever return here. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - Even though this account has existed for almost three years, you have only been active for the past 10 months. I note that you also applied for pending changes reviewer, rollback, and autopatrolled rights within half an hour of starting this poll. You have no experience in any of the areas where admins work, so your requests for those userrights coinciding with this poll lend the appearance that you are collecting hats. I suggest that you read the guides linked at the top of this page, take that information to heart, and wait at least a year before reconsidering this. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10: See this notice on the top of this page, read WP:RFAADVICE first. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 11:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

I withdrew my RfA about a month ago, and have hopefully been taking steps to improve myself in areas that were previously lacking. So, I am simply wanting to get a review and update on how things look for me moving forward. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 09:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Question for the candidate Does this mean that you no longer think that 'frankly the RfA process is broken in places'...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• It does have its flaws, but it is the system we have, so it's that or nothing. I think what rubbed me wrong was some of the bluntness / brashness of some of the comments I read through. Some, to me at least, seemed hurtful. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 11:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, some seem to treat it as a bear pit; but, as you say, unfortunately that's the way it is right now. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10 at the moment. The bear minimum amount of time after an editor's RfA where the community will seriously consider the candidate again is 6 months. For good chances, you should probably wait a year. If you were to file an RfA today, you'd likely have a lower percentage of support than you did the first time around merely because of how recently your first RfA was. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• It is a bit early for such a review, especially after a second RFA. Since you've had a lot of community attention just a month ago I suggest you use that feedback, read though the RFA again, list the concerns and see which you are comfortable resolving. Where this page might be more useful would be if you or other people contemplating a second run were able to say "in my last RFA I think the Opposes can be summarised into these four concerns and this is what I've done to address each concern. ϢereSpielChequers 17:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - You can't withdraw from an RFA and then decide a month later you want to try again, As noted above wait a year 2-5 years, Re-read the RFA and perhaps improve on various tasks here (AFD, UFAA etc etc). –Davey2010^Talk 17:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)(Updated 15:01, 10/Sep/2016)
• You received a lot of feedback at your last RFA so asking for more feedback a month later seems a bit premature. A month of working on it, there's probably little to review and people want to see sustained and consistent work, not just a short burst where you know every edit may be scrutinized. Furthermore, one of your largest criticisms at RFA was your lack of content creation. I did a scan of your last 500 article edits which takes us back as far as 30 January 2015. They're nearly all reverts of vandalism and I don't see any non-revert edits that amount above 300 bytes. So... when you're asking for feedback on what's changed... I don't see any changes, which in my opinion, means you haven't heard the feedback. Maybe I'm wrong on this but it's what stands out for me. Mkdw^talk 17:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree - I say asking for more feedback a month later seems a bit immature, possibly as well.--Launchballer 17:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10: This will be very harsh, but I think that you are way too overeager regarding adminship when you are asking a month after your last RfA. If you run now or in the near future, by the time you have made less than 5,000 edits, you would have ran for RfA thrice, which is taking ignorance of all the advice you have been accorded to the extreme. Above, you seem to have substantially discard and even attribute to malice the advice that the opposers gave you, which shows unwillingness to listen to feedback and maybe even an air of entitlement, which is something I absolutely do not want from an admin. Remember that the admin tools will not give anyone great hedonistic gains, and wait at the very minimum one year, preferably two or three years. — Esquivalience (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Clarification Believe me when I say I in no way expected that anyone would find me ready for an RFA again in such a short time. I am continuing to re-read the comments in my previous RFA and work towards improving those areas, such as being more active on AFD, and working on a content creation project, that of filling in missing presidential election results for my state for the gap years. I'm simply accustomed to receiving regular feedback in my professional career, and so that is moreso why I came here, I was looking for an updated objective consensus. I now have a better sense of the time-frame though. I know full well that being an admin gains me no special preference, seniority, etc. over any other editor, and I am by no means trying to come across as being entitled to it. I simply see it as a way I can better contribute to Wikipedia. I am altruistic almost to a fault, and so if I see a place I feel I can be of help, I will try to help, that is all. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 03:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  The problem with what you say is that if you weren't looking for an assessment of your chances right now, merely a review, then people are liable to fault you for not heeding the instructions at the top of this page, which say: "...for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges in the near future." and "This page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors". You may find that harsh, but it's a reality. Personally, I concur with those who are uneasy about your apparent overeagerness for adminship and some quite poor reaction to feedback. If you want a recommendation: stop worrying about the best time to renominate yourself, because you are not the best judge of that, and wait for someone to nominate you, which may happen in a year or two. -- Begoon 03:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10 - Too soon after your last RfA. Also you have only created 3 articles, all about presidential elections in South Carolina. Please try again in late 2017 or early 2018, and create more articles with some of them GAs. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10: Please try to wait 4 more years getting more expereince at admin areas and content creation. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 12:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10: Wait to early to be doing this after your RfA ended just over month ago. per BU Rob13 comments you're likely to get a lower percentage of support for doing this so early. You need to gain way more content creation and get some GA experience. Chase (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

• 2/10. Plenty of content creation; although mostly one-line stubs atm; that will disappoint the GA-heads. The major issue though, apart from your lack of involvement in admin areas (e.g AfD), is that with just over 1200 edits and a tenure of seven months, 'WP:TOOSOON' would be the cry among the hillside. Sorry; but time is on your side. Watch, learn, take part, build up a demonstratable CV, and come back in a year or two (at least, I would suggest, the latter- as although we often hear of one year being the minimum required, the reality is far stricter). _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Will do! I figured I wasn't ready, I am looking to see if I am on the right track. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10. You do not appear to have sufficient experience to consider running. Please review WP:ORCP#Potential candidates as well as the banner at the top of the page. --Izno (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Modified, thank you BlackAmerican (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• 1/10 - Although you currently have no chance of passing an RfA, I want to rate you better than some of the poll participants we've had here, as you're on the right track. The biggest problem is you don't have enough tenure, really you'll need to be around for 1.5 to 2 years, and have at least 8000 high-quality edits. Most of the articles created are stubs, but there are a few articles which are genuinely informative, so well done. As of this posting, your AfD stats will also be unacceptable, not only are they too few, but every one which has closed has been against consensus. There's nothing wrong with making logical arguments that are against consensus, but this will raise red flags. Nomination of Stop Trump Movement for deletion this month makes it appear you don't fully understand notability. Perhaps you can do this poll again in about a year? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I just hit 1000. High quality is key. Which articles did you like? I figured I could argue my points as to my opinions. I assume that's why we even have AFD's. The Stop Trump Movement seemed to me that it should be merged into the Hillary Campaign Article. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Particularly useful articles: Lez Edmond and Roderick D. Bush (awards should be sourced, though). The Stop Trump movement is notable unto itself, and it doesn't make sense to merge that into the Hillary Campaign article, as very few of the Stop Trump supporters would ever support Hillary. Completely different concepts. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Makes ense, like many Bernie supporters are very anti-Hillary. BlackAmerican (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• 2/10: Lots of content creation (very few are deleted) and you only became active in the last seven months, looks like WP:TOOSOON for you. Come back whatever years you been active. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Right. It's been a little while since I last did this, but I'd like to see where I stand with regards as to whether or not the community think I would be a capable administrator. I work in counter-vandalism usually (using Twinkle and Huggle), and I understand that due to this, I have an inflated edit count, but I would like to state at this point that I will carry on doing this as my main point of focus. I also work in CSD (typically A7, G11 and U5) and clerk at UAA. I come across many editors who vandalise after a level 4 warning, and even after reporting them, I find that every now and then it takes a while for them to be blocked. Furthermore, I hope that if I gain the mop, I would be able to delete articles that qualify for speedy deletion, and block users that violate the username policy through my UAA clerking. I understand that I'm not a prolific content creator - I have, however, created two stub-class articles and carried out a Good Article nomination on Schutzstaffel, which I thoroughly enjoyed doing. Given my experience with counter-vandalism, I would like to clerk at AIV, and finally, I'd like to work at WP:PERM by giving deserving non-admins certain user rights. In conclusion, I believe that the mop will assist me further with my field of work here.

Of course, that's my plan of action - but am I ready? I'm hoping to run in a month or so (please note that I will be seventeen years of age next month; this is no reflection of my maturity), and would like your honest opinions. If you do not think I'm ready, would I be ready in six months to a year or so? Please include this also. Thanks to everyone in advance. Zero^talk 12:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10 - a short look at contributions reveals a weak AfD record including Black music, which you tagged {{db-attack}} (!) and when that was declined you took it to AfD where it was speedily kept (from you quickly withdrawing) and which Andrew Davidson said, nominating during Black History Month was .... unfortunate. Your CSD log has several blue links, all from attempting to CSD tag talk pages, which is against policy aside from very specific and unique circumstances. Frankly, we do not need more admins at AIV since Widr is pretty much on it 24/7 these days ;-) Your GA review of Schutzstaffel was below the standard I would expect for a review (see Talk:Genesis (band)/GA1 or Talk:Portsmouth/GA2 for what I would expect, especially in a controversial topic such as this) - you should at least have addressed issues in the failed FAC before it to see if they were still relevant. That's probably enough to make your RfA tank if you ran now. In fact, I could easily see somebody wondering why you said " have a keen interest in German history (in particular the rise and consolidation of the Nazi Party)" and why you were so keen to obliterate Black music, put two and two together and get seriously upset, and that will probably kill it stone dead, even if it's utter fabrication. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333, what a lovely review. My applause. Lourdes 14:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333: I'm just going to clarify that I was unaware of the fact it was Black History Month. I am interested in German history, but in no way am I a racist. I don't appreciate the preconception, but still, thanks for your review, I do appreciate the feedback (as well as everyone else's). Zero^talk 15:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the impression; I specifically chose the words "put two and two together and get seriously upset" to mean that somebody might incorrectly accuse you of being a racist and that would create huge amounts of drama. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I misread Ritchie333 - now I completely understand. No, it wouldn't be advisable for me to run, given that, and actually I can see that one being brought up even if I were to come back to this as an adult. I'd rather see hundreds of NOTNOW rationales than any drama with regards to that. Thanks for clarifying, Zero^talk 15:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• 3/10 - I can't really put it any better than Ritchie, though I will add that going by how editors !voted at recent RfAs your low edit count is going to be a relative showstopper for most (especially with your semi-automated : non-automated ratio). You will need to improve the level of article contributions you make, as many believe admins should create content to be fit to judge content. I wouldn't suggest running next month, but instead spend five or six months contributing to the project - see if you can improve some articles to a good standard? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• 3/10 per Ritchie and Samtar - Your edit count is extremely low, You've barely participated at UFAA, AIV etc and you've hardly touched AFD, (Plus you've editied talkpages more than articlespace which is a big no in my book - If it was balanced that'd be great but it's not), With all these issues I personally believe your RFA would sink extremely quickly, Personally I would wait for atleast 2-3 years before reapplying for adminship, Thanks for all your contributions tho and I wish you all the best in whatever you do. –Davey2010^Talk 13:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, everyone - I've decided to withdraw this and wait until I'm an adult. I'm also going to change my focus in the foreseeable future to content creation. Thanks once again, Zero^talk 15:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

While I believe I may be ready for the responsibility of being an administrator, I want to know what the community thinks before I even think more on the matter. I do have one request: If you do not think I'm ready, please let me know where you think I need to improve in order to be ready in the future.

I do admit that I've never written a complete article, but I have, I believe, contributed greatly to articles I've edited and I think I've done a good job fighting vandalism in articles, including some CSDs, some of which are automatically updated by Twinkle here. (There are others, but the "tracking" feature in my Twinkle preferences was unfortunately turned off until recently.) I've also contributed some to ANI, though I admit I mostly try to stay away from it unless I've been involved recently with an editor who's brought there.

Feel free to ask me questions you may have. I realize this is not a formal RfA, but I want to give you as big a picture as possible. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10 - With only 4 months of activity and 3k edits you've no chance right now. Lack of article creation will be a negative as will your AFD stats: 4 of 5 articles you've nominated have been kept. Valenciano (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - Despite registering in 2010 you've only made over 2,000 edits this year, You've made more edits to talkpages than anywhere else, According to the count tool you're also at ANI quite alot, You've barely participated in AIV, UFAA and you've barely participated in AFD - in short you're not ready to be an admin, I would suggest you focus less on being an admin and more on editing on articles as well as staying away from this swamp. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - You've only been active since June, and that alone will destroy your chances of becoming an admin. Also, under 3000 edits is well below the current standards for adminship. Lack of article creation just tops it all off. I'm sorry, but there's no way you're going to become an admin anytime soon. I would recommend waiting a year or two and coming back when you think you're ready. Omni Flames (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ThePlatypusofDoom (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · CSD log · PROD log · no prior RfA) I've been here for around 6 months, and have accumulated around 7,800 edits. I'm interested to know what my chances would be in an RfA. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• 5/10 - Going by recent RfA voter's 'criteria' and my personal interpretation of said criteria - clean block record, a decent AfD percentage and a mostly red CSD log (all of which are good things). Your content creation is sparse, which will bother some voters and attract opposes (read Ritchie333's essay). A fair (600+) number of non-automated edits, but the general count is below the "expected" 10k+ we normally see at RfA. You're involved at all the right places (AIV, UAA & RFPP) but I see you a little too often at the dramaboard (admittedly with mostly okay advice). A 5 suggests a 50/50 chance of your RfA succeeding - but I'd recommend sticking around, digging in with your anti-vandalism work, creating a couple of articles, getting some to GA/DYK and staying away from ANI before reconsidering. I expect to see you back in six months or so! Keep up the great work -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Worth noting, xTools is being a bit of an embuggerance today - I would expect to see a decent edit% in the mainspace, but with a significant portion of it being userspace -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you would have any significant chance of passing if you ran today. Three fairly decent candidates with relatively low edits and/or tenures have run in the past few months, and they all generated significant opposition for that reason; in two of those cases, enough to sink the RFA. I had 6 times your tenure and three times your edit count when I ran, and I still got an oppose vote for experience...anyhow, I think you can see my point, even if I personally disapprove of the importance folks give to edit-count, it's a huge factor. Otherwise, I don't see any red flags based on a brief review. I would strongly suggest more content creation: and although you do not seem to be the center of any drama at ANI, it is not a venue I would recommend activity in for any prospective candidate. WP:CESSPIT links there for a reason. Finally, I am curious as to the high "user talk" percentage in your edit count, as the use of automated tools is not large enough to explain it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, and I just came across this (admins only link). Now that was early in your tenure, but I still think you need to put that well behind you. Again, demonstrating solid content creation is one way to do so. Vanamonde (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*0/10 - I post a lot on this page, not only did I write one of the RfA guides linked at the top of this page that has become the the most read RfA advice on Wikipedia, but I have also written most of what has been written about our RfA system [2][3]. Before reading what follows, I would exceptionally like it to be fully understood that while I might not mince my words, I have been working with young people for over 40 years, I am not a vengeful person and a close examination my long and busy Wikipedia carrier will reveal that I only deal with hard facts. A lot of the later issues with this user has with me (and possibly other admins) probably hark back to this discussion, leading to his negative participation in other areas.

• Account created April 7, 2016
• First edit Apr 07, 2016
• Essay User:ThePlatypusofDoom/Why I hate RfA already written May 20, 2016‎
• Only 1,734 mainspace edits in 6 months
• Wikipedia space edits 2,090
• Minor edits 1,217
• 2,840 (Semi-)automated edits
• Total edits 7,919
• Edits in the last 30 days 432
• Recent changes patrols 231
• 426 edits to major drama boards - areas which are not recommended for younger and/or inexperienced editors, on which highly experienced user Robert McClenon offers you some advice on several occasions, and LuckyLouie also offers some advice.
• Page patrolling is insufficient to provide an objective overview but to date there is a high occurrence of wrong or inaccurate patrolling:
• Has not yet developed the ability to identify blatant COPYVIO (Laurie Langford patrolled within one month of registering
• Uncertain of promotional content (Stephen Buhner)
• Does not know the difference between attack and vandalism pages
• Tagged as BLPPROD, (Another Round (band)) was a clear example of an A7 non notable band and G11 promotion
• FARDEEN NATHANI was A7 and certainly not vandalism:
• Stopped patrolling pages in July 2016
• July 29 Steak and eggs diet sent to AfD when in fact it was so bad it was summarily deleted by an admin without even being tagged for deletion
• Fernando Saunders: contentious BLP, no follow up
• Bechari House speedy deleted with no appropriate rationale. Reverted by DGG.
• Easy AfDs. Also, voting late when the consensus is already clear has been proven in some instances with other RfA candidates to be an attempt to display a high percentage of correct votes.
• Creations: Your article Education Development Center was PRODed by DGG demonstrating that you are not fully conversant with the requirements for mainspace publications. It also has lots of untidy naked URL. I often say: If you are going to police articles, you need to know how to produce them, indeed a prerequisite for WPAUTOPATROLLED is that any creations should not have any taggable issues.
• This edit which was removed by an admin was also inappropriate participation at Arbcom case by an uninvolved inexperienced user.
• Vandalism: Three blatant vandalisms at Groundhog, and the vandalism article page created at Jimbo Wales is a penguin conspiracy, speedy deleted, recreated, and speedy deleted again, which if gone noticed would have sufficed for a indef block, is a clear example of a maturity level that has several years to go and though I prefer to let it go, I would not be wrong in condemning some of this user's other comments around the site as trolling, vindictive, or vengeful.

Summarising: Content work is negligible. This will tank any RfA immediately. The extent of vandalism will take years for the dust to settle. Your participation gives both admins Anna Frodesiak and Liz pause. I've often said that I consider patterns like these this to be the wrong reason to join Wikipedia. I've even made the comment in the past such as Something to boast about in the schoolyard. Whether or not this applies to the candidate, I won't categorise - the mission on this page is to identify and point out what other RfA voters, particularly the experienced regular ones, will find and mention. Other well established editors have offered you advice having remarked that it ' if you're setting yourself up to be an admin, which, frankly, is what your editing looks like to me,' More scathing observations come from extremely experienced admins Boing! said Zebedee and DoRD to whom you replied with characteristic youthful arrogance in this long thread,

Advice: Leave page patrolling and all other administrative areas to experienced users. Read the instructions at WP:NPP and WP:DELETION and if you patrol pages, leave any articles you are not absolutely sure of to experienced editors. Banish thoughts of adminship for at least another two years - knowing our policies and guidelines is not an indication that you are ready to interpret and apply them correctly. Stay away therefore from drama boards and Arbcom - unless of course you happen to become the subject of a case, which is possibly not as unlikely as you might think. Be sure to read WP:RFAADVICE before you think of attempting a run at RfA, because you didn't this time round. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I haven't patrolled a page in 3 or so months (besides basic CSD tagging when I'm anti-vandalism work, and all of that is at least 3 months old. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel quite as negative as the above. The penguin conspiracy page is just a silly joke, not vandalism. the Groundhog nonsense is more concerning, it wasn't vandalism exactly, but it's wrong to play around that way with a real article. Everyone makes a few percent of errors in patrolling--but it does affect an RfA, so the way to learn it is to start with obvious but overlooked examples. It shouldn't take 2 years, but you are still not yet ready. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10 - Not only per Kudpung but also per the fact you've only been here since April, You don't get admin-knowledge in 6 months of being here, The "being here less than a year" alone is enough for a 0/10, I wouldn't suggest running for RFA however I would suggest you forget about adminship for the next 3 years and concerntrate on editing. –Davey2010^Talk 10:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• 0/10 - per above. Forget about adminship completely, start writing articles, and (to paraphrase RHaworth), kindly wait until somebody else thinks you are ready to pass RfA and nominates you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Just want to test the waters, I'm considering a second run, this will be my final attempt regardless. The reasons for requesting the tools are pretty much the same as my original request as the Admin area's I watch and would be active in are the same as before. Thank you for your time and insight.

• 7/10 - Active at ACC Which, for some reason, editors especially value, more than other stuff such as RfC and OTRS. 56,000 edits, 37% of them not automated. Thing that might bite is your CSD log and accusations of hat-collecting (which I believe is bullshit), but the real trouble here is that:

1. You have created 13 articles, and had 2 of them deleted. I hate to be that guy, but see User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content.
2. Your AfD participation is very low.

However, I would still support a RfA for you. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Just for the record (and probably shooting myself in the foot) I have no interest in AfD, hence the low, if any participation. Also, which accusations of hat-collecting are you referring to ? Mlpearc (open channel) 17:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Pew! Personally, I don't believe you're hat-collecting as you usually use the permissions you have. However, looking at the public logs, you haven't moved any pages or created any accounts consistently. Also, you should try to get more edits in article space (I realise that the user talk edits are probably for counter-vandalism). My main suggestion is to remove that semi-retired banner on your user page, and start working on creating articles, working at backlogs, and try achieving the four award. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• You want be admin, I suggest losing the 'semi-retired' tag on your TP as a good starting point. Must've had the edit-box open for twenty minutes!!! _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It was removed five minutes before your post. Thanx for your input. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Hi there. I am not confident enough in my appraisal of RFA (despite having just run myself) that I can offer a numerical rating, but here are some comments. You have obviously been here a while, and know your way around. The last RFA was a while back. I would, though, suggest a little more experience in content creation. Although two of your articles have been deleted, I am not so concerned about that (the last one was 3 years back) as about the fact that the rest are stub- or start-class articles, and that none of them seem to have been through a peer review process of some kind (even just DYK). You will get opposition for this: conversely, having a solid content background can make voters see other issues (if any) in a different light. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• 7/10 based primarily on the lack of content creation. Getting a single article to GA status would do you wonders. If you want, I can give you a topic and the appropriate sources to build such an article from scratch; I have plenty of "easy" topics to write articles on and little time to write these days! Without more substantial content creation, you've immediately lost the support of maybe 15% of RfA !voters, which is a hurdle that's very difficult to overcome. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thank you for your input. I think you're correct that would be an immense boost, it would be foolish not to take you up on your offer, are any of your topic's in the area of music ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Nah, they'd be in my topic area of Canadian football biographies, most likely. You can find possible music topics by going through the articles of notable musicians and looking for songs that don't have blue links but made significant cultural impacts or charted. There's plenty to do there for sure if you go back to, say, the 1980s. Before Wikipedia's time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'm going to try one of your subjects, Can you pick a topic, one that I can as you say, work from the ground up, I'll start working using this page, again thanks for your suggestion. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• 5/10 primarily for civility problems. As you may recall you narrowly escaped getting blocked for 3RR here and tossed in a mild insult when I warned you, then there was that content dispute here which led to the page being full-protected for a few days. This seems to have led to quite a few trips to ANI, although the other party has generally been at fault and been sanctioned instead, there's no smoke without fire. Not really the attitude I want from an admin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I know, it is a constant balancing act, but I am aware of my short fuse and I'm working on keeping that in check. Thank you for concerns. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wondering what people would think/say.

• 2.5/10: Despite regstring in 2014, you only have 5,000+ edits which are 1,000+ in mainspace. come back when have sufficent editing history. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10: Personally, there need be a special reason to support you for adminship for this point as you have relatively little editing history, with little apparent significant content expansion (your most edited article became a GA in 2008) with only one DYK to your credit. Most of your edits were made in the last four months, a lot after you were declined for autopatrolled, so I'd suggest you wait at least a year. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 per KGirlTrucker81 and Esquivalience - Despite registering in 2014 you've only been active this year and although you've racked up 5 thousand edits this year you've not done much (I mean that in a nice way), You've participated more on talkpages than you have articlespace, You've barely participated in the admin areas (AFD, AIV, UFAA etc etc etc) - Your RFA would sink extremely quick, I would suggest carrying on actively editing articlespace, work in the admin areas and overall be here for over 3 years (I prefer editors to have been here for 2/3 years however everyone's different). Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1/10 - you've only been actively editing in the last four months, which is far to recent for most people to be comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with your contributions, you seem to be doing a lot of work regarding WikiProject tagging, but you'll probably want at least 10 DYKs and/or a good article or two, or else show a lot of dedicated content work. Although it's not extensive, I like your mix of AfD !votes, it demonstrates someone who is willing to think on a case-by-case basis. In short, your RfA has no chance at this point, but in a 1.5 to 2 years you'd probably pass if you dedicate anywhere near the amount of volunteer time (thank you!) you've given in the last 75 days. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

78.26 (talk · contribs) Theoretically the volunteer time is a sustainable resource, I will admit a lot of my edits are due to me tagging a lot of articles for the roman and byzantine task force of MILHIST, because it only got up and running recently, we have something like a 12 year backlog to clear. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Need help with auto-tagging? If you have categories that contain articles which exclusively should be tagged, hit me up on my talk page and I can see about getting my bot doing that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:, I think the backlog is clear now mostly, got through most of the big categories, but if I come across a big one I'll make sure to ask, thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• 0/10 - What I think/say is that you don't appear to have read the instructions on the top of this page. Reading (and understanding)instructions is a prerequisite for adminship. Perhaps in one to two years you might be ready to consider adminship if you keep up the work you are doing now. And BTW, one of your userboxes is misleading. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• 2/10; sorry but you don't enough experience. Also hat collecting seems to be going on here. Your nomination for a roll you have no "qualifications" for doesn't feel me with confidence. Maybe think more about article improvement for a while and then come back in a year or two. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)