Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This optional polling page is for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges (RfA) in the near future and wish to receive feedback on their chances of succeeding in their request.

This page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors. To seek feedback on what you can do to improve your contributions to Wikipedia, ask a friendly, experienced editor on the editor's talk page for help. Polls remain open for comments for seven days, and are archived seven days after being closed.

Disclaimer: Before proceeding, please read advice pages such as Advice for RfA candidates. The result of a poll may differ greatly from an actual RfA, so before proceeding, you should evaluate your contributions based on this advice as well as recent successful and failed requests. You may want to consider asking an editor experienced at RfA, such as those listed at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination their thoughts privately as well.

Instructions

Potential candidates

To request an evaluation of your chances of passing a request for adminship in the near future, add your name below and wait for feedback. Please read Wikipedia:Not now before adding your name to this list.

Responders

Responders, please provide a number from 0 to 10 (zero being the lowest and ten being the highest chance) representing your estimate of the potential candidate's likelihood of passing an RfA. (Note the number is not your personal rating of the candidate.)

You can optionally provide short, constructive feedback based on your own analysis. Please be understanding of those who volunteer without fully understanding what is expected of an administrator, and phrase your comments in an encouraging manner as much as possible. A helper script is available that allows one-click rating.

Closure

Potential candidates may opt to close or withdraw their ORCP assessment request at any time. Polls are normally closed without any closing statement after seven days. They may be closed earlier if there is unanimous agreement that the candidate has no chance at being granted administrative privileges.

Sample entry

==Example==
{{User-orcp|Example}}
*5/10 - Edit count seems okay, but there will be opposers saying you need more AfD participation. [[User:Place holder|Place holder]] ([[User talk:Place holder|talk]]) 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

DatGuy: October 27, 2017

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.

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

I've had a few people now and then tell me that they thought I was one already and others suggesting me to run, and wanted to hear my chances. FYI, see User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2016/July for some dumb stuff, which I want to disclose here already since I don't want it to be a surprise factor if I do go for it. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - DatGuy can you explain why you need the tools, for anyone unfamiliar with your work (like me), before I rate your chances? The process is much easier when we know what strengths we would have to look for in relation to your area of interest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @TheGracefulSlick: Sure. I'm probably going to stick more to AIV, UAA, maybe deletion, and the rest of the anti-vandalism stuff. I might pop in at ITN/C every now and then if there's something that needs attention. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • 6.5/10 - I think you would probably pass in mid-70s but Rfa has become a hostile environment. The block is not a huge deal to me but anyone looking for even the smallest flaw will pick up on it. Your content is both good and bad -- good in that you have improved articles to GA status, but bad in that you have created many one-sentence stubs that occasionally have unaddressed tags. Your AfD stats are okay but I noticed your votes tend to be brief and sometimes list policies without explaining how they apply to the nomination. Without a doubt, your greatest strength lies in your vandalism work. It depends really: do you want to improve on your weakenesses and pass easily later, or go for it in the near future and possibly fail. The choice seems rather clear to me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • 8.5/10 (with a good nominator) Your work is well spread out. No worrying issues (unless I've missed anything spectacularly bad). Your discussions are mature and you have evidence of procedural skill in your past contributions. Best of luck. Lourdes 05:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment rather than numbers :) -DatGuy: I suggest running sometime next year; make it after after July. Good luck — fortunavelut luna 08:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've seen you around a good deal, and I've had positive impressions. The GAs and DYKs will help, as will the bot work and the good edit distribution (52% mainspace). The block will cause some issues, and you should definitely make your rationale for the tools clear. ITN/C is a good one, because it stands out (i.e. many, many candidates cite AIV/UAA). If you intend to get involved in deletion, you should expect to see your CSD record and AFD !votes scrutinized closely - you never know what the community will jump on. I'd also recommend sometime in the middle of next year; in the meantime, you might want to polish off whatever additional content work you can, and maybe try and expand some of those stubs. I think your chances are quite good, and I wish you all the best in your run. GABgab 16:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • 6/10 - I assume that your work in AIV, RPP, and UAA is where you intend to use the tools, as I don't see a ton of activity in CSD or AfD. However, I'll comment on these areas, as they are the areas that I am generally involved in and leave AIV, RPP, and UAA to others.
You seem to be a WP:NETPOSITIVE to me. Your CSD log is a bit light, but reasonably clean. The worst I could find was this decline which seems borderline to me anyway. Your AfD record isn't amazing (a few noms that you got wrong, and not much recent activity), but it is ok; most of the ones you were wrong on were ones where you were the first voter, or were 'weak' !votes, which shows that you aren't afraid to vote first, or against the pack, which is good.
Overall your AfD and CSD show me that you seem relatively competent in this area, with no major problems to tank an RfA, but that it isn't your main area of focus. I think your content creation is a actually fine; I think it is most important for admins to understand the basics of stub creation and new articles, so as to understand and have empathy for new editors. You have created a great many short articles, which from the few I checked, seem to have been created with citations from reliable sources. Others might demand DYKs or GAs, and you might get a couple of opposes there, so you might consider taking an article through DYK just to understand the process (which doesn't take a ton of work, or even an exceptional amount of prose skill). Your recent activity level over the last year is not very high (especially compared to your previous editing), but not worryingly low either.
The edit warring block was quite a while ago (a year and a half), but you will be required to be adequately explain it at your RfA (what you learned, not 'why you were right').
I'm saying 6/10 for AfD and CSD alone, though I suspect it is closer to 8/10 including your work at AIV, RPP, and UAA (again I'll leave analysis of these to others, as it isn't my area of specialty) Cheers and good luck. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • 6/10 is what I rate your chances right now with the voting community at RfA. I don't care to speculate on 6 months hence but many voters are not too happy about block logs of any kind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I placed the block, primarily to show you that our edit-warring policies apply to you too - and it's done the trick as I think you've improved greatly as an editor since then. Still too soon for adminship though in my view, but I personally won't hold the block against you. In general, I think a minor EW block from a couple of years ago is excusable as having "a bad day"; it's things like WP:NOTHERE and vandalism blocks that are absolute no-nos. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Closing this after 7 days. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Joe Roe: November 6, 2017

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.

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

A couple of people have suggested that I consider requesting adminship, so I thought I would ask about my chances. I've had this account for a long time, but only really actively edited between 2010 and 2012, and then again in earnest since last year. I try to focus on content creation, mainly articles about archaeology, and academic biographies, which I tend to find through AfD. My other area of activity is new article and new editor work: I do some patrolling at WP:NPP, reviewing at WP:AFC, and answer questions at the Teahouse. That's the area I see myself using the admin tools in. I think I've also spent enough time at AfD to be able to help close discussions there, particularly from the academic biography and history lists.

  • I'd personally be inclined to support based on work like Margaret Ursula Jones and the AfD record - you don't just turn up and follow the herd, you actually have something to say. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood you talked a fair argument and although I closed it with "Keep - WP:HEY", that was very much reporting back what everyone else had said. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Douglas P. Hill you gave much better arguments than everyone else who said one-line variations of "Keep - it's notable, here's a link". Still, that's the way it goes sometimes. I spotted one duff CSD A7 tag this year out of not very many, but if anybody opposes on that they can probably expect short shrift. If you ran now, think you'd probably have a similar trajectory to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Primefac 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ansh666 - there would probably be a bunch of "not enough GAs" and "only one year of solid editing with a big gap" opposes, but hopefully not enough to sink an RfA. I'm not going to give a score (in fact I'm going to take TonyBallioni's advice and stop giving scores here altogether as it will force people to read what I write instead of just look at an arbitrary number). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure: I was one of the people who encouraged Joe thinking about it privately. My only comment here is that I agree that it'd likely be similar to Ansh666 or Primefac's RfA but that's okay. They both passed and I think you would too. I know Ritchie333 did not mean that as a negative, but some people treat ORCP/RfA like a final exam where the marks count rather than looking at it as pass/fail. An admin is an admin is an admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Some editors are impossible to please at RfA but I think you will easily pass. I was most impressed by your nom statements and !votes, even when they went against the herd; believe it or not, sometimes the herd is wrong and I value editors who have the courage to speak their mind -- with an understanding of notability guidelines of course. I do not have a rating, just my support for you to take the plunge.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Joe, you strike me as a very accomplished, clueful editor. I trawled through your AfD contributions for a good while and the only reasoning that I quibbled with was your argument to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History?. I especially appreciate that your involvement at AfD includes returning to the discussion and reassessing your position based on other users' arguments. I would feel entirely comfortable with you assessing consensus at AfD, and I would turn up to support your RfA. A Traintalk 12:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Closing after 7 days. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&oldid=810251626"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA