Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

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 (and are archived seven days after being closed). 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)

Yintan: May 31, 2018

Yintan has the feedback they were looking for, and has requested archive. Closing at request. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
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.

Yintan (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)

Sometimes I think I'd make a good admin, other times I think there's experience lacking. I have done work on the various notice (and/or drama) boards, been very active in vandal fighting/AIV and fairly active in AfD, fixed articles, and I'm kind of wondering where to go next with Wikipedia. I need a new challenge to keep this interesting. Admin, perhaps? Yintan  17:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Good to see you here Yintan. Easy stuff, block log, edits, tenure, etc, all good. You know; you've got some funny stats going too. That you've written a couple of articles (that might withstand AfD) could help cancel out the fact that nearly three-quarter of your edits are (semi-)automated. I wonder at the >40% user talk edits—automatic notifications from vandal fighting perhaps? That's ~5,000 for mainspace: could get picked up on. Pretty solid AfD stats; although this kind of thing might ask questions about your WP:BEFORE (and there's been a bit of a stink about that lately!). It's true it was nearly a year ago, but it was also only eight of your AfDs ago. In fact, on that, if you use AfD as a reason for requiring the tools, the fact that you've only looked in on two this year may, again, raise eyebrows. The NAC tool is pissing me about so I can't see that; but if you could draw attention to a bunch of good non-admin closures—in any area—that could help out grandly.
    TLDR; I reckon you've got a year's work ahead to address if not all then most of these issues—imho, of course.
    All this is notwithstanding that this board is for potential candidates who intend to request administrative privileges (RfA) in the near future and is specifically not for general reviews of editors, or, as you put it, to seek out new challenges, Hanniball-style  :) All the best, and good luck with whatever you mean to do. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yintan, I think you would have a chance at adminship but I'd expect to see more recent activity in relevant areas. Why is your user talk so empty? There is a kind of talk archiving scheme but no links to the archives. Your logs suggest a drop-off in your activity around July 2017. As Serial Number indicated, you might want to put in some more time before applying. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Toggled the 'archive box' setting. Talk archives are available now. Cheers, Yintan  19:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The main problem I see is that you're last 500 edits stretch back nearly an year - you simply aren't consistently active enough, and are inactive now, with the vast majority of edits being from popping in for few months every few years in which you make a lot of semi-automated edits. So agree with above; six months of consistent activity would be the minimum. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys. Thank you all for your fair comments so far. To address one thing you all brought up; yes, I've been not that busy on Wikipedia lately. That's because 1, I had a lot of stuff to do IRL the past year and 2, because I'm getting a bit bored with my current wiki activities. I don't really feel like firing up Huggle again, for example. Been there, done that. So to make myself clearer: I do consider going for admin, the mop would motivate me to get going again. As a regular user I think I've basically done all I can (or am willing to) do. Hope this makes my position a little clearer. Cheers, Yintan  18:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I really wish you hadn't written it, though... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Better to be honest, no? To make a comparison: I'm a bit bored with being a ticket inspector. Want to become a train driver. Yintan  18:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I should think you’d get a pretty good base of “You’re not already?” ivotes to get you going (that’s my personal reaction). For the skeptics, some more recent AfD, per Serial, would be great and perhaps picking a few more entries to beef up, content-wise; the GA is great but the next few most-edited mainspace entries have a bit of a low count, from where I sit, and working on that could both help with increasing levels of recent activity and satisfying folks who like to see more content creation from admin candidates—no need to pretend that would be your ongoing primary interest, just to establish you understand the perspective of those for whom it is. (If I could slightly tweak your metaphor, I’d say it’s like growing bored of being a ticket taker and applying to be station chief—no need to have been a full-time train conductor but those who are hope you’ll be well-acquainted with the challenges in their job function!) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A few months in the anti-vandalism or new page patrol mines will make the stats look better. There's enough activity overall, but less than 100 edits in each of the past 10 months (and a large portion of recent project-space edits being to a humorous page) is a bit concerning. With the right nominators, you do stand a shot; I expect a self-nom without 3-6 months of higher activity will fail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: That would indeed change the stats but I've been doing that for quite a while already, hence my 67K edit count. I still do it at times but at the moment I'm mainly keeping an eye on my watch list, pondering where to go next. I've got a fair amount of experience, I think, which is why I'm thinking about adminship. I wouldn't self-nom, by the way. That usually sinks an RfA (which I think is totally unfair) so I would look for nominators. Cheers, Yintan  19:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That extremely sporadic editing history with very long breaks gives me pause. I think there's absolutely no chance in less than a year - probably longer - and it would require a lot of hard work to make up for lost time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Gosh, no. It's good to be honest but this train driver or whatever "level up" rhetorics are purely WP:MMORPG and is something that needs to be written privately, not publicly. Alex Shih (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay people, thanks for your views. I figured as much (Face-wink.svg). One remark to @Alex Shih:, though: No, I don't see this as a role playing game, you couldn't be more wrong. In any case, unless other editors want to add to this, I'm fine with it being archived. Cheers, Yintan  18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd only want to add that--perhaps because I do have such a distinct impression of thoughtful, knowledgeable and constructive contributions from previous times I've crossed paths with Yintan, I didn't get an MMORPG or hat-collecting impression from that at all; rather it reminded me of the line in the widely cited RfA guide, about how adminship keeps me involved with Wikipedia at a time where I have run out of ideas for content creation and where I get quickly bored with routine tasks such as copyediting, finishing articles for lazy editors, or translating articles from other languages. Doesn't seem so terrible to admit you're burning out of one set of tasks and could use some new work to engage with... But of course for ORCP purposes, it is useful to know if some may have a negative reaction to a given remark. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2018 (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.

AlexGard1: June 6, 2018

Yes, read the link Sparklism gave. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
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.

AlexGard1 (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 would like to become a Admin on Wikipedia to support the community, and make sure everyone is following the rules. Copyright is important to me, and I highly value that readers are supplied with correct and fair information and media.

  • 0/10. Welcome to Wikipedia AlexGard1. So far, you have only made four edits to Wikipedia, so you ought to have a read of why adminship is not for new users. Good luck in the future, and happy editing :) — sparklism hey! 13:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi AlexGard1, just to let you know, someone is going to come along and close this soon, so I'll be brief. As Sparklism says, administrators on the English Wikipedia are generally expected to have been around for a few years and have a few thousand edits, as this shows that they have the proven experience to perform the role. I'm afraid you're not quite there just yet! Only for such a new user, I should probably congratulate you on finding this page so quickly...although I also note that you <--! commented out --> your entire statement  :) WP:NOTYET will explain the position. Thanks for your interest though! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:10, 6 June 2018 (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.

Occono: June 24, 2018

Withdrawing/closing query as I was just curious about it.--occono (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
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.

Occono (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 wondering if my editing record makes me a good candidate for adminship. --occono (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • ...rating and optional brief comment...
  • 1/10 (in the sense of probability of passing). 4000 edits or so is far less than the ever fussier RfA !voters demand. Your creation history seems reasonable - no particularly high grade ones, but I prefer lots of Cs vs 1 Good. Your lack of any AfD participation could be an issue and given low level of semi-automated edits I assume you aren't big on the vandal-hunting front (correct me if I'm wrong). Unless you happen to have a particular specialist area like bots or copyright expertise I don't think you have enough "admin skills" to be a good candidate - yet. AfD is viewed as a good proxy for lots of the wiki policy so lots of !voters use it as a judging mark, so that might be worth working on as your edit count rises, but another area or two at a minimum in any case. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Putting aside my own viability for a moment, edit count seems like an odd metric. If you make big, substanial page edits one at a time, wouldn't you have to do more work to pass that threshold than if you did every tiny improvement as its own edit?--occono (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
      • To some degree yes: since Nosebagbear had mentioned your article creations, I wondered whether your low edit count just meant you were working up substantial articles in a word doc or whatever, and then moving them over. I see that's the case in one entry and to a less degree a second. But the rest look to be fairly small when created and then worked up on the site, so in this case it seemed reasonable to assume the edit count was a fairly close proxy for site activity.
Additionally, even if a candidate had a low count because they had written numerous large articles offline, that'd be a fabulous contribution to the encyclopedia without necessarily giving RfA voters much evidence of their understanding of adminning tasks, like policies on deletion, blocks, closes, etc. Would recommend reading the above linked guides, if you haven't yet, for elaboration. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid edit count alone would sink an RfA at this time. Fewer than 1000 edits over the last 24 months will make virtually every voter worry you've not been actively involved enough to be familiar with current policies. You've been much more active this month though--if you keep that up, that could change things dramatically! It'd just need to be sustained a good while--like 12-18 months at least. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think edit count is a very poor metric, but the reality of the situation is that many people judge candidates at RFA based on raw numbers. If you can point to a history that demonstrates knowlege of policy, I think that would satisfy enough people that a lower-than-average edit count wouldn't really matter. Articles for deletion is an area where several key guidelines and policies are put into practice, but there are others, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a terrible metric, even if you focused on manual edits. Edits per month for the last year is its own distinct focus that generally needs to have at least 10/11 good months. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Only 1 AfD debate which didn't match consensus is going to sink an RfA stone dead. See Chris troutman's RfA criteria point 8. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • 2/10 I agree with most of the above comments. The combination of a low (very low for RfAs) edit count and no significant participation in adminny areas of the project makes your chances of passing negligible. None of that should deter you from becoming more actively involved in the project and jumping into the areas that others have highlighted above. AfD suffers from chronic lack of participation and your help would be greatly appreciated. On the upside I am not seeing any red flags like grossly incompetent or disruptive editing. But fairly or not, the community generally expects a decent level of recent participation with an overall edit count of around 10,000+. I've seen a few slip through with slightly lower than that, but not often. And I can't remember the last time someone passed RfA with less than 5k. From a casual look at your history you look like a decent editor with a lot of potential. But you need at least 12 more months of regular editing and some work in the behind the scenes areas so people looking at your RfA will have a track record that shows you have a decent grasp of WP:PAG. Thanks for your interest in the job. We do need more admins but right now you would not pass an RfA. I hope to see you back here in maybe a year or two. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • 1/10 - your lack of AfD participation and low edit count would probably sink your RfA at this point. I would encourage you to spend a couple months fighting vandalism and participating at AfD debates. L293D ( • ) 00:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • 1/10. AfD is a place where you really learn the guidelines for notability. The most persuasive voices are able to point to policy and explain why they meet (or fail) criteria. Also, let me join my voice with Ad Orientem and say that a solid year of editing would be a minimum bar for many votes at RfA. Continue moving forward, get engaged with a project, and you'll be back here in no time with a much higher score. Ifnord (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As said above, an RFA today would surely fail. You basically have one month of recent activity. Regarding the future:
    • Please use edit summaries more frequently.
    • You might want to WP:U1 User:Occono/Nomic; nothing good will come of that.
    • I don't think that the maintenance tag added in this diff is at all useful.
    In addition, some AfD participation would be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 27 June 2018 (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=848980330"
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