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)

Thewinrat: April 1, 2018

WP:NOTNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 4 April 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.

Thewinrat (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)


  • Block sockpuppet users
  • Block Vandalism-only users
  • Accept or decline block appeals

This is why i want to be an admin. "UnVandalism".


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.

Nick Moyes: April 17, 2018

Nick Moyes (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)

Last year I was asked if I would wish to put myself forward for consideration as an admin. I've been thinking about this for some time, and feel I might be ready to submit an RFA later in the year. I have been around since 2010, but most active since 2015. I now contribute at the Teahouse (where accessing deleted content is potentially helpful), as well as in anti-vandalism, NPP and AFD. I like to support new users and have an aspiration to get AAU working again for committed new editors. I’ve done a little bit at Peer Review, DYK and helped at a couple of recent editathons. I’ve bought one article from List to GA status, and have a professional background in GLAM and biology. I suspect my demonstrable weaknesses are still in CSD and PROD; a lack of NACs, and no experience yet at AFC, which I intend to rectify. I see no reason to rush, but would welcome feedback to assist in any decision to submit an RFA. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • My initial impression of you is very favorable. I don't recall having seen you around, but given that our content interests don't overlap much, that's a good thing; it shows you're drama-free. I looked through your articles, and some of them are short but that's about all that's wrong with them. I also spot-checked AfD, and found nothing upsetting in those discussions where your !vote went against the eventual consensus. One piece of advice; if you don't want to work in a particular area as an admin, don't bother getting experience there before running. Nobody No reasonable person expects you to do everything as an admin. I had no experience at AFC, FFD, RFD, UAA, and several other venues; and none of my opposers cited this as a reason. You just need to be clear about what you will use the mop for, and demonstrate that you have the know-how for those things. I don't like numerical ratings, but I'm quite sure that if you ran tomorrow, you'd pass; unless there's skeleton's in the cupboard that I've missed...Vanamonde (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • On the point about not having to want to do everything or have experience of everything, it's worth taking a look at my RfA. I never once performed a non-admin close of an AfD, for example, and I made it clear that this was not an area of admin activity that I was particularly looking to be involved it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment IIRC, it was discussed in Cordless Larry's RfA that the Teahouse is producing a lot of good RfA candidates recently. The top-level statistics look good, and I don't see any red flags in the most recent 1000 edits. You will get a few opposes due to "too deletionist/hasty with CSD" or "not focused enough on content creation", but nothing serious. I don't think NACs are at all helpful for an RfA, and don't think you should worry about that. I will support if the regulars at the Teahouse support you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would encourage Nick to explore adminship. A glance at his user page at User:Nick Moyes and perusal of his GLAM efforts will probably convince people about his content work. For an example where he shows good judgment in a complex admin-related topic, see a recent ANI thread about a COI issue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Nick, you have been very helpful at the Teahouse in recent months and on the rare occasions that you make a mistake, you readily admit it. I consider that a great attribute for an administrator, and I encourage you to put your name forward when you believe that you are ready. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia. Regards from California. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As I said somewhere recently, the main problem Nick has for RfA right now is three recent declined A7s : Neil Atkinson, Jayson Keeling and Gemma Romanyà i Valls. Once that's in the past and he's got clear and obvious evidence of understanding what A7 is about, he'll be ready. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It was a pleasure reviewing all your flawless creations - for once I had some interesting and truly encyclopedic articles to read. I took a look at those CSD, and close examination of the sources (yes, I can read and speak Catalan fairly fluently too) shows that except for one article they weren't really too far off the mark - one of the creators has a history of producing sub-optimal pages. We all have blue links in our CSD logs and these would certainly not deter me from supporting an RfA. However, our WRRFAO will pounce on them the minute the RfA goes live and rub their hands in glee at the pile-ons they cause. Have another very good read of WP:RFAADVICE, give it another 3 - 6 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem with the taggings Ritchie mentions is not that they were made but that Nick does not have a lot of entries in his CSD log, so any mistakes stand out more prominently (a list which imho includes Ruprecht Langer, later deleted at AFD, who is the head of a German federal agency, which is a sufficient claim of importance). What I remember more was Eucalyptus (Avey Tare album), an album by a notable musician which was tagged as A7 last year but at that time Nick already had 7 years of experience. So despite its age, you might want to explain this tagging. That said, giving it another 3-6 months without such mistakes should be sufficient to appease most people. Regards SoWhy 13:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm surprised nobody went for "redirect" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruprecht Langer. Nick said "is this worth a redirect", one !voter went with an argument to avoid (see WP:JNN), the other was more concerned about its translation from de-wiki than notability or a redirect. And that was it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
And relisted. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&oldid=837067369"
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