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)

Reyk: January 14, 2018

Reyk (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)

Well, I think I'll test the waters. I've been here quite a while, with 21,000+ edits under my belt as well as some good and featured content. People have asked me before if I'd like to run (see here) but I declined at the time because I didn't think I was ready and had no need for the tools. I'm a bit older, with a calmer head, now and since I'm currently working on a lot of maintenance-related work I can see myself requiring the tools occasionally in the future. Even if this poll goes well, it would still be six months or so before I actually run since I'll definitely want to address any concerns people will raise. Cheers! Reyk YO! 12:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Reyk. Good to see you here. Just a quick query: which all maintenance work (apart from Afd) are you currently working in? Thanks, Lourdes 16:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I do a lot of work trying to improve some of Wikipedia's worst-written articles, ones that are generally unsourced and of dubious notability, requiring huge amounts of categorisation, trimming, and copyediting. There's been a few times already when being able to see deleted articles would have come in handy. I'm also somewhat more likely to run into copy-and-paste merges and so WP:HISTMERGE is something I can see myself needing down the track, as well as the ability to move pages over any redirect. Finally, I see that CfD has a long, straggly, backlog. That's something I can help with. Reyk YO! 18:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
People like seeing evidence of that - so say requesting histmerges, requesting moves at WP:RM/TR/getting the page mover right and doing moves etc would help; plus closes at CfD can be done as a non-admin so doing some of that would also help. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • 5/10 currently based on activity levels - only reasonably active for the last 4 months - very inconsistent before that; people like to see evidence that you'd continue to be consistently active. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I like what I see here, but I agree that current activity level is quite low; another six months of solid work would definitely increase the chances. As you are/have been actively involved in AN/I, do you have any examples of experience in dispute resolution that effectively demonstrates your calmness? Alex Shih (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I've drawn back a little from the drama boards so most of my comments at ANI of late have probably been benign and about uncontroversial maintenance. The last major dispute I've been involved in concerns whether or not Wikipedia should have a multitude of very small stubs on obscure sportspeople sourced only to (not 100% reliable) database entries. Opinions differ on that of course, but during this argument I was (IMO) subjected to personal abuse, threats, and taunting. One such conversation is here, and you can find more of the big sprawling dispute over many other locations by searching for my user name and "cricket". In the past I might have let the teasing and obfuscation get to me but I've been determined not to have any angry outbursts over that sort of thing. Reyk YO! 18:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A question not a rating, but it's one you'd be well to get out of the way (or at least think of an answer to even if you don't answer here) before any RFA as the answer will likely determine how it goes (Alex Shih is alluding to the same thing above, but I'll put it bluntly rather than couch it in Bradspeak). You have a huge number of contributions to ANI (549 at the time of writing). While that's sometimes the sign of someone who's keen to help in administrative areas, it's also often the sign either of someone who keeps starting or being drawn into arguments, or of someone who enjoys bossing other people around and sees adminship as a sheriff's badge. Which of the three is it in your case and (assuming you're answer will be #1), can you justify it? Part of the reason RFA has such an unpleasant atmosphere is that we've been collectively burned too often by people who fancy themselves as the Wikipedia Police and as soon as they get the bit start rushing around blocking and protecting anywhere they can find a pretext to do so; whether you can demonstrate that your participation has been calming things down rather than stirring things up will be the difference between "likely fail with an outside chance of passing" and "likely pass with an outside chance of failing". (As I assume you know, you won't rate higher in terms of probabilities than "likely pass with an outside chance of failing"; it may have been seven years ago but you stepped on the toes here of someone with a lot of friends and an elephant-like memory for perceived slights.) ‑ Iridescent 18:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That's a fair question, and I'm afraid I currently only have a partial answer for you. 549 edits to ANI might seem a lot, but I've been on Wikipedia for over twelve years. That works out to less than four edits to ANI a month. Even taking into account periods of lower activity, I still wouldn't say I spend an inordinate amount of time there. Regarding which of the three reasons for posting at ANI apply, I can definitely tell you that being the Town Sheriff is not one of them. If anything I have been more likely to suggest moderation with the admin tools. To be honest there may have been a bit of Reason #2 in there in previous years, but dramamongering and wikilawyering never made me happy and it isn't productive. As for the Colonel, I make no secret that I think he's disruptive. More circumspect about it now that he's lost his veil of anonymity, but still supercilious and deceitful. I know he'll have some very interesting and rather harsh things to say about me if I go to RfA. But if I was the kind of person who saw what he considered to be disruptive behaviour, and didn't push back for fear of revenge, then I'd have no business being an admin anyway. It would, or should, do more to disqualify me than a few retaliatory oppose votes. Reyk YO! 20:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The nature of the beast is (this particular one, anyway), that it will probably garner you plenty of supports almost automatically, ironically. Put 'em in the bank but don't rely on them  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 21:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • 7.5/10 - cautiously. There is a clear consensus that our serial opposer's participation at RfA is a disruptive influence, but there is a consensus not to do anything about it. Even if he had the moral conscience to not drag up a 7 year old RFC/U, chances are he'll think of something and might make a bigger issue of it rather than his usual weak attempts to deliberately cause drama. There is a small core of regular voters who vote objectively whichever way their opinion falls. The rest of them however are a transient pool of participants among whom are many who simply think it's cool to vote on RfA and they generally just look at the other votes and pile on. That said, check out my user:Kudpung/RfA criteria and if you check all the boxes you should be good to go.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yesterday, you have deliberately chosen to join a mob the only purpose of which was to provoke me to incivility (and eventually take to ArbCom). It happened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Discussion (linking to Wikidata RfC), and your comment ended up in a hatted section. You may expect me to oppose your RfA, and moreover you would need to explain the community why this is not a serious lapse of judgement. You might succeed, in the end of the day you were not the main person there, and you might misread their intentions, and there are many people who support the sentiment, but I would reasonably guess that in the next two years you are not going to get the mop.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • 6/10 as my assessment of what I think your chance of success is. My personal rating of you as a prospective admin is a couple of points higher than that, but that's not what we're asked here. In short, I think you would pass, but there are enough things, such as current activity level and other points raised above, that others may see as sufficient of a drawback to make it not quite a foregone conclusion. -- Begoon 09:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Zppix: January 19, 2018

Zppix (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 · previous RfAs)


  • ...rating and optional brief comment...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&oldid=821236481"
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