Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"WP:RFAP" redirects here. For requesting the autopatrolled right, see WP:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled.

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. Look at past polls in the archives and consider the risk of having a similar list of shortcomings about yourself to which anyone can refer. You may want to consider asking an editor experienced at RfA, such as those listed at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, their thoughts privately.

Instructions

Potential candidates

To request an evaluation of your chances of passing a request for adminship in the next 3 to 6 months, add your name below and wait for feedback. Please read Wikipedia:Not now before adding your name to this list.

Responders

Responders, please provide feedback on the potential candidate's likelihood of passing an RfA at this time. Please be understanding of those who volunteer without fully appreciating what is expected of an administrator, and always phrase your comments in an encouraging manner. You can optionally express the probability of passing as a score from 0 to 10; a helper script is available to let you give a one-click rating. For more detailed or strongly critical feedback, please consider contacting the editor directly.

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. ~~~~

Spy-cicle: October 10, 2024

Thank you all for the advice and infomation, I have gone ahead and boldly nominated myself.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Spy-cicle (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)

Hi, I considered RfA sometime ago but did not think I had enough experience. I was wondering if people generally think I have enough experience to become an Admin now after almost 11k edits and 6 years among the various more detailed aspects that I have involved myself across Wikipedia.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 10k edits and 5 GAs is great. I think your current activity is too low though. According to XTools, you've averaged 24 edits a month over the last 2 years. I think most RFA participants would like to see at least 100–200 edits a month over the course of at least 6 months, or something similar. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that's understandable, thanks for the candid advice.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 02:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran the numbers and many of the folks in the admin elections right now also have low activity. I don't think they'd pass in a normal RFA for that reason, but with admin elections, who knows. Might be worth a shot. Up to you! –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm I see. I suppose if I am in line with others who have also nominated for admin, might give it a go myself. Thank you very much for the further infomation.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that people who wouldn't pass in a normal RFA will also not pass in the election process. I don't say that to discourage you, so much as to say that you should only sign up for the elections if you feel pretty ok about failing. My hope is that a fail at the elections won't be seen as a serious strike against anybody who then opts to try via traditional RFA, but no one can predict that yet. -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, left out part of what I wanted to say: it is effectively a certainty that some candidates will not be elected, so if you fail, you'll at least have company, which is something you can't usually say for RFA. At least in my opinion, that seems less harsh. -- asilvering (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, thanks for the advice.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 07:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would largely agree here. I've had a look at your AfD record, which looks good, and at your requests for page protections (usually honoured, but at slightly lower level than requested). Experience-wise that seems fine. Activity levels may be a bit low here, which could give concerns around keeping up with changes. Are you planning to pick up more intense editing again soon? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, yes I do plan on increasing my activity again, just been a bit hectic the past year.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 07:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec a few hours ago) I've had a look at a few stats (AfD votes, edit summary usage, page moves) and generally like what I found. As an admin, you need to be transparent and edit summary use should be as close to 100% as you can get it. Good AfD record. You do move pages. Those activities can benefit from having the tools. I agree that activity is on the low side. But I also think that Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates is a great opportunity; there are so many candidates that anything can happen. I’d be happy to work with you on the 3 answers if you like. There’s not much time until nominations close, though. Schwede66 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mind if I email you with my answers to the three questions? I know nominations pretty soon though.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 07:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Cremastra: October 11, 2024

All right, thanks. I don't think I'll dive in just yet, but honestly the overall response was more positive than I expected. So maybe late next year? Cremastra (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Cremastra (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)

If I were to, say, nominate myself at the new experimental WP:AELECT, how would I fare? (Just a note: my CSD log can be ignored because I a) mostly use PageCuration to do that and b) disabled that feature on Twinkle.) Cremastra (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I don't think anyone can predict election outcomes yet. All we know is that candidates are likely to receive much less support via this method than by RFA. -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if we can even know that. Surely, we'll likely see fewer >95% support percentages, but pile-on opposes over minor issues are less likely without group effects. Will give some actual feedback tomorrow. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're one of the handful of people I've been thinking about giving an WP:AWOT. My main concern is that your activity fell off a little bit toward the start of the year, but it's not an extreme drop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that your chances might be better than at a normal RFA given the wave of noms and restricted discussion/question period: The results for your AFD !votes/noms have been close to a coin flip this year, your only accurate Keep vote ever has been for an April Fools joke, and your only other Keep vote stated "I haven't fully investigated the article, but I would agree with this statement. So leaning keep", which is not great. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your username change makes your AfD stats look worse than they are, with a 74% similarity percentage if you include both usernames. That said, if you want to help out in deletion processes, it may be worth joining a few more discussions with in-depth analysis and see if you can be the one that delves out the missing sources. When you nominate, it may be worthwhile consistently noting what BEFORE steps you took, so that others can more effectively search in more specialist collections. (For accessibility, keep in mind WP:NOHIDE for your source assessment tables). Most requests for page protection are honouned, and the few times it led to a block rather than a protection, both options had merit (there were at least 2 accounts/IPs). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. I wouldn't plan on helping out at AfD, since that's never been a place that's interested me especially, but I'll take more care with my noms in future. If I were to close deletion discussions, it would be at RfD, where I already do some clerking. Cremastra (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cremastra. You are an excellent candidate. I will support you. Happy editing! Maliner (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How big an issue is the fact that I have so far epically failed to raise an article to GA? Cremastra (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've written a couple of B-class articles, so it's clear you do know your content. I've had a quick look at the 2nd failed nomination at Talk:Banded palm civet, which noted close paraphrasing. I think I'm on a strict side of this, but I'm not convinced by the examples, as there are WP:LIMITED ways of saying these simple facts. That said, this is taken quite seriously by (!)voters, so it may come up again. Also the fact you've got multiple failed GAs may come up. I'm not convinced that GAs are necessary, but in the absence of GAs, people are likely going to be stricter on their other criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Rich Smith: October 15, 2024

Rich Smith (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 withdrew an RfA a good while ago after a WP:TOOSOON consensus. I'm looking to see what the community thinks now. Yes, I don't do much article writing, but hopefully my other work deems it good.

  • Some basic stats: ✅ >8,000 edits. ✅ Account age >2 years. ✅ >1000 edits in last year. ❌ Good article. ✅ No blocks ever. ✅ User talk page has archiving, and all significant messages are archived rather than deleted.
    What do you anticipate your answer to question 1 being? What is your "need for the tools"? Will you end up being a technical admin, content creation admin, backlog crusher admin focusing on DYK, CCI, NPP, etc? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More a technical admin, along with dealing with CSDs focusing on copyvios and getting rid of shoddy drafts. Also, I would like to "be the change you wish to see" by decreasing time between a report at AIV and action being taken, sometimes reports hang around for too long - RichT|C|E-Mail 09:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Smith I have a positive impression about you and will support you if you have your RFA. Thanks for your interest. Maliner (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could elaborate or clarify what you mean by shoddy drafts @Rich Smith? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blantant advertising/promotion, total copyright violations, patent nonesense. Stuff that wastes everyones time at AfC - RichT|C|E-Mail 12:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider being more clear in your approach and wording when stating your intentions for the tools @Rich Smith. There are a lot of drafts that don't meet our CSD definitions of patent nonsense that a lot of folks still nominate as such (I don't know your definition, just stating this generally). There are also a lot of drafts that waste peoples' time at AfC (I've reviewed plenty myself) that actually aren't CSD worthy that we, essentially, have to wait out the clock on (G13 deletions). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding josh here, I think drafts are way over-nominated at CSD. Any untouched draft will be G13'd eventually, and nominations of most other CSD criteria waste more admin/reporter time than they save in AfC reviewer time. If it's wasting AfC time the problem is usually tendentious resubmission of something non-notable, and a lack of notability isn't grounds for speedy deletion. I'd be hesitant to support someone who expressed a desire to "get rid of shoddy drafts". I suspect that many of the RFA voters who tend towards "anti-deletionist" tendencies would worry about that, especially in light of your relatively infrequent AfD participation. Your stats are fine, but you rarely participate except as nominator, and that might give people pause. -- asilvering (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&oldid=1251307223"