Serial Number 54129 (talk | contribs) |
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
<!-- Instructions for reviewers: append to the list below your estimate of the candidate's likelihood of passing RfA and optional brief comment --> |
<!-- Instructions for reviewers: append to the list below your estimate of the candidate's likelihood of passing RfA and optional brief comment --> |
||
::::{{ping|Davey2010}} Sorry, I'll clarify. I was wanting to go for admin rights, but was sceptical that I would pass an RfA. Through this poll it has given facts to my suspicions and so I won't go for RfA (as you suggested) for at least a year. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">'''Jazz'''</i>]] 🎷 <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contributions/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 13:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|Davey2010}} Sorry, I'll clarify. I was wanting to go for admin rights, but was sceptical that I would pass an RfA. Through this poll it has given facts to my suspicions and so I won't go for RfA (as you suggested) for at least a year. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">'''Jazz'''</i>]] 🎷 <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contributions/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 13:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::Furthermore, I would like to close this poll. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">'''Jazz'''</i>]] 🎷 <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contributions/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 13:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- *** PLACE YOUR RATING ABOVE THIS LINE *** |
<!-- *** PLACE YOUR RATING ABOVE THIS LINE *** |
||
INSTRUCTIONS for reviewers: append to the list above your estimate of the candidate's likelihood of passing RfA and optional brief comment |
INSTRUCTIONS for reviewers: append to the list above your estimate of the candidate's likelihood of passing RfA and optional brief comment |
Revision as of 13:05, 13 October 2018
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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, 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)
Flooded with them hundreds: October 5, 2018
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.
Flooded with them hundreds (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)
I'm active in the anti-vandalism, new page reviewing and AFC area.
- *Difficult: not bad stats, but I've got a nasty feeling they would be forgotten if your previous account became public knowledge. As we've seen in at least one relatively recent RfA, the community has a long memory when it wants, and—what can only be described as a vicious streak. Also, that's a helluva high automated edit count; might want to put away the tools for a bit? Mind you, plenty of mainspace edits, and clearly not all automated, as you've created a fair few pages. But the thing is, the areas you've indicated that you're active in don't necessitate the tools (except antivandalism, but that's sometimes seen as a bit of an easy option): so immediately the question will be, what's actually your need? ~70% AfD match; that might strike some commentators as necessarily low, although tbh there's also those who won't, and, if you explicitly say you don't want to work in that area, will ignore it. Having said that—and tied in with the question of need—you haven't said where you will work. That's fundamental. I don't really do numerical scores here, but I'd say give it a while, establish yourself under this account, gain some gravitas, and especially become useful in other areas. Maybe try for a GA or two :) it certainly wouldn't do any harm! Good luck, ——SerialNumber54129 15:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- My need is to block vandals especially from Huggle where I noticed there's a shortage of admins (Oshwah and K6ka seem to be the only admin hugglers). Gaining the tools may be useful for me in performing basic administrative tasks (i.e. deleting, blocking, protecting) that I'm so ready and eager to do, as doing the tasks myself instead of reporting/requesting at administrative venues may be timesaving and convenient. Flooded with them hundreds 08:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- 0/10 - This could be an issue, Whilst CLEANSTARTS are valid and accepted you may be asked what your previous username was, I'm going to give my opinions based on this account only,
- You've only been here since March of this year so tenure is an issue for me, Your PROD overall looks okay however your AFD is poor in that you've only got 70% because you've been the nom if that makes sense,
- Also worth noting you don't need to be an admin to deal with vandalism, new page reviewing and AFC,
- In short I feel this is TOOSOON. –Davey2010Talk 15:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- 0/10 While I can appreciate the honesty in declaring that you have used a clean start, I would need to know what happened under your previous account that led to that decision before I could make any type of informed decision. I would be more than willing to accept receiving this knowledge via email, if you would prefer to not bring up old issues on-Wiki. I am also a little apprehensive about granting administrative tools to those under the age of 18. Simply put, it's a trust concern - I don't feel that minors, in most instances, have the necessary life experience to be able to properly step into disputes and address them neutrally and with a calm head. Now, that being said, I am more than happy to keep an eye on your contributions for awhile and keep an open mind about considering you as an exception to that general rule, but it would take some work on your part for that to happen. StrikerforceTalk 16:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Strikerforce: To be fair, they're not hiding anything; most previous accounts are on their userpage. ——SerialNumber54129 16:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- The two previous usernames for this account are listed on the "about" page; the claim that this is a clean-start would mean there are other accounts that this person has operated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129:
but I've got a nasty feeling they would be forgotten if your previous account became public knowledge
raises questions for me as to whether or not there were problems with the candidate's previous account(s) that would at least need to be looked at for comparison of progress as an editor. I wouldn't hold those issues - if there were any - against the candidate, thus supporting the whole idea of a "clean start", but I would like to see growth as an editor, especially given my reservations about granting admin privileges to a minor. StrikerforceTalk 16:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129:
- The two previous usernames for this account are listed on the "about" page; the claim that this is a clean-start would mean there are other accounts that this person has operated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Strikerforce: To be fair, they're not hiding anything; most previous accounts are on their userpage. ——SerialNumber54129 16:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- 2/10 Stats look decent, concerned about tenure and the fact that the user deleted the part about a clean start after some negative comments about it. WizardKing 17:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- 0/10. Your account is ~180 days old. Even for me, who still believes it's no big deal, the expectation is at least a year. Your choice of username is also unusual. Some people join as a lark before they get really into the project and have something they just quickly made up. You've spent time going through a clean start and that's what you chose? Ifnord (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please no. Even though this is supposed to be a casual poll, you should still have the courtesy to write a short statement to summarise what you would like people to comment on. If you would like to consider adminship, change your username back to something less silly, do more content work, expand your areas (especially to those that requires you to write something thoughtful so that people can assess your "temperament" or maturity), and finally stop feuding or claiming harassment (looks like that hasn't happened recently, which is good). If you can do all of that, I don't think it will be that difficult. Alex Shih (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not normally that bothered about tenure, and I'm more open than most to supporting Clean Start candidates with an undisclosed former account. But when you combine a fairly short tenure with this being a Cleanstart, well I have issues, and so will many others. For all we know you could have had a block expire hours before you started this account. If you want to run at RFA without disclosing one or more former accounts then I would expect a statement such as "I have never been blocked under any account" or "I have an undisclosed former account, but all the accounts I have edited with in the last three years are on this list on my userpage. Cool username by the way. ϢereSpielChequers 23:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- 1/10 I largely agree with what has been written above except for the part about your username which I could care less about. Bottom line you need to wait at least a year and if your still interested you will need to make a full disclosure of your previous accounts and any issues you may have had. I doubt anyone would nominate you at the moment and if you self nominated my guess is your RfA would end up being SNOWed under. None of this is insurmountable though. Time plus a solid record under your current account plus full and honest disclosure about any past issues might well get you there. But not right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't plan to run for adminship until at least mid-2020 or later. This is just to see if clean start accounts are welcomed to do so, with or without disclosing previous account(s). Personally I feel I'm more qualified for adminship than many of the existing admins (this statement will backfire on me in a few years but I don't mind!) Thank you all for commenting, I think it should be closed now. Flooded with them hundreds 09:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
IntoThinAir: October 6, 2018
IntoThinAir (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)
I have a long history here, almost all of which was not under my current username. My original username (when I created this account in 2013) was Jinkinson, which was changed to Everymorning in 2014 and to my current username this past July. Though the above template (user-orcp) says "no prior RFA", this only applies to my current username: I have two (unsuccessful) RFAs, one under each of my old usernames (first one, second one). With regard to paid editing, I have done it a few times and I have disclosed it on the article's talk page each time, as well as on my own userpage. I have considered potentially running for adminship intermittently over the about 3.5 years since my last unsuccessful attempt and I wanted to know to what extent the community now regards me as trustworthy w/regard to adminship. My last two ORCP entries were in 2016 (one in Archive 2 and the other in Archive 6) and I am interested in (and bracing myself for) an update. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Very low chances due to paid editing. I haven't looked at your other contributions, but the extent to which many users regard paid editing and adminship to be totally incompatible is well known and widespread; I don't think you would have any chance of passing. Moreover, the paid editing is recent, and you have made no overtures that you intend to stop. While paid editing might be technically allowed, and you appear to have followed the rules with regards to disclosing it; COI editing is highly discouraged, per WP:COIEDIT #2 and WP:PAY #3. Editors who engage in COI editing are in effect ignoring this advice, which is a bad mark against their judgement (something that was a concern during your last RfA). I personally would not support for this reason. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think ICPH speaks for me on these matters. ——SerialNumber54129 16:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hate to pile on here but ICPH and SN speak for me too - Paid editing is allowed but as ICPH says it's highly discouraged and it's something I generally disagree with,
If you can be paid to write an article you can easily be paid to delete one.–Davey2010Talk 16:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC) - @Davey2010: - that is a significant insult and unjustified. Someone has complied with PaidCOI requirements does not give any indications they would then break the rules to the tune of deleting an article for payment. I don't disagree that, without a year of no paid work, !voters won't go for it, but that statement was well beyond that. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- I stand by each and every word of my opinion - I don't trust anyone who partakes in paid editing, Ofcourse I'm not saying IntoThinAir would ever take pay to delete an article and I apologise if I gave that impression - The point I was (perhaps badly) trying to make was that if anyone can take pay to write an article then theoretically anyone could take pay to delete one but as I said I wasn't trying to insinuate IntoThinAir would so I apologise if I gave that impression, –Davey2010Talk 18:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- The difference, Davey2010, is that paid editing is regulated and allowed even though most volunteer editors disapprove of it. Using administrator's tools for pay is not allowed and would result in a desysop if discovered. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- 2/10 Paid editing is hugely controversial and I think would be an instant deal breaker at RfA. Sorry but this is where you go to get blunt (sometimes brutally so) advice about your odds of passing RfA. If you want to be an admin you will need to renounce paid editing and probably wait at least a year. This is something that casts a long shadow, fairly or not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- 1/10 I consider it highly unlikely that the RfA regulars would support giving the mop to a paid editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment If you really want to be an admin one day and wish to be considered on the basis of your other non-paid contributions than on the paid ones, you've lost the chance with this account. I don't even know if a new start with clean disclosure to arbcom might be the way to go for a future adminship attempt (in other words, you'd probably be still required to reveal at the RfA about your past accounts). You can email me if you need further advice. Lourdes 15:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This is, to some extent, a response to both active candidate polls - an editor is not obliged to disclose a clean start, even at RfA, notwithstanding the advice at clean start. For an example of an editor who succeeded at RfA despite a significant amount of community suspicion about their history with other accounts, see WP:requests for adminship/Amortias. Amortias opted to disclose his alternate account to the arbitration committee, but, again, that isn't strictly necessary. Airbornemihir (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- And here I was thinking that paid editing was fine so long as it was done in keeping with Wikipedia rules for doing so! How naive of me! But I am genuinely surprised that any form of paid editing (at least recently) is considered bad, even if it was not in violation of Wikipedia policy and even if I would completely stop doing it if I became an admin (which I definitely would). IntoThinAir (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's heavily to do with the fact that paid work is always considered with a sense of "biased until proven reliable", and that at an RfA that would be associated with the editor. It doesn't require any of this bonkers clean start and redoing suggested above, but I imagine that a 9 month pause (enough to be able to demonstrate a clear cessation) would be needed.
- The feedback you've received is that paid editing is not "fine", but merely tolerated, albeit begrudgingly (or "Very strongly discouraged", per WP:PAID) By engaging in paid editing you have shown that you have not assessed the consensus on paid editing correctly. Assessing consensus is the crux of adminship for many participants in an RfA. Hence your low score, I suppose. --Vexations (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- It would also be reasonable to IntoThinAir to provide some feedback on his other aspects, since if we all think he'd have to wait then the least we can do is suggest what the time should also include. I'll have a go if you give me a minute. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Negatives first: the block is so far back as to be irrelevant. Autopatrolled was removed for a copyvio case, but the rapid return via a PERM request would seem to indicate the experts on rights had no significant concern. AfD work is distinctly lacking, which given your edit count, presumably indicates a deliberate decision. Given that people in RfA always pick on any cause in RfA it might be worth picking up 50 or so over the next few months.
- Good stuff next: Edit count, CSD log, article work all seems of very high quality. Mainspace and manual edit rates are high (not that I care, but others seem to).
- I personally would be happy to !vote Support for you right now, the paid editing is minimal, extremely clear and of sufficient quality. However, I still think the hostility towards paid editing is worth waiting a decent length of time, however - it would appear you haven't undertaken any paid editing since March. That would make 9 months around Christmas, and so the delay wouldn't be too serious. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I have to point something out about the block in question: I was blocked once in 2014 by Bishonen at my own request, for 24 hours. I requested that block because I thought Wikipedia was interfering with my ability to complete my college assignments. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- That just makes it even less of an issue
- OK, I have to point something out about the block in question: I was blocked once in 2014 by Bishonen at my own request, for 24 hours. I requested that block because I thought Wikipedia was interfering with my ability to complete my college assignments. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I personally would be happy to !vote Support for you right now, the paid editing is minimal, extremely clear and of sufficient quality. However, I still think the hostility towards paid editing is worth waiting a decent length of time, however - it would appear you haven't undertaken any paid editing since March. That would make 9 months around Christmas, and so the delay wouldn't be too serious. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Good stuff next: Edit count, CSD log, article work all seems of very high quality. Mainspace and manual edit rates are high (not that I care, but others seem to).
- I think your chances are very low, and as others have suggested, it's due to the paid editing (albeit properly disclosed). I personally see paid editing as totally incompatible with adminship, and I know a lot of others feel the same. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Concurring with others. Paid editing of any kind (except WIR) although currently tolerated by certain rules, is not generally approved of by the community. My special concern is that it is exploiting for gain the work of 1000s of editors who contribute content and maintain the corpus for free, and have built Wkipedia into the important resource that it is today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying I don't understand why it's viewed so negatively, what I find odd is that it's being viewed as (very) significantly worse than so many things that we are officially against. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz: October 12, 2018
Dreamy Jazz (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 · previous RfAs)
I have been thinking about wanting to go for admin rights for a while. Mainly because it will allow me to close WP:RM discussions when the move requires redirects to be deleted etc. I have been involved in anti-vandalism and have been deleting unused/orphaned/superseded portal subpages, not through CSD directly, but through User:Dreamy Jazz/Portal Pages to Delete. I have marked for deletion ~7,000 portal subpages (although I cannot confirm an absolute value, due to not being able to access my deleted contributions). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- 4/10. I have to admit that I have not heard of you, which might be because you only really became active in October 2017, which might turn away a number of editors who expect tenures of 2 years or more. The focus on Portals might also be problematic for some editors since you have little other admin-related activities, no speedy/xFD participation to speak of and only few reports to AIV and basically no participation on other project related areas. Hence, I'd expect a number of "no need" opposes as well. I can't see any indication of featured content work (DYK/GA/FA etc.), so you will also get "not enough content creation" opposes. Seeing your portal-related activity, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood is most comparable, with the caveat that Pbsouthwood was also a recognized content creator which you are not. Nothing I said should disqualify you but I think in sum it probably will. Regards SoWhy 18:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I am going to be taking a part in WP:GA and have nominated Morpeth, Northumberland for GA status. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'll do a full review if time permits, but major issues with Morpeth as I see it immediately are a) lots of unsourced content (particularly landmarks and notable people) b) no attention has been paid to the layout of images, which need sorting out c) the lead is too short d) I'm not sure the history section meets the "broad in coverage" part of the criteria, plus the narrative jumps all over the place. Sure, put a GA in your arsenal, but the quality of the encyclopedia comes first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I am going to be taking a part in WP:GA and have nominated Morpeth, Northumberland for GA status. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- 3/10. This may sound harsh, so please don't take it personally; overall, I think you're an excellent editor - I'm just pointing out what the community is going to find and scrutinize. As far as content creation goes, you've only created 3 mainspace pages, one is a BLP with a bunch of ref improvement tags and the other is a disambiguation page. Both of the non-disambiguation articles you've created are stubs. Although plenty of candidates have passed without any GA/FAs, I'd suggest at least get a C-class or B-class article that doesn't have important issues. Your AfD stats will probably produce opposes; you have little participation here and what you do have is pretty much completely "per nom" or "per above." Your vandalism fighting looks great, as does your CSD log and RM closing, and marking 7,000 pages for deletion is quite remarkable; but I believe the community would want to see better experience in the areas pointed out above. Please let me know if you have any further questions.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I will try to add more reasoning when participating in WP:AFD discussions. I am going to improve Morpeth, Northumberland by nominating it for WP:GA and improving the article further through the process. I will be on the lookout for further articles to create. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- 0/10 - You signed up in 2015 however you only started editing roughly in December 2017 before taking a break and coming back in February this year, Your AFD stats are low, Your CSD log is okay but as a whole due to your tenure and lack of XFD participation I believe you have absolutely no chance at passing an RFA at this present time, I would kindly suggest retrying in a few years. –Davey2010Talk 21:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I am not intending to go for admin rights for a while and this has only been reaffirmed by comments made by the others above. I will be participating in WP:AFD and XFD discussions more. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Without sounding harsh this page does state "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." so if you have or had no plans of starting an RFA then this poll is rather a waste of everyones time, it would be no different to me starting a poll to be a steward even tho I have no desire to be one..... –Davey2010Talk 13:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- And your latest user box, Dreamy Jazz, may not have quite the effect you are presumably hoping it well ;) ——SerialNumber54129 13:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: Sorry, I'll clarify. I was wanting to go for admin rights, but was sceptical that I would pass an RfA. Through this poll it has given facts to my suspicions and so I won't go for RfA (as you suggested) for at least a year. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I would like to close this poll. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I am not intending to go for admin rights for a while and this has only been reaffirmed by comments made by the others above. I will be participating in WP:AFD and XFD discussions more. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)