Flooded with them hundreds (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Flooded with them hundreds (talk | contribs) nvm |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
<!-- Don't alter anything above this line --> |
<!-- Don't alter anything above this line --> |
||
I'm active in the anti-vandalism, new page reviewing and AFC area |
I'm active in the anti-vandalism, new page reviewing and AFC area. |
||
<!-- 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 --> |
Revision as of 14:46, 5 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)
Power~enwiki: September 24, 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.
Power~enwiki (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) Due to a complete lack of anyone else volunteering to take up the mop, I'll throw my hat in here again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – just to save others the trouble of finding the previous review, here's a link. Schwede66 05:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- 4/10 based on a superficial skim without doing any in-depth digging (which is what most voters at RFA will also be doing). Unless in your statement on the day you're able to give a very good explanation, your stats page will sink you. (I assume you're fully aware of this, given User:power~enwiki#Rules for WP:RFA.) Less than 30% of edits to mainspace, six times as many edits to ANI as to any article (to put that in perspective, you've made roughly 2⁄3 as many edits to ANI in the past year as I have in eleven years as one of Wikipedia's most active admins), no user talk pages other than your own and Jimmy's with significant numbers of edits (generally a sign of someone not interested in collaborating with others), and no evidence of having done significant article work other than stub creation and gnoming.
Yes, all of these are judging a book by its cover, but most voters are just going to do brief "do I like the look of this person?" skimming of your stats and most recent edits, not in-depth investigation; likewise, there are enough people who hold the opinion that an admin needs enough experience of content work to be able to empathise with why editors get frustrated when their work is substantially altered or deleted, that the apparent lack of interest in content will cause opposes.
If you can rebut the above in your nomination statement (e.g. "I have so many edits to ANI because I often mediate complex disputes in which I need to make multiple edits to try to persuade all the parties involved to see each others' points of view, I have more WP:-space edits than article edits because I ran a maintenance script to remove a formatting bug from archived discussion pages which artificially boosted the numbers, the reason there are no articles other than Donald Trump and 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis to which I have substantial numbers of edits is that I draft everything in sandboxes prior to moving it to mainspace so articles which took 200 edits apiece to create are only showing as one edit each"), the likelihood of passing would rise substantially. ‑ Iridescent 07:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) 2.5/10. I still fail to see a good grasp of deletion policy, especially speedy deletion. Tagging a non-eligible subject for A7 deletion such as IO-Link is only made worse by some admin actually deleting it without further thought. Add to this this A7 with multiple claims of significance, this ATD violation and this A7 for a list of events by a notable entity and I think a sufficient number of !voters will be concerned enough to oppose or at least abstain from supporting. This PROD also looks iffy considering a clear PROF#C1 claim apparently could be found when searching for it. Most AFD problems seem to stem from overhasty nominations that ignore WP:ATA and with non-policy based arguments, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White genocide conspiracy theory, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter of thanks (WP:TNT), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attractiveness ("It's a mess"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (July 2018–present) (nominated while an RFC power initiated about the article's content was still ongoing) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stoneleigh P, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work 4.0 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Monbiot which all seem to be BEFORE fails as is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Ramirez Jr which ignored obvious alternatives to deletion. All in all I am not optimistic about your chances. Slow down, be more careful and make strong policy-backed arguments and this might change. Additionally, "janitorial" editing is all you can run on afaics, so you will face more scrutiny than those candidates who have featured content to show (which of course is not the point of adminship, but nevertheless experience shows that prolific content contributors can expect a bit more leeway on janitorial edits than wikignomes). Regards SoWhy 07:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- In fairness, regarding IO-Link I would probably have also accepted the A7 nomination on the page as it stood when Power tagged it, since it appeared to be about a brand name rather than a company or product, had no sources other than the company's own website, and gave no indication as to why this particular brand was significant. (For the benefit of non-admins, the article read in full
With the brand name IO-Link, a communication system for connecting intelligent sensors and actuators to an automation system is standardized in the IEC 61131-9 standard under the name Single-drop digital communication interface for small sensors and actuators (SDCI). The standardization includes both the electrical connection data and a digital communication protocol, via which the sensors and actuators enter into data exchange with the automation system. An IO-Link system consists of an IO-Link master and one or more IO-Link devices, i.e. sensors or actuators. The IO-Link master provides the interface to the higher-level controller (PLC) and controls the communication with the connected IO-Link devices. The parameters of the sensors and actuators are device-specific, therefore the manufacturer has to deleiver the parameter information for each device in the form of an IODD (IO Device Description).
) Even if the speedy criteria didn't technically apply, in that particular instance I certainly wouldn't hold it against someone for believing that they did. ‑ Iridescent 08:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)- Well, I would hold it against them because A7 has a clear scope and products or brand names are not covered by that scope. I think it's fair to expect admin candidates to be able to follow the policy when it clearly says "if it's not a real person, individual animal, organization, web content, or organized event, A7 cannot be used". It's not even a case where one can legitimately disagree whether a claim of significance exists, it's a case which objectively does not fall under the criterion used and which proves why careful tagging is important. Even if you were right, it takes literally seconds to find "IO-Link" more than 10k GNews hits, "IO-Link" more than 1.5k Gbooks hits and more than 1k GScholar hits for "IO-Link" and I think we should expect admin candidates to at least do such a search before tagging an apparently very notable subject for speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 17:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- In fairness, regarding IO-Link I would probably have also accepted the A7 nomination on the page as it stood when Power tagged it, since it appeared to be about a brand name rather than a company or product, had no sources other than the company's own website, and gave no indication as to why this particular brand was significant. (For the benefit of non-admins, the article read in full
- Not all those AFDs are the same; the Letter of thanks one was obviously a mistake (I was tired and talked myself into it on IRC) but the article was so bad beforehand I don't mind occasionally making that mistake. For The Stoneleigh P, I'm still not convinced that WP:CORPDEPTH is met; the coverage is entirely local and is either trivial or interviews. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- 2/10 - Repeatedly coming here isn't going to make us think otherwise unfortunately, Your tenure is still an issue, Your CSD/PROD logs contain quite a lot of bluelinks (A few isn't bad but I would says yours are well over "just a few"), Your AFD record tho is absolutely fine, I also originally had an issue with you having more edits over at ANI than anywhere else but having researched myself and a few others it seems everyone does so can't really complain about that, All in all I don't feel like anything's changed since the last ORCP poll. –Davey2010Talk 16:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Flooded with them hundreds: October 5, 2018
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.
- ...rating and optional brief comment...