Serial Number 54129 (talk | contribs) →Ingenuity: April 19, 2023: pointless tool Tag: Reverted |
John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) →Ingenuity: April 19, 2023: Getting shanghai'd into adminship... Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
::<small>Protip: the admin score doesn't actually mean anything, so don't use that as an argument for your RfA. – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 18:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)</small> |
::<small>Protip: the admin score doesn't actually mean anything, so don't use that as an argument for your RfA. – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 18:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)</small> |
||
::I passed that algorithm also, yet anyone nominating me will/should get undoubtedly dragged immediately to arbcom for demonstrating an egregious lack of sound judgement. Which I think is a pretty good intimation of xtools' efficacy, or particularly this one, at least! :D [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:blue">SN54129</span>]] 21:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
::I passed that algorithm also, yet anyone nominating me will/should get undoubtedly dragged immediately to arbcom for demonstrating an egregious lack of sound judgement. Which I think is a pretty good intimation of xtools' efficacy, or particularly this one, at least! :D [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:blue">SN54129</span>]] 21:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::Can someone be granted the mop without his consent? Might as well nominate you while I'm at it! 😂 – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 21:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''8/10''' (and more if we discount the few who think that a minimum of 1800 edits/month for 16 months isn't enough "tenure"). Clear competence in some admin areas - you aren't saying you're getting the toolkit to do AfD, so not having more AfDs isn't an issue. Content work is obviously more than fine. You would want to lay out what you want the tools for, but for someone with a CSD background...that's hardly difficult! [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 18:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
*'''8/10''' (and more if we discount the few who think that a minimum of 1800 edits/month for 16 months isn't enough "tenure"). Clear competence in some admin areas - you aren't saying you're getting the toolkit to do AfD, so not having more AfDs isn't an issue. Content work is obviously more than fine. You would want to lay out what you want the tools for, but for someone with a CSD background...that's hardly difficult! [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 18:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
<!-- *** PLACE YOUR RATING ABOVE THIS LINE *** |
<!-- *** PLACE YOUR RATING ABOVE THIS LINE *** |
Revision as of 21:41, 19 April 2023
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. |
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, 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. [[User:Place holder|Place holder]] ([[User talk:Place holder|talk]]) 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Ingenuity: April 19, 2023
Ingenuity (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)
Hey everyone! I've been actively editing for over a year now, primarily working in counter-vandalism and articles for creation. In terms of content work, I've written around a dozen articles and gotten 3 to GA. I hadn't really considered running for adminship until ScottishFinnishRadish suggested it today. I'd like to get an idea of how likely I would be to succeed if I run in the next few months. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- At least 8/10 edit summary usage good, content creation good, might want to bump up AfD and maybe PROD, but nothing too fatal there and CSD is good upon first glance. GOFORIT, but do come up with a compelling reason to be granted the tools and get any remaining ducks in a row. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Obviously I think you'd do fine. Good content contribs, which extends to the AfC space. Although you don't have a ton of edits at AfD, you make up for that with CSD. Also, more admins watching recent changes to take care of active vandals before reporting and waiting is always great. You also wrote an anti-vandal script. Lastly, this thing says you'll win, and xtools wouldn't lie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Protip: the admin score doesn't actually mean anything, so don't use that as an argument for your RfA. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I passed that algorithm also, yet anyone nominating me will/should get undoubtedly dragged immediately to arbcom for demonstrating an egregious lack of sound judgement. Which I think is a pretty good intimation of xtools' efficacy, or particularly this one, at least! :D SN54129 21:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Can someone be granted the mop without his consent? Might as well nominate you while I'm at it! 😂 – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- 8/10 (and more if we discount the few who think that a minimum of 1800 edits/month for 16 months isn't enough "tenure"). Clear competence in some admin areas - you aren't saying you're getting the toolkit to do AfD, so not having more AfDs isn't an issue. Content work is obviously more than fine. You would want to lay out what you want the tools for, but for someone with a CSD background...that's hardly difficult! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)