Chris troutman (talk | contribs) →Everymorning: December 29, 2016: more over-eagerness |
|||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
:*I removed the userbox (which I put there years ago; I agree it seems rather immature). As for the AFD/PROD stuff, you'll notice that only a few of those actually ended up being deleted ([[Paul G. King]] is the only one I can recall, and I created it 3-odd years ago when I was less familiar with notability guidelines). [[User:Everymorning|Everymorning]] [[User talk:Everymorning|(talk)]] 03:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
:*I removed the userbox (which I put there years ago; I agree it seems rather immature). As for the AFD/PROD stuff, you'll notice that only a few of those actually ended up being deleted ([[Paul G. King]] is the only one I can recall, and I created it 3-odd years ago when I was less familiar with notability guidelines). [[User:Everymorning|Everymorning]] [[User talk:Everymorning|(talk)]] 03:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
*'''6/10''': Is it really already three years ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jinkinson&diff=582138866&oldid=582102212 when I wrote this]? Is it also a year and eight months since I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Everymorning&diff=654983129&oldid=654982498 wrote this]]? Read that second RfA again because it is not often that this community lets a candidate down so nicely; normally they would tear a candidate apart like a frenzied wolf pack. So what has changed now? Well you are a bit older and certainly more mature and you are in college and these few years more make a big difference in young people. I haven’t made an in-depth review of your work as I would at RfA, but if you have read and fully understood the advice pages linked to at the top of this page and taken on board all the comments on the previous RfAs and these polls, you will know enough now to assess your own chances of becoming an admin. I know you well enough by now to know that what others perceive as an over-eagerness to be an admin is just your way of wanting to do more for Wikipedia, but that’s still the way it looks to other people. Time passes slower at your age than it does at mine and I know how frustrating that can be, but I think you're going to have to stick it out until at least another six months have elapsed or even more, being absolutely sure that you don’t make any errors of judgement with CSD or AfD. If you can do that, then you can rely on my support. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 14:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
*'''6/10''': Is it really already three years ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jinkinson&diff=582138866&oldid=582102212 when I wrote this]? Is it also a year and eight months since I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Everymorning&diff=654983129&oldid=654982498 wrote this]]? Read that second RfA again because it is not often that this community lets a candidate down so nicely; normally they would tear a candidate apart like a frenzied wolf pack. So what has changed now? Well you are a bit older and certainly more mature and you are in college and these few years more make a big difference in young people. I haven’t made an in-depth review of your work as I would at RfA, but if you have read and fully understood the advice pages linked to at the top of this page and taken on board all the comments on the previous RfAs and these polls, you will know enough now to assess your own chances of becoming an admin. I know you well enough by now to know that what others perceive as an over-eagerness to be an admin is just your way of wanting to do more for Wikipedia, but that’s still the way it looks to other people. Time passes slower at your age than it does at mine and I know how frustrating that can be, but I think you're going to have to stick it out until at least another six months have elapsed or even more, being absolutely sure that you don’t make any errors of judgement with CSD or AfD. If you can do that, then you can rely on my support. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 14:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''4/10''' Take the advice I gave Iazyges. Kudpung said a lot of good stuff so please read his comments twice or thrice if need be. There are a few other issues that may come up at RfA. For example, why did you request Bishonen block you? Your CSD log looks ok but your PROD log, especially recently, shows blue. In one case you've nominated an article one minute after it was created. For whatever reason wmflabs doesn't display your AfD stuff correctly. It looks like you are typically with consensus but there are hundreds of AfD pages you've edited but haven't !voted on. Are you making non-admin closes or are you commenting? Several articles you've created have been recently deleted including one for G12 (COPYVIO) as recently as November. How do you explain this? Finally, you identify on your user page as someone with [[Asperger syndrome]]. While I understand Wikipedia is a magnet for people with this diagnosis I hesitate to put people with mental illness in positions of trust. I honestly don't know if anyone but me has this opinion; I doubt few would be open about it. Please rethink over-sharing on your userpage. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 02:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- *** Do not erase this comment *** |
<!-- *** Do not erase this comment *** |
||
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 02:53, 11 January 2017
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
This is an optional polling page available for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges in the near future. Other experienced editors will give feedback and their best estimate of how the wider community may gauge the applicant. Note that the actual results for a submitted Request for Adminship (RfA) may differ greatly and opinions given here may be based on only a cursory assessment (see a summary of the RfAs for past poll subjects for historical information).
Disclaimer: Although starting a poll here about your odds of passing an RfA can help you determine if you're ready, nothing can replace reading advice pages such as Advice for RfA candidates and gauging your contributions relative to recent candidacies, both successful and failed. If responders indicate that you would likely pass an RfA, you are still strongly encouraged to seek a more in-depth examination into your editing history to be sure.
This page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors. If you are seeking general feedback on what you can do to improve your contributions to Wikipedia, contact a friendly, experienced editor on the editor's talk page and request a review of your work, or a recommended reviewer.
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 and ten being the highest chance) representing your estimate of the potential candidate's likelihood of passing an RfA. Note this number is not your own personal rating of the editor, but a prediction of whether or not the candidate would succeed in requesting administrative privileges. You can opt to accompany your score with a short comment; please leave any detailed feedback on the user's talk page. A helper script is available that allows one-click rating.
If you see a candidate receiving a favourable response, consider offering an in-depth review and possible nomination offer.
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)
Ealdgyth: December 18, 2016
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.
Ealdgyth (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 just curious, honestly. I can't say I have a pressing need for the tools, but I keep hearing whining about how there aren't enough admins, so figure might as well see how badly I'd bomb. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- 10/10
Not sure yet.Clean block log; almost a 10-yr editor. You are probably the most-qualified candidate I've seen since I joined Wikipedia. (You wrote 826 articles; you claim 56 FA's, 15 four awards, two million awards, etc.) Your AfD stats are with the consensus.Before I say you'll sail through I'll need to do more digging. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)To make my determination I started looking at your appearance at the drama boards and found this thread which may have left some hurt feelings although you were considered blameless. I also read through the last few years of your talk page archives, where I appear more than once. You commiserate alongside he who shall not be named about the fact that Wikipedia doesn't reimburse you for the reference works you buy. Wifione says you ought to be an admin. People ask for your advice about articles about horses. My talk page is far more lively. I've also taken a glance at your annual ARBCOM voting guides. (You and I don't vote the same way.) I don't see any glaring issues where a significant block of editors would have it out for you. You've been critical of some editors and if they're that petty to vote against you then I guess that's the price you pay. Barring some past imbroglio I didn't notice, I don't see a way you don't get approved at RfA. Get nominated now before the aggregate gets hungry for red meat again. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC) - 10/10: Great job! I deserve you go for it. Good luck at RFA! ;) KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 02:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Bound to pass, I'd think. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth: Where would you intend to use the admin tools, or would you just exercise them when you happen to come across something that requires them? ~ Rob13Talk 06:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- It would probably be as I ran across a need. Mostly moving articles, is the main place I find that I *need* the tools in my work on wikipedia. There would be a use for seeing deleted pages occasionally - when I run across a page that's been deleted, it'd be useful to see what was there before I start work on the subject. I could see becoming involved with WP:ERRORS also, and perhaps DYK, since I've been involved in the past with both projects (ERRORS mainly through the FA process.). I'd also be happy to help out in other areas with backlogs, although I doubt I'd get invovled in too many contentious areas. I can't see me doing much blocking, quite honestly, or unblocking. I might poke my head into AE commenting, but only as another voice, not as a blocker or unblocker. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- 10/10 With your qualifications I don't think you'd face much oppositions (If you'd like me to try my hand and nom/co-nom you feel free to ask). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- 11/10 I can't honestly say that adminship is something I thought you'd be interested in, but you might find working on WP:ERRORS of particular use. File an RfA now in time for Christmas. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails to meet WP:RfA. Only made 20 mainspace edits in June 2010. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Uh, Kudpung? Are you treating this as a XFD vote instead of a rating? That made me laugh a bit. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 12:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- 10/10- You seem qualified enough to become an admin. I would support if you went for it! Class455 ( Merry Christmas!) 14:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- 7/10, and a note to those above that the score here is supposed to be the probability of passing, not how much you'd personally support/oppose the candidate. I'd support you without hesitation, but you've made a reasonable number of enemies over the years, all of whom will come out of the woodwork, and you're associated with quite a few of Wikipedia's more polarizing figures, and all of their enemies will come out of the woodwork. (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Montanabw in the unlikely event you haven't already.) ‑ Iridescent 16:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- ?/10. I don't watch enough RfAs to know what the odds are, but I would absolutely vote for you, if you decide to give it a try. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- 9/10 - A very skilled and qualified editor. The only reason I knocked a point off my probability estimate is based on what Iridescent said, people will come out of the woodwork to oppose you if you've had conflicts with them in the past. I would support you at RfA though. -- Dane talk 01:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- 3π/10: Obviously qualified, but highly experienced editors tend to have a harder time at RfA given the new reforms where every editor with 6,000 edits can pass. Esquivalience (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- 9/10 - Seems extremely qualified! Per Chris Troutman, you have a great amount of articles and two Million Awards (that's 2 million, not 2,000,000). You would receive a 10/10, but you said you would 'bomb' and frankly, your lack of faith disturbs me. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 13:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please can I nominate --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- 9/10 - Oak nugget. Easy pass in my opinion. A few people might come of the woodwork as happens with anyone who's been around this long, but I don't see it making waves. I'd also love to co-nominate if given the chance. --Laser brain (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- 10/10 -- no brainier. Ealdgyth and I have not interacted all that much but I've always been a huge fan of her outstanding work. Sadly, as with Montanabw, another skilled writer who suffers no fools, I'd expect to see a few haters turn up and infest the RfA. But that's life I suppose; it comes with the territory of being an FA writer. CassiantoTalk 15:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- ?/10 – What Mike Christie said, without a doubt. Although I might need to be told if there's a vote. Nortonius (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Nortonius: if you add Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth to your watchlist, that should take care of the need for notification. Lepricavark (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Lepricavark – I'm mostly just lurking but that should do it! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about having been associated with controversial characters, guilt by association only applies here if you are deemed likely to unblock vested contributors who haven't been cut sufficient slack by over officious/insufficiently obsequious admins. Watch out for an entirely hypothetical question about a prolific FA writer being blocked for using what they assert is a "Mancunian term of endearment". Assuming you handle that unblocking question correctly your RFA would be an interesting test of the strength of the "no need for the tools" part of the Opposse. I would of course support, but I've long thought "no need for the tools" to be an unhelpful argument. My recommendation is to run when you come across something where it would be useful for you to have the tools; If so I would of course be honoured to be your nominator, but I appreciate there is great competition for said honour. ϢereSpielChequers 09:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- 11/10 It's about time! You have a strong no-drama reputation and are clearly one of the most experienced people here. Where you have been involved in articles with drama, you have consistently been a voice for NOR, RS, civility and so on. If you can't pass RfA, then the system is
fu__edscrewed beyond all reason. Let the trolls have their tantrums; you should have been an admin years ago. Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC) - 9/10 - Let's be honest. SSTflyer 08:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Primefac: December 27, 2016
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.
Primefac (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 was nominated for admin about a year and a half ago but withdrew due to valid points made in the RfA. Since that time, I've become heavily involved in TFD, as well as maintaining my presence at AFC and in the help room on IRC. I've been getting nudges from various corners to pull the trigger again, so I thought I'd post here and see what a straw poll would show. Happy to answer any questions. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- 7/10: Content creation is not that bad, but you done significant AFC work and helping newbies in their creation of articles. Also, XFD stats are fine after seeing a bunch of red results that resulted in keep or speedy keep closes that lead your withdrawal of the previous RFA. Great work! KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 03:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Bearing in mind that I thought you should go for it a year ago and would happily nominate you based on your excellent TfD record, I suspect some of our, erm, more literal-minded commentators will have the following thought process: "Last RfA failed because of deletion issues. Let's check AfD stats. 59%? You clearly suck. Nominations that ended in speedy keep, in 2016? Oh noes!!!" (They're unlikely to click through and see which ones you withdrew, or where a WP:HEY level of effort was involved.) Cynically, the way to fix this is to spend a couple of months reliably voting on obvious AfDs before they get too many other comments. Ahem, I mean "getting more AfD experience" ;) Pick a couple saveable ones and put in the WP:HEY effort. Finish up whatever template stuff you're doing and polish up a moderately obscure article to GA, or alternatively create a few new ones. (Do send them to DYK, don't specifically mention that at RfA.) Find any AfC articles you've approved that were later deleted and be prepared for the oppose section to contain in succession "Oppose, too deletionist" and "Oppose, passed dreck through AfC". Also, enable your email. Then I predict (with the caveat that I'm terrible at this) that you'll pass in the mid to high 80s. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- 5/10 or 50/50 - it could go either way. The pattern of a RfA is that the first dozen or so supports come within the first hour or so and are done without much research. The serious oppose votes come from experienced users just when the candidate has been lulled into a false sense of thinking all is going well. Then there are the trolls and serial opposers who will always think up some feeble (or even invented) reason to oppose. We've started cleaning up RfA now by making examples of some who disrupt the process, but to get rid of the others who rest on their laurels for the outreach and off-Wiki work they do, it will take more than ANI; it will need some decision from Opabinia regalis' band of merry people to make some decisions and unfortunately tradition has it that prolific content providers can behave as badly as they like with impunity and at the merry most they get off with just a slap on the wrist. If we could get another two or three topic banned within the next 6 months, I would give you 8/10 in June. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Take an article to GA and then come back. I'd be very, very happy to see you run given your TfD work, but this is a crucial step. It's very difficult to pass RfA these days without a GA to your name, and you seem quite close to it, so there's no point in not going the final mile. You got Astronomical spectroscopy to B-class according to your user page, so just nominate that for GA and respond to the criticisms the reviewer drags up. Don't worry too much about whether it passes the criteria at the moment, since the reviewer will point out where you need to make improvements. Before GA, I'd give you a 5/10 at best due to the fickle nature of certain RfA voters. Afterwards, I'd give you an 8/10, but ping me on IRC for a piece of advice I don't want to give on-wiki. ~ Rob13Talk 14:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13:, I do not think this is correct. GA is definitely a bonus but not a requirement. On my RfA I was pretty open about it and explained why I will never have a GA and how the community can benefit from giving me admin tools in other ways, and it was never an issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: Your RfA was in 2013, which was considerably more relaxed. I also don't see members of the "content crowd" at your RfA; they may not have been active at RfA at the time. My rating is intended to be a probability, and without a GA, it's really a flip of the coin. If the "content crowd" arrives in numbers with 10-15 !votes early on in the RfA, then most editors who arrive off the watchlist will see those concerns and pile on. If the "content crowd" is mostly on wikibreak, the RfA will most likely pass. It's a coin flip on whether they show up. It's all about if they're around and whether they vote early to establish negative momentum. Note that the content crowd largely "retired" all at once recently, and the result has been a much more reliable RfA process, but many of them have recently returned at least somewhat, so their future RfA participation is up in the air. ~ Rob13Talk 18:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13:, I do not think this is correct. GA is definitely a bonus but not a requirement. On my RfA I was pretty open about it and explained why I will never have a GA and how the community can benefit from giving me admin tools in other ways, and it was never an issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, anybody who is seriously concerned about RfA and knows how to quarry for stats, would have long since come up with a table of how many candidates had GA at the time of their RfA. We might then get nearer the truth about some of the conjecture about ridiculously demanding criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- 7/10 If I take your last 100 AfDs over the past 6 months, I get a much more respectable 82% correct, which shows me that your rate of success is improving, and that is the important statistic. Your CSD performance over the past year has been okay, and you have a clear need for the tools at TfD. As Kudpung says, whether you can pass RfA right now depends largely on who turns up and who could knock any early silly oppose votes on the head. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Everymorning: December 29, 2016
Everymorning (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)
Haven't posted here for almost a year, and haven't run for adminship since April of last year. I am thinking about running for adminship again (which, if I did so, would be the third time; also note that the first two times were both unsuccessful). As last time I did this poll the reception was very negative, I am curious as to whether other contributors think my trustworthiness has improved since then. Everymorning (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Procedural question only Everymorning I hope you're well; just to clarify, you say it would be your third RfA (if I understood correctly), but here [1] there is only one...? Cheers! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- The first is at their previous username: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jinkinson. Sam Walton (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks Samwalton9; should have checked I guess. Although, to the candidate- that's probably the first piece of advice you get anyway- mention your previous account name in the first breath! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Right, sorry, I should have disclosed my original username. Thanks for adding it, Samwalton9. I didn't include it because the instructions on this page just said to include your username. Anyway, I'd also like to point out my content work: I've written 3 GAs from scratch, as well as 39 DYKs (though this should soon increase to 40 once Stella Chess is posted on the main page). Everymorning (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks Samwalton9; should have checked I guess. Although, to the candidate- that's probably the first piece of advice you get anyway- mention your previous account name in the first breath! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- The first is at their previous username: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jinkinson. Sam Walton (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- 5/10: A profilic content creator, but looking through your talk archives, I see a few PROD, XFD notices that were not older than six months. Also, you may remove the I wanna be an admin Ubox on your userpage because I gave that rating for sufficient grounds for opposing. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 02:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the userbox (which I put there years ago; I agree it seems rather immature). As for the AFD/PROD stuff, you'll notice that only a few of those actually ended up being deleted (Paul G. King is the only one I can recall, and I created it 3-odd years ago when I was less familiar with notability guidelines). Everymorning (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- 6/10: Is it really already three years ago when I wrote this? Is it also a year and eight months since I wrote this]? Read that second RfA again because it is not often that this community lets a candidate down so nicely; normally they would tear a candidate apart like a frenzied wolf pack. So what has changed now? Well you are a bit older and certainly more mature and you are in college and these few years more make a big difference in young people. I haven’t made an in-depth review of your work as I would at RfA, but if you have read and fully understood the advice pages linked to at the top of this page and taken on board all the comments on the previous RfAs and these polls, you will know enough now to assess your own chances of becoming an admin. I know you well enough by now to know that what others perceive as an over-eagerness to be an admin is just your way of wanting to do more for Wikipedia, but that’s still the way it looks to other people. Time passes slower at your age than it does at mine and I know how frustrating that can be, but I think you're going to have to stick it out until at least another six months have elapsed or even more, being absolutely sure that you don’t make any errors of judgement with CSD or AfD. If you can do that, then you can rely on my support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- 4/10 Take the advice I gave Iazyges. Kudpung said a lot of good stuff so please read his comments twice or thrice if need be. There are a few other issues that may come up at RfA. For example, why did you request Bishonen block you? Your CSD log looks ok but your PROD log, especially recently, shows blue. In one case you've nominated an article one minute after it was created. For whatever reason wmflabs doesn't display your AfD stuff correctly. It looks like you are typically with consensus but there are hundreds of AfD pages you've edited but haven't !voted on. Are you making non-admin closes or are you commenting? Several articles you've created have been recently deleted including one for G12 (COPYVIO) as recently as November. How do you explain this? Finally, you identify on your user page as someone with Asperger syndrome. While I understand Wikipedia is a magnet for people with this diagnosis I hesitate to put people with mental illness in positions of trust. I honestly don't know if anyone but me has this opinion; I doubt few would be open about it. Please rethink over-sharing on your userpage. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thespaceface: January 1, 2017
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.
Thespaceface (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)
I am just curious, honestly. I did this poll before a while ago, but now I have over 500 edits, and I wonder how much (if at all) my chances have increased.
- 0/10. You have 634 edits. That is simply too few. The de facto bare minimum at RfA these days is about 5000 edits, and even that is usually insufficient. Keep up the good work, and maybe you will get there someday. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- 0/10. Quite a few editors gave you advice last time, and what Kudpung had to say was probably most relevant to your situation. Schwede66 08:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- 0/10 634 edits with a 3 year old account isn't quite active enough. Especially with only 55 edits in article space. Also content creation (while I don't necessarily agree with it) is what a lot of people at RFA look for, mainly GA's. I personally look for counter vandalism work which I also don't see a lot of on your account. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 08:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- 0/10, It's quite clear that you haven't read any of the linked essays and guidelines suggested at the top this page. One of the things admins are are expected to do is to be able to read and understand instructions and some of them are even more complicated. Additionally, while there is no lower age limit for being an admin, voters consider maturity to be very important and I don't think you will stand much chance for at least another two or even three years because thes repeated ORCP polls will be held against you as a demonstration that you have joined Wikipedia with the sole intention of becoming an admin, which of course is absolutely the wrong reason to take part in this project. You also have userboxes on your user page that some editors might take exception to and might even remove. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Bigpoliticsfan: January 2, 2017
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.
Bigpoliticsfan (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)
I would like to see what my chances of passing an RfA are. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- 0/10: I hate to say it, but you have no chance. Just looking at your contributions from today, I see that you offered to nominate for adminship a user who has made 7 edits in the past 9 years. That alone is enough to tell me that you are not ready to be an admin. Lepricavark (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- 0/10: 1,748 total edits. Get to 5,000 before even thinking about posting here again, let alone trying RfA. Edwardx (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- 0/10: Also, 3 XFD votes that resulted in two red and only one green. I guess is an WP:NOTNOW. Come back when you have more sufficient editing history. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 21:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Epicgenius: January 2, 2017
Epicgenius (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 don't think I'll need admin tools anytime soon, but I'm just interested. It's been a year since I last asked, so... epicgenius (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- 7/10 - Content creation definitely there, and XfD/AfD stats look pretty good. CSD log is a bit thin, but maybe I'm judging it too harshly. I sure hope people will have forgotten about your 3RR block by the time you run, although in my opinion it's mostly balanced out by your strength in other areas. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- 4/10 - I'll keep this as short as possible: A user page looking like a teenager's bedroom wall - older professionals/academics users looking up who is behind CSD tags and deletions will doubt the professionalism of Wikipedia. Your age and/or maturity is going to be the big problem. With over 600 edits to ANI that's even more than me and I'm a busy admin who spends on average 5 hours a day on Wikipedia. Although there therefore seems to be no shortage of content work - on the contrary, there might even be too much of it - 159,559 can only be mainly automated clean ups at the speed you work. I'm not sure that the high number of pages you have apparently 'created' are your own work or are drafts you have moved to mainspace. Note that a lot of the 'real' work is not reflected in edit counts - I often spend a whole day unraveling an SPI, or two days traveling to a Wikipedia conference, andthat's why I only have 80,000 edits to show for 7 years of solid work. My page patrols often take 3 minutes each or more to do properly and the more work that is done, obviously the number of possible errors increases in direct proportion. It all needs further examination which is not within the scope of this project.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- 5/10 per Kudpung: That user page almost look like a teen's bedroom wall that made me laugh, but currently, it's an 50/50 chance I think. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 07:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Before you run, clean up your user page and find a respected admin who will vouch for your maturity. I don't know you well enough to judge your chances at RFA, but the times when I've run into you have been positive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- 6/10 Mainly per Kudpung. You also have some experience of content creation, which is important. Also, whilst I don't have an issue with the user page, the block for violating the three revert rule might cause for some opposers if you did run now. I'd personally wait 3-6 months more before running so the block can be forgotten about (as it was 2015 when you were blocked and its 2017 now). You were also blocked for personal attacks, but hopefully this can be forgotten about now. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback so far, everyone. I've cleaned up my userpage. It loads much faster now! Also, in my defense, maybe I should have cleaned up my bedroom this morning. (No seriously, I'm actually a teenager.) epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- 5/10 - I just wanted to chime in and say I've noted a significant demonstrated increase in maturity. I'm afraid some will oppose because of past dramaboard participation, no matter what, so I'd place your chances at about 50%. I'd recommend giving it another year and a half. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- 4/10 – I think the perception of immaturity (whether justified or not) is likely to stand in the way of a successful RfA for at least the first half of this year. I'm sure it's no secret that you're a relatively young editor, but if it were me (and it was me, at one point!), I'd try to avoid telling people as much. Some of our more curmudgeonly RfA voters might read "I'm actually a teenager" and then see something like this and get entirely the wrong impression. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Iazyges: January 3, 2017
Iazyges (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 more than doubled my overall edits since the last time I ran a poll, gotten my edit summary usage up and become active in UAA, and moving files to commons.
- Iazyges, in my (admittedly not vast) experience, one of the things fatal to an RFA is if !voters feel you are too eager for adminship. Posting a second request here two months after the first is going to seem like overeagerness to many, whether justifiably or otherwise. I, personally, would recommend that you think on that, and possibly withdraw this poll. Continue to accumulate constructive contributions in the right areas, and eventually people will see that giving you the tools makes sense. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, in Iazyges' defense, I think it's only human to want feedback on your progress. But, yes, asking often does look bad to many people. 11,000 edits is pretty good, but most RFA voters are going to want to see more than six months of editing. I would suggest one year as a good minimum. Try comparing yourself to various people's RFA criteria and see how you stack up. User:Kudpung/RfA criteria is a good starting place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- 4/10 I would oppose you, just based upon your over-eagerness and I don't think I'm alone. You've created plenty of articles. You have at least one GA already and another is being reviewed now. Your CSD log is appropriately red although your PROD log is questionable. Your AfD stats tend to agree with the consensus. You're on the low end for both edits and longevity but you're not an unreasonable candidate in that regard. You've been recognized by MILHIST for your contributions. I have real concerns, however, in that this is your second time at ORCP since October. Your desire for the mop will be the reason you don't get it. Please, do not ever ask about adminship ever again. Seriously. Never ever ask someone to nominate you. Don't add some userbox to your user page saying you want to be an admin; nothing. It would be a shame for this project to not have you as an admin only because you're asking for it. Rest assured, if the cabal wants you to be an admin they'll invite you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- 1/10 per my prev comment in the last Poll which was 2/3 months ago, Also the over-eagerness really won't help you either. –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Tennisuser123: January 10, 2017
Tennisuser123 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)
I have been very involved on Wikipedia in the past, and I believe that I would like to continue to serve the Wiki community more in the near future, having spent a good deal of time away from the site. As a recent donor to the Foundation and a constant user of the plethora of resources available both for pleasure and for study, I'd love to give back to my community in a fruitful and dynamic manner, making use of RfA privileges to provide a small but sincere effort to work towards a more academically-sound Wikipedia, freer of vandalism. I appreciate your feedback and hope to garner your support moving forward with the RfA process.
- At present 0/10 but will rise very quickly if you become active again and involve yourself in admin areas. Although you've made almost 25,000 edits, only c. 400 of them have been in the past five years, so there's no way for voters to judge your knowledge of Wikipedia's current policies and practices. (Since at the time of writing your talkpage consists almost entirely of warnings, albeit mostly related to files you uploaded years ago, most voters' default position will be to assume that you don't understand policy.) Given that, other than adding yourself to this page, you have not made a single Wikipedia-space edit since 2007, it will be very hard for you to demonstrate that you have any need for sysop tools since almost everything they're used for relates in some way Wikipedia-space pages. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)