Juliancolton (talk | contribs) |
Softlavender (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
***Political userboxes... eh, lose 'em, I say. It's your userpage to do with (generally) as you please, but several recent adminship candidates have faced claims of subtle political overtones in their Wikipedia presence, and that's a headache you may wish to avoid. |
***Political userboxes... eh, lose 'em, I say. It's your userpage to do with (generally) as you please, but several recent adminship candidates have faced claims of subtle political overtones in their Wikipedia presence, and that's a headache you may wish to avoid. |
||
*In light of my above observations, I think you're likely to have a somewhat difficult time at RfA if you run in the immediate future. If you decide you badly want to be an admin, I think you could get within striking distance after 6 months of hard work. If you need any suggestions or guidance, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. "Admin coaching" is frowned upon these days but they can't stop me from nudging you in the right direction. Best of luck, – '''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray;text-shadow:gray .2em .18em .12em">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
*In light of my above observations, I think you're likely to have a somewhat difficult time at RfA if you run in the immediate future. If you decide you badly want to be an admin, I think you could get within striking distance after 6 months of hard work. If you need any suggestions or guidance, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. "Admin coaching" is frowned upon these days but they can't stop me from nudging you in the right direction. Best of luck, – '''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray;text-shadow:gray .2em .18em .12em">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
*'''3/10'''. Honestly, I have no idea why this poll is being spammed onto so many user's talkpages who have had no interest, no indication, no need, and little or no qualifications for becoming admins. White Arabian Filly, you are one of the "good guys", but there's no reason for you to become an admin, no need for the tools, and little or no experience in areas that would qualify you for adminship. Your field of editing interest is very small, and though you do very well in it there is no reason for you to become an admin. Forgive my bluntness, as you posting here has more to do with the ill-advised rampant spamming of this poll than your actual qualifications for adminship. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 08:32, 17 April 2017 (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 08:32, 17 April 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 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)
Anarchyte: April 9, 2017
Anarchyte (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 · previous RfAs)
Hey, I'm Anarchyte and I'm considering running for admin again, depending on the outcome of this poll and the advice from other editors. I was approched by Dweller about it, and after talking to a few people on my talk page (Ritchie333, SilkTork, Cullen328, and Jaguar), I've decided to come here. My previous RfA had a few problems that I should've been able to see coming, such as the lack of content creation and the account age. Because of my lack of content creation before, I've now got 8 GA's under my belt, and I'm trying to get one to FA standards. People also mentioned my edits on GamerGate and the referencing issue on Ketchapp. Because of those events I haven't made any bit edits to any sanctioned ArbCome articles; my only edits there recently have been copyedits. The Ketchapp edit was a mistake 100% on my behalf, and I've learned from it (I discussed this in more depth here). Please be as thorough as possible with your reviews because I don't want to run until I know I'm ready. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- 8/10 I don't see any red flags, a couple of people have suggested fixing some of the content issues that appeared on previous RfAs, but generally I think a pass is likely. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Since it seems to be the vogue to nitpick over CSD performance, I have checked all your CSD A7 nominations for the past six months, and the only ones I could possibly criticise are Hsenpai News Journal (A7 does not apply to newspapers), Mohamed Hesham Amer (the article appears to claim the subject has been on national television), You may kiss the bride (speedy was declined due to having some claims of appearing on Turkish television - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You may kiss the bride), Chipukeezy Vinny (has one local news source) and Ulrika Faerch (has published two books) - all of these have been deleted. Utpal Bhadra was declined A7 (your last "miss" - 18 October 2016). I don't think that's enough to make me want to oppose, and I hope it isn't anyone else's either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Well; at least three of you colleagues won't oppose, anyway ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Cheers for the analysis. For the most recent one, Utpal Bhadra, I realised I had incorrectly tagged it after it was declined (see history, I added a few sources). Looking back even when I had tagged it it showed signs of significance through the "Fellow Royal Society of Biology as well as Fellow of Royal Society of Chemistry in United Kingdom" sentence, oh well :). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Since it seems to be the vogue to nitpick over CSD performance, I have checked all your CSD A7 nominations for the past six months, and the only ones I could possibly criticise are Hsenpai News Journal (A7 does not apply to newspapers), Mohamed Hesham Amer (the article appears to claim the subject has been on national television), You may kiss the bride (speedy was declined due to having some claims of appearing on Turkish television - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You may kiss the bride), Chipukeezy Vinny (has one local news source) and Ulrika Faerch (has published two books) - all of these have been deleted. Utpal Bhadra was declined A7 (your last "miss" - 18 October 2016). I don't think that's enough to make me want to oppose, and I hope it isn't anyone else's either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- 7.5/10: Well, you've done a great job on content creation and no red flags or issues. Your RFA is very likely to pass anyway. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 11:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- 8/10 Some NACs of AfDs and RMs and great edits on video game articles. No issues with article creations either, and it has already been 2 years since the initial creation of the account. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- 8/10 - Mainly per above. You're likely to pass and the issues from your previous RfA have been fixed. Support from me! and possibly a nom :) J947(c) 06:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- 7.5/10 - Overall you're a great candidate and I think you'd be well received. The only concern I have is your use of minor edit summaries (89%), but you've improved this from your recent edits and I don't believe that would be a huge issue at RfA. Your CSD issues were covered already but that is why I lowered my rating a bit because the CSD performance could lead to an issue for you. -- Dane talk 23:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- 8.4/10 - Mainly per above Kostas20142 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- 8.6/10 - Although the content creation is a bit lacking, your CSD log is frankly amazing. Your AfD voting record is pretty good, but not really truly amazing. Overall, I would surely support you in an RfA. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 03:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Candidates who failed first time for a particular reason and who come back a respectable amount of time later having addressed those concerns often do well at RfA the second time round. You've got some decent article-writing under your belt now, nine months have passed since your last RfA, and you've gained some experience since then so you probably have a good chance. But I'm not seeing anything that really stands out. Something that makes you stick in people's memories. Returning to Fallout 4: Far Harbor and successfully taking it through FAC would get you that. If you did that, I might even nominate you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: Cheers for the points. Regarding Far Harbor, I've already attempted to make it through FAC, and in fact I've got a peer review up right now (though there's barely any discussion there) to see what could be changed as I'd love nominate it again to make it an FA. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I read through the original FAC. Looks like there were some prose concerns but it just didn't generate enough attention. I'd be happy to lend a hand of you wanted to re-nominate. You'd be surprised how much the skillsets overlap between admin work and handling an FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: I'd love some help . I'm not too experienced with the FAC process, I've only voted only a couple and nominated one, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I read through the original FAC. Looks like there were some prose concerns but it just didn't generate enough attention. I'd be happy to lend a hand of you wanted to re-nominate. You'd be surprised how much the skillsets overlap between admin work and handling an FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: Cheers for the points. Regarding Far Harbor, I've already attempted to make it through FAC, and in fact I've got a peer review up right now (though there's barely any discussion there) to see what could be changed as I'd love nominate it again to make it an FA. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick: April 14, 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.
TheGracefulSlick (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)
Hello, I'm TheGracefulSlick (or Grace if it's easier) and I'm considering a bid for adminship. After discussing with User:Ritchie333, he recommended I go here for more opinions. I think my greatest strength is my work in content creation; at the moment, I have written 262 articles, 10 GAs, and 11 DYKs. I also have experience at AfD, reverting vandalism, and helping to resolve issues at ANI occasionally. If I was granted the mop, I would mainly work at AfD and AIV. I realize I may not be the perfect candidate at the moment but I would appreciate your thorough reviews on my strengths and weaknesses. If you could also access my chances in 6-12 months, that would also help me. Thank you!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- 6/10: Your blocks are a bit of concern and when you created an sock account in question of a CU block. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 17:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, KGirlTrucker81. Here are the comments by Garagepunk66 and TheGracefulSlick herself. --George Ho (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @George Ho: Well, she didn't create any socks either, my rating still stands for past blocks. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 22:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, KGirlTrucker81. Here are the comments by Garagepunk66 and TheGracefulSlick herself. --George Ho (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- 4/10 - I personally would be in support of your RfA as you've always shown pretty solid judgement but I feel like the community itself would look at your block log and hold it against you. Your content creation is wonderful (and I may lean on you for help in improving my skills in this area) and your AfD percentage is within an acceptable range to me. You do lack reports to AIV (5 reports total according to XTools) and your editing in the Wikipedia namespace is quite low, this would be more of a concern to the community as well. You do not have a published CSD log that I saw. If you increased participation in those areas mentioned above and maintained your current performance in deletion activities, I would say 6/10 in 6 months and 8/10 in 12 months. -- Dane talk 22:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Thank you Dane and KGirlTrucker81 for the honesty so far. If it is okay with everyone, I want to keep this open for at least two other editors to comment. This will be a tremendous help to me, and it looks like waiting 6-12 months will be the better move.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Having GAs under your belt is great. As a content contributor, I have found the best use for my admin tools is semiprotecting pages, and also necessary deletions when jiggling some pagemoves. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Casliber thank you for the feedback. May I ask, is it appropriate to ask an admin for a nomination or do they just volunteer their services when they find an editor they like? I am not thinking of opening an RfA right after this poll but would like to know when I consider it in 6-12 months.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- The block administered to the TheGracefulSlick by checkbuster Mike V involved more than just sockpuppetry, but also harassment. The surrogate editors implicated in conjunction with him were (ALongStay and User:ABriefPassing). Both harassed me on various occasions such as in December 2015 [1] and at other times. I was a victim of their harassment. I am sorry to have to mention this, but it has to be dealt with in the current deliberation. Right now I would not recommend that this candidacy be approved unless it can be conclusively proven that TheGracefulSlcik was not connected to these sockpupptes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- 0/10. TGS, the fact that you created at least two sockpuppets to (1) impersonate a user and (2) harass another user is going to completely nuke any chances you have for adminship. The fact that you have still been apparently harassing said user is further damage. I don't see any reason that you need the tools or any evidence that you work in administrative areas. Stick to content creation, which is what you apparently do best and what you apparently love. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- 2/10 mainly per Softlavender. I would !vote 'weak oppose', and I'm pretty liberal on RfA. J947(c) 05:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Final comment - Thank you everyone for the opinions you brought here, especially to those who gave me valuable advice. I plan to reconvene here in 6-12 (leaning toward 12) months to have time to improve on the areas brought up and continue to work on my strengths. Softlavender I am sorry to say but your perspective is grossly incorrect: especially the claim that I'm harrassing someone still. But it is fine, I received the knowledge needed to help me become an admin in the long-run. Thank you again to everyone for beginning this process with me. I will keep this open a little longer in case there are some closing remarks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment TheGracefulSlick, I suspect your RFA will hinge on how you handle the issue of the CU block. Are you willing to be upfront, and describe what you have learned from your mistakes (whatever those might be: I haven't the time to investigate this issue in detail)? Or will you obfuscate? The canvassing block is less of a problem, so long as you acknowledge it. Your content work seems quite solid, which is a definite positive; folks like to see an editor whose primary purpose is content writing. You've engaged with some politically charged content, which can go either way; but edits such as this will come in for a lot of scrutiny. The question for many users won't be "what is your take on this situation?" but "can you set that aside, and only present what the sources say?" from a brief look the answer seems to be "yes", but folks will go over this with a fine-tooth comb. Finally, I'd suggest that you leave this poll open for a while longer. I mean no disrespect to those who have opined already, but I think you should give some experienced admins/voters a chance to respond; I wouldn't even place myself in that category, since I've only held the bit for 7 months. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93 thank you for coming along; this was very important for me to read. I was near the point of closing because Softlavender's false claim of me continuing to harass an editor did not make this constructive toward helping me with how to prepare and improve for RfA. You are right, I need to be upfront about my mistakes and I will when I am questioned about it. I also will keep this opened longer, per your suggestion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think that what Softlavender means is that there were situations where you may have been unduly harsh in your words and actions regarding the Garage rock article. Whether or not that constitutes constitute bona fide harassment, I don't technically know. But, there were situations where, in light of your recently concluded investigation regarding the two sockputtpetts mentioned above, it would have been best to, either recuse yourself and stay out of that debate, or at least temper your words and actions there if you wished to be critical.
- You coalesced with another editor's well-intentioned but excessive proposal to slit the article into three parts, which would have been extreme and damaging to the article--I'm sorry you know the topic well-enough to know that it would have been a bad move. I'll be the first to admit that there were problems--my second expansion was too large and needed trimming (and it also brought about the need to trim other sections that would have been OK before). I wouldn't have minded if you had kindly pointed that out and pointed to specific areas that needed to be addressed and practical ways to fix them. But, instead you coalesced with what I perceived to be an extreme proposal and used rash words. I found it particularly hurtful when you said the article was "a mess", but did not tell me why or give tips to fix it. This was two months after the investigation, right? You don't do that to someone who has been a friend who you've watched labor to take what was once a way-too-small article on a major general topic, grow it into a long page GA, and hopefully get it future FA. I've had to give up a lot of green pellets for smaller articles to get that one where it is. The green pellet that sits at that article may not look like much to you, but until you work on an expansion of that size with hundreds of kilobytes, citations, and historical personalities, you will not understand. Yet, a few weeks before you had given me a Barnstar praising the article (I was thankful and believed it was sincere), but then you went to calling it "a mess". You can't contradict yourself in such a way without loosing credibility in people's eyes. In fairness, I will grant that you later did give constructive criticism about the Airplay/Peak of popularity section--and because your critiques there were specific and constructive, I responded kindly and worked to fix the issues. But, that was only after I had taken you to task for being so rash in your comments in the previous thread.
- But then, later, you lobbied another editor to have the article's GA status re-assessed, while you knew I was in the process of working with other editors to address everyone's concerns and prepare the article for possible FA. While any editor has the right to have an article's GA status re-evaluated, I did not take your move to be in good faith. Do you remember that I had taken my time, after you asked me, to review three of your GA's including your first ever? Does that mean anything to you? Yes, I did something I never do--I edit warred with you over the GA re-evaluation. But, I felt like I was being harassed. There was just too much in the rear view mirror for me to take it any other way. And, now I have to fear that if you become an administrator, I will not be able to take any of the probable rash and negative moves you make against me as being in good faith, and I worry that it will happen to others. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think that what Softlavender means is that there were situations where you may have been unduly harsh in your words and actions regarding the Garage rock article. Whether or not that constitutes constitute bona fide harassment, I don't technically know. But, there were situations where, in light of your recently concluded investigation regarding the two sockputtpetts mentioned above, it would have been best to, either recuse yourself and stay out of that debate, or at least temper your words and actions there if you wished to be critical.
- Garagepunk66 I need the criticism but reporting on every single instance I criticized your editing is not helpful to this discussion. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- 0/10. You are the only editor who has me on a talk page ban, after several contentious (on your part; I asked nicely with a smiley) edits over signing your posts...you first veiled an accusation that I was stalking you to articles you were working on and to keep away unless I had good reason. Although you partly apologised: Even if I think your wrong or otherwise I now know there is better ways to resolve it. (still not signed...) Even though this was in February 2015, the sting of it has made me never edit anywhere you are. If your record had been clear since, I could overlook it but it seems the harrassment has been and seems to be still continuing. "Tiger stripes and inability to change comes to mind"...I will be happy to provide diffs. Fylbecatulous talk 18:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Fylbecatulous I respect the criticism but please get your facts straight: there is no ongoing harassment. More importantly, I honestly have never forgotten how I treated you when I was new. I wanted to apologize to you for a long time but I did not want it to be taken the wrong way and get blocked as a result. I offer my sincere apologies here if it means anything to you. I was a stubborn person then who did not care to be here long-term but it is no excuse. I don't want it to change your rating here; that is nothing compared to me admitting I was wrong so you feel comfortable again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- '0/10' - We all do stupid shit at times especially when we're new here however there's a fine line between making a stupid mistake and going out of your way to create sock accounts and harass someone, The whole "The CU findings were wrong" also doesn't wash with me and so inshort due to the CU block I personally see no chance in hell of you ever becoming an admin any time soon (It would've been sensible to do this ORCP 4-5 years after the block not 7 months!), My best suggestion is come back in 5 years time. –Davey2010Talk 20:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- You need to establish a long track record of sensible decisions and 'good behaviour' to the point that the socking and the block are ancient history. Only then would I even think about adminship. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd share the comments from Dane, as well as HJ Mitchell - a total of 5 AIV reports, 0 UAA reports, 1 RFPP request, 8 page moves, 0 template-related - you'd want to be able to demonstrate some work in admin areas, especially areas you intend to work in, to show both competence and a need for the tools. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to give a score as I'm sure you can see which way the wind is blowing, but I strongly suggest you close this now. Leaving it open is only going to annoy people—since this page is currently being spammed across multiple talk pages, there are more eyes than usual on it, and every person who was previously unfamiliar with you, sees this and remembers you in future as "the one who can't take the hint", is one more potential opposer further down the line. On a practical matter, two years is generally the minimum I'd say to allow before a CU block can be forgotten, since that's the unofficial "if I'd abandoned the account and done a clean start, that new account would then be an established editor" cutoff. ‑ Iridescent 21:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Kostas20142: April 14, 2017
Kostas20142 (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)
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.
Hello, I am Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) and I am considering running for admin. I realise that I am not the typical RfA candidate, since I have low to very low content creation. However, I am doing a lot of anti-vandal patrolling, CSD tagging( warning, my CSD and PROD log shows tags placed only after 13 april 2017),page moves and AfC reviewing. Also I have a lot of reports in AIV and UAA. The main reason I am considering to run RfA is to help reducing the(admiteably significant) backlogs. The main admin work I intend to take part in are CSD, UAA, AIV(and all the related) , routine AfDs , requested moves. Please be as objectional as possible and address me all your concerns. After all, by this way, you actually help me.--Kostas20142 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: admins, if have enough time, please check my deleted contributions for full CSD logs --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment only Wouldn't really want to put a number on you, Kostas20142, although it would be a low one I'm afraid, the way RfA seems to be at the moment; but lookin at just the editing side, very broadly, you mention content creation being low. I think the RfA community might also say- too few manual contributions generally, as nearly 50% of your edits are automated so far. A CSD that should not have been tagged so, and a couple of PRODS that should have been speedied: a continuation of that would raise eyebrows and lower supports. This is all trivia, and can be easiliy overcome; I'd just have to say, that the view from RfA would be 'not yet.' Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)
- 0/10. Sorry, but you just don't have enough contributions. Only 2000 edits and 3 votes on AfDs, 2 of which were incorrect. Your highest edited article has 5 edits on it. You say you wish to work in CSD, but there's no evidence yet that you're experienced in that area, having only had a log for a day so far. Also, you've only had the rollback right for 10 days. Your account is barely 8 months old, and recently people have been opposed for having only 10 months-1 year of proper activity; at least half of your edits have been in this month alone. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
ONUnicorn: April 14, 2017
ONUnicorn (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 received a suggestion on my talk page that I take the ORFACP. I've toyed with the idea of becoming an admin several times throughout my tenure on Wikipedia, but it's never seemed like the right time, either because of stuff happening in my offline life or because of the general atmosphere at RFA. I took the poll when it was first launched, mainly out of curiosity, and it sort of confirmed that that was the wrong time. I'm not chomping at the bit to become an admin, or to put myself through RFA, but if people think more admins are needed, that I'd make a good admin, and that my RFA would have a good chance at passing, I'll run. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- 7/10: That previous RFAP poll have a high chance of succeeeding lately, and a bunch of inactivity ranging from 2007-15. Anyways, your RFA would likely an pass. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 17:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- 6/10 - I think your RfA could succeed, but some likely areas the community will bring up is your low edit counts by month (44 in Feb 2017, 53 in Nov 2016, 17 in July 2016) as well as your long absence from 2008-2014 (very minimal participation). Your AfD percentage is currently 67.9% which could also be a problem for some voters. You do have some good content creation work on your record though which will be helpful to you. -- Dane talk 18:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- 5.5/10 - I think that your RfA would probably get some pile-on opposes because of the fact that a few of the articles that you have recently reviewed, such as Amazonian build, have been deleted. Your AfD participation (as mentioned by Dane above) would also likely incite criticism. I suggest that you come back with a higher AfD percentage and a better review log. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- (Um... I nominated Amazonian Build for deletion.) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh... I see. Make that... say... a 7/10. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 05:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- (Um... I nominated Amazonian Build for deletion.) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your chances of passing will be higher if you improve some content to GA or Featured level. Just sayin' Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Uh-huh, that's spot on. If you're looking for stuff to work on can I ping BU Rob13 who I think said somewhere that they have a list of hundreds of (err, or some, anyway!) potential articles? Apologies to BU Rob if I'm, mistaken or spoken out of turn. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have a list of quite literally thousands of notable subjects that needs articles either created or expanded in the form of an encyclopedia that lists the stats of all Canadian Football League players in the modern era. All are notable per WP:NGRIDRION, and I can often find substantial other sourcing to make a solid article (usually GAs!) in LexisNexis or other academic databases. If you would like topics to write about, email me via Special:EmailUser and I'll give you a name, scan of their information from the encyclopedia I have a physical copy of, and any other newspaper sources I can find in academic databases. ~ Rob13Talk 16:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- 7/10. I don't think most voters care about meaningless statistics as some people like to make out. The opposes based on things like low edit count/month counts/etc tend to come late in an already-struggling RfA, and they tend to come from inexperienced editors. I can't see any obvious problems and you seem generally sensible so I think you'd have a good chance. I took a look at a few random edits to the projectspace and was impressed with what I saw. 7/10 might actually be a bit conservative, but I don't know you very well. I'd need a bit more information before I can make a better estimate. Tell you what, if you email your answers to the three standard questions (or post them on my talk page if you prefer), I'll seriously consider nominating you if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- 6/10 The principal problem is I can't see what obvious need for the tools you have. The AfD stats are okay, on things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queens of Hip Hop you put up a good argument against several people saying "delete - pah", but there's not many of them. You don't have a CSD log, and I can't see much evidence of CSD'ing, and you haven't been on the usual maintenance noticeboards like AIV / RPP / UAA much. I think maybe in a year's time with more maintenance stuff, you'll do better, but right now people will pick up on this and oppose accordingly, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Richie333 you mentioned CSD log; are those made if you use Twinkle? I don't use Twinkle, and have no desire to do so, and it seems like too much work to keep a manual count of CSD pages. I do nominate some things for speedy, although when I patrol new pages I typically work from the back of the feed, and most of the obvious speedy stuff is at the front. I could probably track down a few examples of pages I've nominated for speedy deletion that have been deleted if I wanted to. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I threw this together. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- For Twinkle, one can turn on, in the Twinkle preferences, CSD logging. This makes it so every page that one puts a speedy deletion tag on is logged to a subpage of the users choice. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Like I said, I have no interest in Twinkle. But thanks for letting me know how to turn on CSD logging if I ever do decide to use Twinkle. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Richie333 you mentioned CSD log; are those made if you use Twinkle? I don't use Twinkle, and have no desire to do so, and it seems like too much work to keep a manual count of CSD pages. I do nominate some things for speedy, although when I patrol new pages I typically work from the back of the feed, and most of the obvious speedy stuff is at the front. I could probably track down a few examples of pages I've nominated for speedy deletion that have been deleted if I wanted to. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
White Arabian Filly: April 16, 2017
White Arabian Filly (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 received an invite to try this poll on my talk page, and 3 other editors said they'd support me, so I decided to post here. If I do run for adminship, it'll probably be a month or so from now (depending on how this goes, of course). I don't hang out at AfD much, but I do tend to !vote on any I come across. If anybody is curious, I consider my two biggest contributions to Wikipedia to be writing content (over 100 articles, 27 DYKs, 6 GAs and one FA, plus one currently undergoing GAR) and helping newbies. I do enough vandalism patrol to have rollback, and enough new page reviews to have NPR as well. One admin task that particularly interests me would be going through the deleted articles and undeleting any of interest to me that were notable enough to pass GNG but unreferenced or had a fixable issue, fixing their problems and re-publishing them. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- 3/10 - Honestly, i'm not seeing a need for the tools and that's the biggest problem I think you'd encounter with an RfA. The community likes to see a proven need. You have 8 page protection requests and less UAA/AIV contributions. I will admit your content work would be helpful to an RfA and your AfD stats where you do participate is acceptable (74.4%, 98 total AfDs edited), which is why I gave you a 3/10. A CSD log is not currently on file for you which would be helpful for evaluating CSD work. All that being said, I think if you began contributing to these areas and showing a need, this number could change in 6-12 months easily. -- Dane talk 21:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, Ealdgyth does not have a CSD log, has not AFAIK contributed to UAA or AIV ever, yet Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth got 100% support, no opposes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Very true. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing was also a success. There are outliers for sure and I could totally be wrong. -- Dane talk 21:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think that, as much as anything else, that sort of thing only supports my longstanding observation that many or even most RfA voters view adminship as an award. Very popular editors or very prolific article writers can easily pass despite a lack of experience in admin maintenance areas that would kill less prominent but equally trustworthy users. Ealdgyth is obviously one of our most valued contributors, but as you predicted, I can't find a single edit they've made to an administrative noticeboard, and they haven't logged any admin actions since being promoted. That's not a problem, of course; I personally believe that "just in case I ever need to fix a botched page move or something" is as good a reason as any to have a mop on hand. That said, the 'need for the tools' criteria is very much a charade IMO. Just a passing thought... my success odds for White Arabian Filly to come shortly. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- (an aside - I have been weighing in on AN/ANI a bit for various proposed sanctions, and I believe I actually poked my toes into AE. Also done a bit at ERRORS and recreated a couple of deleted articles... so I've actually used the tools some... plus expanded my commenting into admin discussions...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for clarifying. It's difficult to judge use of the admin tools since many of the duties are not recorded in the user log, as you mentioned. In any event, like I said, my goal wasn't to criticize your work - your adminship is of course very well deserved.– Juliancolton | Talk 01:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- (an aside - I have been weighing in on AN/ANI a bit for various proposed sanctions, and I believe I actually poked my toes into AE. Also done a bit at ERRORS and recreated a couple of deleted articles... so I've actually used the tools some... plus expanded my commenting into admin discussions...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, Ealdgyth does not have a CSD log, has not AFAIK contributed to UAA or AIV ever, yet Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth got 100% support, no opposes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- 6.9/10 - I agree with Ritchie333 above, and I think that if you just go a bit more into the "maintenance" areas, then you will have a significantly better chance at passing. Overall, if you can do that for, say, three months (probably less, although), then you should be set. Also, you seem to be pretty civil, so that is really good. Your AfD percentage is not too shabby, but not amazing either. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- 7/10 You are a good content creator, which is a good quality to have in an admin. If you can articulate well your areas of need for the tools, it will improve your chances and as others have pointed out, a little more work in the areas you would like to use the tools would likely raise your chances to 9/10. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- 7.1/10: You've don't have any CSD or PROD logs which is okay, but you made tons of non-automated edits which is a bonus plus point. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- 3/10
- The good
- Nearly 90% manual edits is a good sign for many voters.
- Your strong point on Wikipedia is obviously your content work. As near as I can tell, your article creations and additions are always well sourced and reasonably well-formatted. (I will note that many of your references are bare URLs, which isn't ideal, but also unlikely to sink an RfA.)
- You've received a very respectable number of barnstars in a relatively short period of time. Don't laugh - this is a bigger deal than most people will admit. A history of receiving praise and kudos from respected users goes a long way toward illustrating your collaborative attitude. While I don't believe I've ever interacted with you personally, a quick look at your talk page suggests that you're friendly, helpful, and an effective communicator.
- The potential issues
- Your AfD accuracy rate is fairly good, but a spotcheck of your votes reveals rationales that are often lacking in depth and policy backing. Here you voted keep on the basis that "I think we'll be seeing more of her", which is obviously not a strong argument in a deletion discussion. Here you accused the AfD nominator of failing to follow WP:BEFORE, but didn't really justify your keep vote. Irresolute comments like this don't contribute much to the discussion. Even today I noticed an AfD vote that asserts the subject "seems notable enough" with nothing resembling proof. I don't mean to belabor the point, but your perfunctory AfD votes will likely be a point of opposition at RfA.
- Your monthly edit count has been falling rather uniformly since you opened this account. Your current 300-400 edits/month isn't a bad place to be, but if that dwindles further, you might have to address the concern that you're on the brink of burnout.
- Some people consider it essential for admins to have an email enabled. It's not a requirement as far as I can recall, but be prepared for people to bring this up at RfA.
- As noted, you have very little experience in the admin maintenance noticeboards. I see one UAA report and no AIV reports. Some exceptionally prolific FA writers can glide through RfA with no admin-y experience; for the rest of us, a well-rounded contribution history is necessary.
- Political userboxes... eh, lose 'em, I say. It's your userpage to do with (generally) as you please, but several recent adminship candidates have faced claims of subtle political overtones in their Wikipedia presence, and that's a headache you may wish to avoid.
- The good
- In light of my above observations, I think you're likely to have a somewhat difficult time at RfA if you run in the immediate future. If you decide you badly want to be an admin, I think you could get within striking distance after 6 months of hard work. If you need any suggestions or guidance, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. "Admin coaching" is frowned upon these days but they can't stop me from nudging you in the right direction. Best of luck, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- 3/10. Honestly, I have no idea why this poll is being spammed onto so many user's talkpages who have had no interest, no indication, no need, and little or no qualifications for becoming admins. White Arabian Filly, you are one of the "good guys", but there's no reason for you to become an admin, no need for the tools, and little or no experience in areas that would qualify you for adminship. Your field of editing interest is very small, and though you do very well in it there is no reason for you to become an admin. Forgive my bluntness, as you posting here has more to do with the ill-advised rampant spamming of this poll than your actual qualifications for adminship. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)