Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

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. Polls remain open for comments for seven days, and are archived seven days after being closed.

Disclaimer: Before proceeding, please read advice pages such as Advice for RfA candidates. The result of a poll may differ greatly from an actual RfA, so before proceeding, you should evaluate your contributions based on this advice as well as recent successful and failed requests. You may want to consider asking an editor experienced at RfA, such as those listed at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination their thoughts privately as well.

Instructions

Potential candidates

To request an evaluation of your chances of passing a request for adminship in the near future, add your name below and wait for feedback. Please read Wikipedia:Not now before adding your name to this list.

Responders

Responders, please provide a number from 0 to 10 (zero being the lowest and ten being the highest chance) representing your estimate of the potential candidate's likelihood of passing an RfA. (Note the number is not your personal rating of the candidate.)

You can optionally provide short, constructive feedback based on your own analysis. Please be understanding of those who volunteer without fully understanding what is expected of an administrator, and phrase your comments in an encouraging manner as much as possible. A helper script is available that allows one-click rating.

Closure

Potential candidates may opt to close or withdraw their ORCP assessment request at any time. Polls are normally closed without any closing statement after seven days. 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)

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: October 8, 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.

---

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (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)

Have been around 3 years counting to this December, have been active on Military history related topics, and I execersie a several rights, planning for adminship, and looking forward for the same. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Modified: I started contributing to en Wikipedia in December 2014. Though initially I committed some newbie errors, later I studied the guidelines, and worked accordingly. At the very beginning, I concentrated on creating articles, but later realized that quality matters more. So I started picking articles and developing them GA status, getting them to DYK section, and if possible to A-class and FA/FL level. Playing my part, I reviewed a good number of GA nominations (>100), and a few A-class, featured content nominations. Through all this time, I have been active on WP Military history and WP India. I also did a few deletion sortings, and have been involved in AfDs, requested moves, counter vandalism, new page patrol, and pending changes review. During the past few months, owing to my involvement in outreach events, my online activity has gone down, but however, I plan to do well in the coming months. Between, I wish know my potential for being an admin. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong content creation, prolific contributor to Indian military history. You would likely have the support of WP:MILHIST and WP:INDIA easily. I haven't be able to locate any evidence of past conflicts (very rare for editors working with potentially contentious topics), and your interaction with other editors appears to be consistently courteous and friendly. Your extensive work with deletion sorting would tick the box of "having shown good understanding of deletion policy". Unless if I am missing something (some early mistakes from 2016, perhaps), I think you are in really good shape. Alex Shih^Talk 04:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seen you around, and had a generally positive impression. You've some experience with deletion (though I haven't reviewed the tags), suggesting you have a need for the tools. You also have some experience with content creation, which is a positive. Some folks might wonder why 5 of your creations were deleted, but if you can explain that properly it shouldn't be a big deal. Others may wonder at a drop in activity, which, IMO, shouldn't be a problem so long as you commit to being accountable for the actions you take. I seem to recall some disagreement over splitting articles to take them to FLC; if this recollection is correct, this is a conflict you would need to address. My vote would hinge on what admin activity you would be interested in participating in, whether you have the skills for that, and whether you know your limits; if you only wanted to work with PROD and CSD, folks' assessment of your record would be quite different than if you expressed a desire to deal with dispute resolution and behavioral issues in India politics, for instance. None of these are issues that could not be sorted out by a thorough nomination statement and detailed answers to questions. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I will admit I am slightly concerned by the commons RFA. Folks at en.wiki RFAs are mildly allergic to hat-collecting, and correctly or otherwise, such a request may leave such an opinion. That said, there isn't much you can do about it now; just think this through, and if you are clear as to what your motivations are, you should be able to convey that to the !voters. Vanamonde (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• My personal experience with you has been neutral (tending very slightly towards negative); I recall not receiving any response to a request I had made on your talk page. A majority of your Afd participation has been in nominating articles for deletion; and with just around ~66% success rate (specially being the nominator), you would stand a very weak chance at clearing an Rfa currently, given the expectations' level these days. Your mistagging of CSDs like this A10 on Banque Nationale de Paris (July 2017) or this one where you quoted an incorrect CSD reason ("With just two citations, 90% of the content is unsourced. MoS is violated all through the article") (September 2017) would also hold you down. On the other hand, with your standing in MILHIST, you would get at least some dedicated supports. I would suggest sprucing up the Afd participation and CSD nominations for six months or more and coming back here for more views and guidance. Thanks. Lourdes 09:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10: Majority of edits are content creations to military history topics. CSD and PROD logs are fine, and most AFDs are noms which some resulted in "Keep". Overall work is good. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 I don't see any red flags. With a strong nominating statement, and a clear answer to "what admin work do you plan to do" that is supported by some experience in that area, you will have a very good shot. As a reply to an earlier point; I think that a 80% success rate (ignoring "no consensus") for nominations at AfD is more than good enough; if a person's success rate is 95%, they should probably be using PROD more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10 - Your recent activity has been extremely low and IMHO you're on the verge of inactivity (I don't expect anyone to be here 24/7 365 days a year but I do expect more activity), You don't really participate in any of the admin areas (XFD, AIV, UFAA etc etc), Your CSD long from November '16 is more or less empty aswell, Being absolutely honest there doesn't look to be any reason as to why you need the tools and I could be completely wrong but as your RFA failed at Commons I'm getting this feeling this is nothing more than WP:hat collecting (ofcourse if I'm wrong then I do apologise but that's just my honest opinion), In short because of the low-activity, next-to-none edits at XFD etc and the no real need of the admin tools I personally think it'd be snow closed (ofcourse this is just my take on it and who knows I may well be wrong and it could closed as successful), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 - I think this lands firmly in the "could go either way" realm. I tend to agree with Davey2010 that your recent activity (or lack thereof) could present a problem at RfA. I spot checked your CSDs (grabbed 5 random ones) and only found 1 problem (A7 nom declined). Your AfD noms are overall good with no significant concerns. I honestly feel the community could be split if you were to go now. In terms of recommendations for improvement, my only takeaway would be to increase your activity. -- Dane ^talk 16:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 - is my estimate, based on my experience of voting on 100s of RfA, of your likelihood of convincing the community to pass RfA. I do not know how I would vote. Voters would question this year's activity as not necessarily being a demonstration of a need for the admin tools,Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• 2/10 - I believe the above comments have ignored the elephant in the room here. Having said that, I'd like to preface my comments by saying that the remarks I am about to make are not designed to intimidate you or to hurt you. This is my honest appraisal of one of the issues that could sink your RfA attempt. I believe that your English, while better than most Indians who grace the English Wikipedia is still at an unacceptable standard. Nobody is perfect when it comes to this area but I believe that anyone who puts themselves up for ORCP with this statement: "Have been around 3 years counting to this December, have been active on Military history related topics, and I execersie a several rights, planning for adminship, and looking forward for the same." Will be picked apart at their RfA. 'A several rights', 'execersie', 'looking forward for the same', unneeded third person narrative in 'have been active on Military history related topics' - that's four errors (some more blatant than others) in one sentence. Am I nitpicking? Perhaps and your user page doesn't seem too bad in regards to this issue but you will have to answer questions at the RfA which will no doubt provoke additional scrutiny on this issue. My suggestion based on what I have said so far would be to improve the standard of your English and then come back. I look forward to seeing your RfA attempt in the near future. Thanks. -=Troop=- (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose one could argue that, if KCV's orthography will only take a period of time between now and "the near future" (my emph.) to improve to such a level whereby they should lodge a RfA, then it can't be that bad can it :) otherwise... it would take that much longer to improve. — fortunavelut luna 19:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• 5, maybe 6 out of 10. Your English is good enough to write a featured article, so I'm not concerned that you can't communicate effectively in English, but perhaps when you're in a rush you don't come across as clearly. Admins need to be able to explain themselves clearly and concisely in all sorts of situations, sometimes to angry mobs, so my advice would be to make sure you communicate as clearly in project space as you write in mainspace. The only other likely line of opposition I can foresee is that you haven't articulated a need for the tools and you don't generally specialise in admin areas, so some might infer that you're more interested in status; a good nomination statement and answer to Q1 would solve that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• !Voters at RfAs often refer to this page when people have participated in an ORfA. Trooper has made the exact comment that I was going to make. Your approach to this poll is much too casual and the word "execersie" is so mangled that it makes me dubious about your competence to perform administrative tasks thoughtfully and diligently. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Trooper1005, HJ Mitchell, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for comments. Actually sorry for making a casual statement. I've posted a more formal and tweaked statement above. Kindly have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Your new statement is a substantial improvement. That said, it does not answer a central question; what do you want to do with the admin tools? Please remember, adminship is not status. It is the technical ability to do more work. Most reasonable voters will evaluate whether you have the skills for the work you wish to do. If I had said at my RFA that I wanted to delete files and place rangeblocks, odds are I would not have passed. Vanamonde (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Jon Kolbert: October 11, 2017

Jon Kolbert (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)

My primary area of work is in file maintenance both here and on Wikimedia Commons. I have been actively going through maintenance categories to check that media on the project are free of copyright violations and non-encyclopedic material, as well as ensuring that policies such as WP:NFCC are being respected. I also have experience at both WP:UAA and WP:AIV, and feel comfortable working in those areas. I frequently nominate files to files for discussion, reasons vary from being a licensing issue or simply a discussion to determine whether a non-free file is below the threshold of originality and eligible for transfer to Commons.

My participation at WP:AfD is minimal, I generally only nominate articles at AfD that I have come across in my file work. I don't really have much interest in participating at AfD, there's more than enough work to be done with files on the project.

Recently I have started working on tickets in the permissions-en and permissions-commons queues on WP:OTRS. The admin bit would be useful to view deleted files referenced from old tickets so we can add useful, freely-licensed media to the project.

I also run a bot which updated certain domains from using http to using https. I'm currently working on a solution with an issue on certain domains, as such, the bot is temporarily inactive.

I think that covers just about everything. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to give a score, but just tell you my immediate thoughts. You have obviously demonstrated a clear need for the tools with 1000+ FfD nominations, most of which were honoured successfully. However, image copyrights are one of the most misunderstood parts of Wikipedia by the general public (if you can remember the Article Feedback tool from a few years back, it seemed every other comment was "this page needs a picture") and so communication to newbies about why you just speedy deleted their copyright-violating images has to be excellent. With that in mind, sticking two Twinkle copyvio tags on Giano's talk page (User talk:Giano#Exploding palazzo) is probably going to come back to haunt you at some point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  That's a fair point. Usually I just use Twinkle for ease of tagging - in the future I'll try to disable the "notify editor" checkbox for experienced editors and leave a personalized note instead of a template targeted for new users. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

...Giano hasn't edited since. I hope the events are not related. — fortunavelut luna 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope not as well. I think there's a lot of room for discussion on how people are notified for on article/file issues. A possible solution would be including a feature in Twinkle where you have the option of leaving a message in place of a template. Another feature that would be useful is grouping similar notices. Whether it's a new or experienced user, no one wants 10 big warning sign notifications on their talk page. There's a tool on commons that groups nominations for deletion with the same rationale (see here for example).

This should be part of a larger conversation on how we communicate with other editors regarding content issues and how it affects editor retention. I do think I should have handled that differently and will avoid a situation like that in the future. Is the village pump the most appropriate forum for this issue? Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Definitely; Technical pump I imagine- probably need a Phabricator ticket as it would require a change to the Twinkle. I think. — fortunavelut luna 17:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @Ritchie333: I've started a discussion on the topic on the village pump here. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)