Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

"WP:RFAP" redirects here. For requesting the autopatrolled right, see WP:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled.

This optional polling page is for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges (RfA) in the near future and wish to receive feedback on their chances of succeeding in their request.

This page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors. To seek feedback on what you can do to improve your contributions to Wikipedia, ask a friendly, experienced editor on the editor's talk page for help.

Disclaimer: Before proceeding, please read advice pages such as Advice for RfA candidates. The result of a poll may differ greatly from an actual RfA, so before proceeding, you should evaluate your contributions based on this advice as well as recent successful and failed requests. Look at past polls in the archives and consider the risk of having a similar list of shortcomings about yourself to which anyone can refer. You may want to consider asking an editor experienced at RfA, such as those listed at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, their thoughts privately.

Instructions

Potential candidates

To request an evaluation of your chances of passing a request for adminship in the next 3 to 6 months, add your name below and wait for feedback. Please read Wikipedia:Not now before adding your name to this list.

Responders

Responders, please provide feedback on the potential candidate's likelihood of passing an RfA at this time. Please be understanding of those who volunteer without fully appreciating what is expected of an administrator, and always phrase your comments in an encouraging manner. You can optionally express the probability of passing as a score from 0 to 10; a helper script is available to let you give a one-click rating. For more detailed or strongly critical feedback, please consider contacting the editor directly.

Closure

Potential candidates may opt to close or withdraw their ORCP assessment request at any time. Polls are normally closed without any closing statement after seven days (and are archived seven days after being closed). They may be closed earlier if there is unanimous agreement that the candidate has no chance at being granted administrative privileges.

Sample entry

==Example==
{{User-orcp|Example}}
*5/10 - Edit count seems okay, but there will be opposers saying you need more AfD participation. ~~~~

DreamRimmer: March 7, 2024

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.

---

DreamRimmer (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'm here to see my chances of passing an RFA by the end of the six months. I'm active at various maintenance venues and have one GA and one DYK credit under my belt. As an admin, my focus will primarily be on UAA, AIV, and PERM. Later on, I'll expand into other areas with guidance from admins already active there. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• In Crew (film), your plot summary reads "The narrative revolves around three diligent women whose paths lead them into unexpected situations, ultimately entangling them in a web of deceit.". It's cited to a newspaper article that doesn't really say anything like that. So, I checked the IMDb, which is where most people copy-paste their plot summaries from. Turns out the IMDb says "Follows three hard-working women as their destinies lead to some unwarranted situations and end up caught in a web of lies." Changing "web of lies" to "web of deceit" is close paraphrasing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  I understand the rules around copyright and close paraphrasing, and I'm aware that borrowing more than fifteen words from a copyrighted source can be considered a violation. However, I've sifted through numerous sources for plot information, and they all provided similar descriptions. So, I did my best to craft a plot, making alterations where necessary. Moreover, the source I used merely offered basic plot details, which I used as a foundation for my version, and in my honest opinion, it's enough to support the plot statement. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the statement is correct about borrowing more than fifteen words. Typically, you don't want to copy more than three in a row, unless they are fixed phrases or there is no way you can rephrase at all. When you quote, you can quote 50 without problem, even though WP:Wikivoice is usually preferred. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Femke, In my early days, when I asked a question about copyright violation in the Discord channel, an admin advised me that we can copy a maximum of fifteen words. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  While I'm definitely not the most knowledgeable on the topic, I'm pretty sure that opinion is not widely shared. Typically, Wikipedia is quite strict on copyvio compared to what is legally required. You may want to double check Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#Example, and adjust how closely you follow sources. The reason your example was flagged is that the structure of the sentence is so similar. Mistakes happen (including when you're an admin). The important thing is to learn and adjust :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, it was a great day as I learned something new about copyright. I’ll do my best to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Thank you both for your feedback. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for putting yourself forward here :). I've had a look through your AfD stats. Overall matching is high, no concerns there. I looked at those instances you did not agree with the majority, incl no consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kehkashan Awan was a poor NAC, as nobody but you seemed to have given policy-based arguments. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aina Asif, you don't argue why they met NACTOR. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of roles in the British Army I also don't see a strong policy-based argument. While you don't indicate you want to work in deletions, this will likely be looked at in an RfA, so bringing stronger arguments to the table in AfDs in the next few months may help here.
  You have one GA; a second one can't hurt, as content editors have an easy time at RfA. In 6 months, you'll have 18 months of proper editing under your belt, which is likely the minimum people look for. You are a part of the Indian politics Wikiproject. Given the topic attracts strong opinions, you can expect some scrutiny there. Keeping calm in difficult situation is of course something people look out for :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Femke: I was the nominator for Aina Asif's deletion. I am not at all convinced by Rimmer's argument there. And it was one of the worst AFDs I have ever seen, which was closed as no consensus just because of a few SPAs, banned socks, and DreamRimmer's baseless support. Being someone who is dealing with South Asian spam on a regular basis now in coordination with different admins, it really gave me the impression that I was dealing with one sort of UPE there at that time. That said, he has not even completed his one year of proper editing at the moment, and by digging into his talk page archives, it seems he has some temperament issues too. He is a very newish editor to me, and I regret that I was the one who sent him AWOT at some point, which didn't receive any support either. I think he should work for at least a year or two to even think about RFA. I will oppose. Maliner (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Maliner, I have looked through this user's talk page archives 1 to 3 and checked for two things:

  • whether everything had been archived (that seems to be the case), and
  • whether any of DreamRimmer's responses were of concern

  I could not find any temperament issues whatsoever. Could you please point to any that you managed to find? It's of course possible that these occur in later archives that I haven't looked at. Schwede66 21:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Schwede66: Sure. I am lucky that I got the chance to assist you. Please see User talk:DreamRimmer/Archive 6#Reviewing the reviewers, I don't think his recent interaction with Jeraxmoira at Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat)#Unreviewed is comfortable for me to support a future admin candidate. Although Jeraxmoira is a newly granted page patroller, But in my opinion they have enough knowledge to patrol new pages, and I appreciate their efforts in reducing the backlog. I think with some time and more editing in different administrative areas of Wikipedia, he can learn to deal with such situations in a much better way. Regards. Maliner (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I had to explain the NPP flowchart to him three times, which is literally on the NPP welcome message when an editor is granted NPP permission. He chose to ignore them as well as the flowchart and pinged Joe to 'help me understand the process', then accused me of being inconsistent with my comments. He started the discussion titled 'Unreviewed' and made it about notability. I don't think anyone knew that it was about re-reviewing articles marked as reviewed by other NPPs, [1].

  In the end, DreamRimmer, what was the reason for highlighting my temporary NPP status? Were you implying I was inexperienced? And why did you assume Joe didn't know that I and Dewritech were different users? Instead of getting defensive, you could've just acknowledged you weren't familiar with the flowchart and moved on. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was going to say nothing because this was heading towards NOTYET for DreamRimmer which is where I stand, and did not wish to pile on.
  However, since this thread is going to be looked at every time DreamRimmer pushes for adminship in the future, I feel a need to clarify some things. DreamRimmer was correct about what NPP is supposed to do, Jeraxmoira is reading the flowchart wrong. However, being a high-level diplomat is a pass of ANYBIO#2, so DreamRimmer was wrong about what should have been done with the article, and everyone can evaluate their conduct in that incident for themselves. Jeraxmoira came to the right conclusion through flawed reasoning. Joe Roe turned out to be the wrong person to call for a third opinion there because Joe's opinion that NPP should not check for notability is not the consensus position. It's not necessarily wrong. I subscribe to it too to a large extent, especially when the backlog starts ballooning, and of course, that's the way the most prolific reviewers have to have been working given the speed with which they work, but it's not the consensus position, and it's not what the NPP flowchart that was linked to in that discussion says.
  I have not gone into detail here because I do not wish to derail this thread which has a different purpose, but it needed to be said that not everything is so cut and dried. I am happy to elaborate further on all points, wherever is deemed appropriate to do so, including here. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding, Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat)#Unreviewed, I left a comment at Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat)#Break just now with my opinions on this, and decided to send the article to AFD for further discussion. I think DreamRimmer is correct here that this article doesn't pass notability, and I think DreamRimmer's instinct to ping an admin for a second opinion was also fine. Although perhaps it wasn't an ideal interaction for other reasons. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would only challenge that it would not be unreasonable for another reviewer to think that he may be notable or at least not worth putting through AFD. So, a challenge implying the other reviewer had made an egregious mistake was inadvisable. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Are we going to ignore the accusations and the defensive behavior? Okay. I believe I am interpreting the flowchart for what it is instead of considering, 'This is how NPP was followed over the years'. The bubble box in the flowchart links to credible claim of significance, a WP:BEFORE indicates that Ashok Attri (diplomat) has a credible claim of significance. Reiterating that the initial discussion was about the article being 'marked as reviewed' when it may not have passed GNG or other guidelines. I simply showed that there is another possible way to mark an article as reviewed if it has a credible claim of significance. If you feel the flowchart is outdated, I am happy to help with the design! Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  There are software-related obstacles to updating that flowchart. WP:CCS is purely for evaluating WP:A7 and WP:A9. It is unrelated to notability. You'll notice the CCS bubble on the flowchart leads to some forks that involve placing A7 or A9. Let's move this to Talk:Ashok Attri (diplomat)#Break so we don't clutter this ORCP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae. Unless DreamRimmer is lying on your name, I was under the illusion that I was echoing more or less what you said to him privately: that DreamRimmer is still not ready for adminiship. I can paste the email here if required at some point in the future. Maliner (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Maliner. Please do not disclose the contents of my private emails. Please see WP:POSTEMAIL. Even mentioning that I did not think he was ready in my email two months ago is quite rude. A lot can happen in two months, and I'd like unbiased folks to give an unbiased appraisal here, which is why I have not chimed in with a ready/not ready opinion in this ORCP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae. I am not at all posting it since I respect you. Maliner (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• What's the story with your previous user name? I'm sure you'll get asked about it, hence you might as well be upfront and state why you asked for a rename. Schwede66 20:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• I haven't done much digging (I'm sick at the moment) but I will say that this username is somewhat familiar to me. I've seen some of their CSD noms and I remember them being accurate. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• You seem very knowledgeable in policy, particularly deletion policy. I feel that if you get 1 more GA, you will be ready for rfa. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• 9/10 Editing period - 18 months (assuming you wait 6 months) is long enough for most people. Admin need - You show a good need for the tools with your work in UAA, AIV, etc. Content - This is what a lot of people look for, and Femke's advice about a second GA seems apt. Interaction with editors - I wouldn't expect anyone to have a 100% record here, and a small number of instances of non-perfect interaction shouldn't deter too many voters, especially if it is more than 6 months in the past. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2024 (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.

Tommi1986: March 15 2024

Tommi1986 (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 am posting here in hopes of getting honest feedback on my chances of a successful RfA. I have been an editor on the English Wikipedia since 2018 and in that time my time has been spent mainly with AIV. This is the area I would focus on should I have a successful RfA, mainly using these additional tools to help with the backlog that occurs often at the AIV, UUA and ANEW noticeboards, while continuing my work with antivandalism, for which no additional tools are required. During my time fighting vandalism, I have shown I have the ability to remain civil in disputes, provide feedback and explain policy where needed. I always take a step back to evaluate the situation before commenting (learning from my mistakes as a newbie of WP:BITE and WP:GF).

I would like to also branch out to other areas, such as AfD and AfC, taking guidance from other experienced admins.

Thank you for time in giving me the feedback I require, and will take onboard any concerns or advice given and use this going forward.

Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• How are you with conflict or stressful situations, Tommi? I am looking at an incident from 25 January where you warned a long-term editor for unsourced addition of content. In response, they posted to your talk page telling you you made a mistake and asking for your response. You archived the content of your talk page including that message later the same day. I do not see that you ever responded to them. Being an admin is a very stressful job. You would have to respond to concerns about your actions even when they are raised in a hostile manner (WP:ADMINACCT). Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Usedtobecool, I understand dealing with conflict and dificult situations are a mandatory part of being an admin. Thank you for bringing this up, I can see how the archiving of my talk page may have appeared to ignore the concerns raised by the editor, but assured this was not the case, on this occasion I fail to remember the reasons behind this specific interaction. I am in no way defending this situation and will work hard in the future to ensure this does not happen again. I apologise and can only assure you I believe in open communication between all editors and accountablity. I am now, as I awlays have been, committed to addressing concerns in a timely and respectful manner, even in the face of hostility. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just making sure you know what you'll be getting into. Sounds good. I will try to look at your editing history later and share my feedback if I have something to say that others don't first. Good luck! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I do not think you would pass. No content creation whatsoever as far as I can see, which is a dealbreaker for many people. Very limited deletion experience, and none at all since last June. 95% automated edits in mainspace. Over the last six months, you've averaged only 100 edits per month, which is well below what I'd expect from a candidate focused on anti-vandalism. The incident highlighted by Usedtobecool is also concerning. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your feedback. So, there are some areas to work on, then. I appreciate the feedback. I will read more WP articles on creating content, and I will attempt to get involved with the AfD after reading up on the guidelines. Are there any specific guides or essays you suggest as the best? Or is there anything similar to WP:ADVENTURE that you would recommend that could help expand my knowledge in these areas? Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 15:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

0/10 I took a look at your contributions, and the first thing I saw was edit-warring at Jessica Matten. Indeed, I think you were about one revert away from me considering blocking you. If I'm thinking about blocking a user to prevent disruption, they absolutely should not be an administrator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this was not edit warring, this was reverting of unexplained removal of sourced content which had already been reverted by another editor. Talk page messages were left for the editor in question in relation to these reverts. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 15:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"My edits were right, so I wasn't edit-warring" is one of the oldest cliches in the book. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)