Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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. ~~~~

ToadetteEdit: April 22, 2024

seven days have passed. 10:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

ToadetteEdit (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)

Do not consider my pblock from ANI. Am I ready for adminship (not planning until at least 6mo later) and what do I lack. Will work in XfD boards and UAA, as well as AIV & RFPP Read the advice page multiple times. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 19:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cool you're considering a run, even though it's quite some time away still. Readiness always depends a bit on what you want to help out with. Quite a lot of the toolset is about deletion and notability, and those skills are usually easiest to assess. I see you've got a 90% agreement at AfD, which is good. I'm always looking at the quality and nature of disagreements. Some of the !votes could have been a bit stronger: in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Time Is Gonna Come (2nd nomination); I think you could have guessed a Google Books search would turn things up. For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination), you're statement did not go into that much depth. Ideally, given the BLP issues, a stronger rational was given. More worryingly, in your most recent user talk archive, there are still AfC declines of articles resubmitted by you (but written by others). I expect an admin candidate involved in writing new articles to understand notability better. There is still plenty of time to learn, though. I see you've recently received the NPP reviewer right. The folks there are always happy to help if you're not quite certain. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the positive feedback! ToadetteEdit! 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToadetteEdit: when you change text people have responded to, please strike removed text and underline new text. Otherwise, others seem a bit silly. As if they can't read your text properly. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A side issue that you want to certainly tidy up before any RfA run is your signature, as it does not match your user name. You'd get opposes just for that. Schwede66 20:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the signature. ToadetteEdit! 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that as per the instructions for this poll, it's [t]o request an evaluation of your chances of passing a request for adminship in the next 3 to 6 months. It isn't intended for people to predict how you will build up your skillset and editing record over the next year and a half. For a better indication, please seek advice when you feel more prepared to make a successful request. isaacl (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, I didn't realised that it is intended for editors who are planning an RfA in 3-6mo. ToadetteEdit! 23:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think one of the most important admin traits is recognizing what you do and do not know about a situation and knowing when to ask for help/clarification; no one wants a cowboy admin who takes unilateral action against consensus or who proverbially "shoots first and asks questions later". I think it was unwise for you to jump in at Talk:K. Annamalai#Idea without knowing what led to the topic being placed on the title-blacklist and WP:DEEPER, even though it is described clearly at the top of the talk page. I am worried that if you had adminship at the time, you would have unilaterally overridden community consensus in this circumstance. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    but how? ToadetteEdit! 23:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just be smart when you comment in discussions/disputes/etc., and show good judgement when weighing in; it's something that builds over time as you become more confident with the non-mainspace areas of Wikipedia. I noticed you recently became an AfC and NPP reviewer, these are great areas to hone the type of critical thinking that makes a successful admin, and indeed many admins were previously AfC and NPP reviewers. Curbon7 (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I will take this in mind. ToadetteEdit! 23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Telling people not to consider your p-block would be a mistake at actual RFA. Because they will not be following that instruction and will definitely be considering that. This is just a heads up that you will need to handle that carefully at real RFA. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Cocobb8: May 2, 2024

Cocobb8 (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)


Am I lacking anything for RfA? Experience in XfD, PROD, NPP, AfC, guiding new users and fighting vandalism. Really interested in RfA mainly to help out with CSD, UAA, AFD, blocking vandals. Less so for dispute resolution. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Could you explain why Ottawa-Carleton Educational Space Simulation meets standards for notability? BusterD (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BusterD That's one of the first pages I ever edited with little to no knowledge/understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have come a long way since my first edits in 2023, and looking back at this page would argue that it may not meet notability (tag added!) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you know, we've not had anybody successful with under 8,000 edits in quite a while. You seem to be on the right track, but could definitely use some more experience. You seem responsive to feedback on your talk page, and no red flags in the last few archives. A few things you may want to work on are your WP:edit summaries (you don't always use one), continuing with CSD to master your understanding of it, continue at AfD (40-50 discussion can demonstrate you understand notability well). For instance, with more experience, you could maybe have guessed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellenic Mediterranean University was notable in advance. It's always good to write a GA or a few DYKs (without, you get a handful of opposes). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback, @Femke! Really appreciated. I will work on what you mentioned and wait until I have more experience before seriously considering RfA Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any obvious issues, but the stats seem a bit lacking. Edit count should at least be tripled. CSD, UAA and AFD numbers are too low for someone intending to work in those areas. PPROD Log has more blue than red links. Points for good GA Reviews, Mentor, no bis issues on talk page, no Dramaboard edits. To summarize: You're on the right path, but it's going to take more time. Nobody (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback @1AmNobody24. I agree with you that I need more experience before considering RfA, but I'm glad to hear that I'm not doing anything widely wrong. Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald: May 2, 2024

The Herald (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)


With the new RfA system in place, I want to explore the chances of me passing through the fire. I have been gathering xp in various fronts wherever possible and would like to run for sysop tools for more vandalism management and other clerking jobs at AfD. I'm hoping for a couple of GAs and at least a FA and two FLs before considering the run, even though it's not a criteria. I got a 24 hour block for EW in February, but I have been extremely cautious thereafter and I take that block as an honest mistake and a learning chance. I would like to explore the community opinions. Thanks and happy editing :) — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Why did an admin choose to block you in February? What part of "Advice to Candidates" relates to previous blocks and what advice is provided candidates in that section? BusterD (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a link to the block if anyone wants to read up on it. You want to put more time between your block and an RfA run. Not sure how much time that needs to be. Half a year at least (i.e. July); one year would be on the safe side. Schwede66 01:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm thinking of a 6 months gap at least where I do not cross the 3RR threshold again. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think they'll need to put more than 6 months between this incident and a successful run at RfA, given some issues I found when I looked at the situation closer. I think they may have been well intentioned, but it comes off gatekeep-y (not a word, I know). To be clear, the IP was obviously edit warring as well. But I'm going to make some notes;
  • Feb 3, 17:27 – IP posts on talk page about what they perceive as an issue
  • Feb 3, 18:01 – IP removes content from article. Edit summary: Per talk page
  • Feb 3, 18:06 – Augmented Seventh reverts the IP, restoring the content to the article. Edit summary: Undid removal of sourced information revision 1202884829 by 92.40.212.153 (talk)
  • Feb 3, 18:18 – IP removes content from article. Edit summary: There's a So? tag on it. The relevancy of the statement is questioned! I am removing it. Please don't just revert for the sale of t
  • Feb 3, 18:21 – The Herald reverts the IP, restoring the content to the article. Edit summary: Reverted edit by 92.40.212.153 (talk) to last version by Augmented Seventh
  • Feb 3, 18:25 – IP removes the content from article. Edit summary: Undid revision 1202891431 by The Herald (talk) Stop engaging in edit warring and PLEASE make a statement at the talk page if you don't agree with the change.
  • Feb 3, 18:27 – The Herald reverts the IP, restoring the content to the article. Edit summary: Reverted 1 edit by 92.40.212.153 (talk): Unexplained sourced content removal, removal of maintenance template without resolving the issue
  • Feb 3, 18:28 – IP removes the content from article. Edit summary: Undid revision 1202893438 by The Herald (talk) I deleted the statement BECAUSE it was irrelevant! As stated, PLEASE make an effort to discuss this change in the talk page. It's not helping either of us to edit war.
  • Feb 3, 19:02 – IP posts for the fourth time on the talk page, pinging The Herald when they started a new section for the second time. Tollens had already been communicating with the IP there.
  • Feb 4, 05:23 – The Herald posts on the talk page for the first time
  • Feb 4, 08:48 – The Herald reverts the IP, restoring the content to the article. Edit summary: Restored revision 1185294933 by TheXuitts (talk): Lgv, per talk page. Any change, addition or deletion must be discussed in the talk page for clear consensus
  • Feb 4, 08:53 – IP removes the content from article. Edit summary: Undid revision 1203176484 by The Herald (talk)
  • Feb 4, 09:05 – The Herald reverts the IP, restoring the content to the article. Edit summary: Reverted edit by 92.40.212.157 (talk) to last version by The Herald
Meanwhile... on the IP talk page...
  • Feb 3, 18:18 – The Herald issues level 1 warning to the IP for unexplained removal of content
  • Feb 3, 18:21 – The Herald issues a level 2 warning to the IP for removal of a maintenance template
  • Feb 3, 18:23 – IP asks for further clarification and not to be templated without sufficient clarification
  • Feb 3, 18:23 – IP removes the level 2 warning
  • Feb 3, 18:25 – The Herald restores the level 2 warning
  • Feb 3, 18:25 – The Herald issues a level 3 warning for removal of content on the IP's talk page
  • Feb 3, 18:26 – IP removes all the warnings from The Herald. Edit summary: not required to maintain templates
  • Feb 3, 18:28 – The Herald reverts the IP's removal of the templates
  • Feb 3, 18:28 – The Herald issues a final warning for content blanking on their own user talk page
  • Feb 3, 18:29 – IP replies stating they are not required to maintain templates on their talk page
  • Feb 3, 18:39 – IP removes all warning templates from The Herald again
In addition, there were some AIV comments:
  • Feb 3, 18:27 – You reported the IP to AIV for vandalism after final warning at Al Gore 1988 presidential campaign. In that report, you linked a diff where they beg you to communicate on the talk page and not to revert to simply revert.
  • Feb 3, 18:30 – The IP responds to the AIV report, stating, "That isn't vandalism. This is a Wikipedia:content dispute. I already asked you to make a statement on the talk page, and you haven't done that thus far."
  • Feb 3, – The IP responds to the AIV report again, stating, "Also, one of those "warnings" was for something else, which was me deleting the templates on my talk page, which isn't a rule violation."
  • Feb 3, 18:54 – Izno declined to process the request, agreeing with the IP editor that this looks like a content dispute
I see several issues here that you'd get a lot of flack for at RfA.
  • You reverted the IP editor stating it was unexplained content removal, but they explained why they were (it's fine to disagree)
  • You mention maintenance tag removal, but that maintenance tag was attached to the sentence they removed, meaning it made sense to remove based on the intentions of the edit
  • As such, the level 2 warning for removal of maintenance templates was inappropriate
  • The level 3 warning should not have been issued, per WP:OWNTALK, which also states, "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user;"
  • The level 4 warning never should have happened for the exact same reason
  • You reported the IP to WP:AIV stating that they had committed vandalism after a final warning, but you had only issues a level 3 warning (which was also an improper warning, as mentioned)
  • Even after the report, you issued a level 4 warning on their talk page (after a report to AIV, don't issue more warnings)
  • You did, eventually, communicate on the article's talk page, but the matter wasn't necessarily resolved yet and you went ahead and restored the content anyways. There was no sense of urgency to restore the information given that it wasn't crucial to the understanding or meaning of the article.
  • Your block appeal on your talk page
    • This was clearly a content dispute, not a matter of urgency and reverting vandalism
    • It shows a clear misunderstanding of where WP:3RRNO applies, which @Daniel Quinlan did a good job explaining
    • You failed to acknowledge that this user was not trying to be disruptive anymore than you were trying to
    • You mention you were assuming good faith, but it really didn't feel it in this case, not that you were assuming bad faith, but communication earlier would have stopped this from going further
This was a very poorly handled situation by you (The Herald), and you'll definitely need to put time between you and it. It's not going to be something that people can always hold against you, but it highlights areas where there's room to grow in your understanding of our relevant policies. Additionally, I think you may need a bit of work communicating considering how long it took you to go to the article's talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Josh for that detailed analysis. It helped a lot and now, looking back, I understand how I could have acted differently. Its is very informative and thanks again for going into the lengths for such a detailed analysis. I'll remember it in future instances :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked this hard because, at a precursory glance and a limited amount of interactions, I wasn't aware of any issues. What matters now though is how you move forward. Things happen, we all make mistakes and have to learn and start somewhere, but if you keep at it and work for a while then maybe in a year we could see you passing. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&oldid=1222067196"