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. ~~~~

Rich Smith: October 15, 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.

---

Rich Smith (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 withdrew an RfA a good while ago after a WP:TOOSOON consensus. I'm looking to see what the community thinks now. Yes, I don't do much article writing, but hopefully my other work deems it good.

• Some basic stats: ✅ >8,000 edits. ✅ Account age >2 years. ✅ >1000 edits in last year. ❌ Good article. ✅ No blocks ever. ✅ User talk page has archiving, and all significant messages are archived rather than deleted.
  What do you anticipate your answer to question 1 being? What is your "need for the tools"? Will you end up being a technical admin, content creation admin, backlog crusher admin focusing on DYK, CCI, NPP, etc? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

More a technical admin, along with dealing with CSDs focusing on copyvios and getting rid of shoddy drafts. Also, I would like to "be the change you wish to see" by decreasing time between a report at AIV and action being taken, sometimes reports hang around for too long - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 09:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rich Smith I have a positive impression about you and will support you if you have your RFA. Thanks for your interest. Maliner (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could elaborate or clarify what you mean by shoddy drafts @Rich Smith? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Blantant advertising/promotion, total copyright violations, patent nonesense. Stuff that wastes everyones time at AfC - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 12:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Consider being more clear in your approach and wording when stating your intentions for the tools @Rich Smith. There are a lot of drafts that don't meet our CSD definitions of patent nonsense that a lot of folks still nominate as such (I don't know your definition, just stating this generally). There are also a lot of drafts that waste peoples' time at AfC (I've reviewed plenty myself) that actually aren't CSD worthy that we, essentially, have to wait out the clock on (G13 deletions). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Seconding josh here, I think drafts are way over-nominated at CSD. Any untouched draft will be G13'd eventually, and nominations of most other CSD criteria waste more admin/reporter time than they save in AfC reviewer time. If it's wasting AfC time the problem is usually tendentious resubmission of something non-notable, and a lack of notability isn't grounds for speedy deletion. I'd be hesitant to support someone who expressed a desire to "get rid of shoddy drafts". I suspect that many of the RFA voters who tend towards "anti-deletionist" tendencies would worry about that, especially in light of your relatively infrequent AfD participation. Your stats are fine, but you rarely participate except as nominator, and that might give people pause. -- asilvering (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about your basic stats reporting. You have 25,000 edits and your account is from 2010, with you running for admin a year later (yes, that was a bit premature). Schwede66 08:40, 15 October 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.