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. ~~~~

EF5: November 5, 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.

---

EF5 (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)

Since several editors with lower edit counts (then past successful RfA candidates) passed the AELECT process, I think I have a little bit more confidence. I would love to help out at UAA and AIV, since the UAA board doesn't always seem to get enough love, and sometimes usernames are there for over an hour. I mainly work with content creation, but have recently been working with AfC, NPP and helping out wherever needed. A note about my XfD stats; I recently went through a rename, and for some reason XTools only shows AfDs filed by me, not all of the ones I've voted on. I'm open to criticism, since that's something that I'll obviously have to come to terms with during an RFA. Not planning on using the AELECT process if it's kept. EF⁵ 16:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• 1/10: Note that, per their userpage, they were previously named Sir MemeGod (looks like until just yesterday).

• You're on your 10th month of active editing, which isn't enough tenure to demonstrate the experience required
• If you're going to list NPP work as part of your resume, you'll need xtools to show more than 24 patrols (which were mostly between October 29 and October 31, immediately after you received your trial for the perm)
• You have 28 edits to WP:AIV, an area you state you want to help out at, which is way too few if you intend to run
• Similarly, you have 7 edits to WP:UAA
• At least you have 4 GAs, all of which are articles that you started
• Your CSD log has a total of 6 entries, two of which were incorrect
• You're already on your 4th username, which will give some people pause

I'm going to say way WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m on mobile (and will be throughout the night), can someone close? Josh pointed out some really good things, which I need to work on before continuing along, and as a result of that I clearly won’t be at RfA soon (which eliminates the need for a RFAPOLL). :) EF⁵ 22:18, 5 November 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.

Cyberwolf: November 5, 2024

Cyberwolf (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)

I have been on edge for a while about if I should try again as I really only maintain Wikipedia but I have built reputation around CSDs AIVs. bluntness on my issues is appreciated and I edited this for grammar.

•Cyberwolf•talk? 19:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be really blunt: you're going to need to consistently communicate with proper grammar in order to convince RFA/EFA participants that you are mature and sensible. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no need to apologize I appreciate someone being blunt. •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You'd be told WP:Too soon. Your edit count is too low. There is an expectation that admin candidates know how to write content and if editors looks at the state of the two articles that you have started, they'd be immediately turned off. I haven't looked at your admin-adjacent activities. As an admin, communication is key. Apart from what asilvering has mentioned above, your edit summary use should be as close to 100% as possible. You'd get opposes for your current low use of edit summaries. Schwede66 20:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

A quick tip on edit summaries: you can go to prefereces, editing and select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Your patrolling work that I've seen is good. I agree with Asilvering that a (prospective) admin should make a point of communicating in full sentences with proper grammar. Most importantly, I'd like to see more depth to your contributions if you're interested in being an admin. Patrolling for problematic edits and mashing the buttons for revert/warn/report is good and valuable work but tells me little about your understanding of core policy or how you would deal with disputes about your admin actions and doesn't show experience handling the nuanced situations that admins are often asked to evaluate. Content writing writing is also good for demonstrating these things, and it gives you somewhere to turn when the project space does your head in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)