Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Archive index

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

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. ~~~~

Start a poll on your chances of passing RfA

Jlwoodwa: November 18, 2024

Jlwoodwa (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 enough experience with some admin areas that I'm confident that I could correctly handle many reports there. More importantly, I'm also confident that I can identify which reports I'm capable of handling correctly. Roughly in descending order:

WP:UAA, particularly promotional usernames (hard-block "User:FooCorp" if they've promoted FooCorp, soft-block instead for non-profit organizations, just warn users who haven't made promotional edits, and keep in mind that "User:Mark at WidgetFactory" doesn't violate the username policy)
WP:AIV, only if the edits are clearly vandalism or spam, narrowly construed
- Rangeblocks, of which I've calculated and suggested a few (if the same vandalism/disruption occurs from multiple IPs in a range, as long as collateral damage would be minimal)
- I've reported vandalbots before, and they can make a hundred edits between the report and getting blocked; it would be nice to be able to block them immediately myself.
WP:CSD, in the more obvious cases
- I've requested many {{db-move}}s, and it would be nice to be able to move them myself – it's hard to keep track and come back later for post-move cleanup, especially if it takes over a day.
  Yes, I can do round-robin moves, but that's just the wrong tool for the job when the target is a redirect whose sole edit after creation is from an A2R bot.
WP:RFPP, again only if the edits are clearly vandalism or spam (only protect if it's from enough accounts that blocks are ineffective; start with briefer protection and see if vandalism persists after it expires)
WP:ERRORS, where uncontroversial spelling/grammar fixes are usually handled promptly, but I do come across unresolved requests sometimes and wish I could fix them

I also think I've demonstrated that I can communicate well, both at the help desk/Teahouse and in disagreements. I intend to start an RfA when my off-wiki schedule best accommodates it, and I'd like to hear what other editors think of my chances there.

I've seen you around and I've been wondering if you'd be interested, which I hope you take as a good sign. But I'd really hesitate to tell you to go for it just yet. In particular, I don't see anything that will satisfy the "admins should write content" bloc. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No concerns, but the only concern is the tenure. Editing for a year and a half will not satisfy some participants who often support candidates who have a 2 year tenure. As said above, most do not care about content editing unless there is a setious problem, which I bet you don't, but you do not have a good article as far as I know. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not looked in detail, but your user page can be made more welcoming by telling us a bit about your Wikipedia activities and your talk page can benefit from setting up automatic archiving to maintain accessibility. With 72,000 edits, I'm not concerned about tenure; there are a few people that ask for 2 years, but often 18 months is sufficient. For content writing, I've seen you understand the basics from your GA review, and if you don't like writing yourself, you could build up more reviews demonstrating content experience. Feel free to email for more in-depth advice. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]