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

Spy-cicle: October 10, 2024

Spy-cicle (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)

Hi, I considered RfA sometime ago but did not think I had enough experience. I was wondering if people generally think I have enough experience to become an Admin now after almost 11k edits and 6 years among the various more detailed aspects that I have involved myself across Wikipedia. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 01:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10k edits and 5 GAs is great. I think your current activity is too low though. According to XTools, you've averaged 24 edits a month over the last 2 years. I think most RFA participants would like to see at least 100–200 edits a month over the course of at least 6 months, or something similar. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that's understandable, thanks for the candid advice. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 02:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the numbers and many of the folks in the admin elections right now also have low activity. I don't think they'd pass in a normal RFA for that reason, but with admin elections, who knows. Might be worth a shot. Up to you! –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I see. I suppose if I am in line with others who have also nominated for admin, might give it a go myself. Thank you very much for the further infomation. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that people who wouldn't pass in a normal RFA will also not pass in the election process. I don't say that to discourage you, so much as to say that you should only sign up for the elections if you feel pretty ok about failing. My hope is that a fail at the elections won't be seen as a serious strike against anybody who then opts to try via traditional RFA, but no one can predict that yet. -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, left out part of what I wanted to say: it is effectively a certainty that some candidates will not be elected, so if you fail, you'll at least have company, which is something you can't usually say for RFA. At least in my opinion, that seems less harsh. -- asilvering (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would largely agree here. I've had a look at your AfD record, which looks good, and at your requests for page protections (usually honoured, but at slightly lower level than requested). Experience-wise that seems fine. Activity levels may be a bit low here, which could give concerns around keeping up with changes. Are you planning to pick up more intense editing again soon? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec a few hours ago) I've had a look at a few stats (AfD votes, edit summary usage, page moves) and generally like what I found. As an admin, you need to be transparent and edit summary use should be as close to 100% as you can get it. Good AfD record. You do move pages. Those activities can benefit from having the tools. I agree that activity is on the low side. But I also think that Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates is a great opportunity; there are so many candidates that anything can happen. I’d be happy to work with you on the 3 answers if you like. There’s not much time until nominations close, though. Schwede 66 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cremastra: October 11, 2024

Cremastra (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)

If I were to, say, nominate myself at the new experimental WP:AELECT, how would I fare? (Just a note: my CSD log can be ignored because I a) mostly use PageCuration to do that and b) disabled that feature on Twinkle.) Cremastra (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I don't think anyone can predict election outcomes yet. All we know is that candidates are likely to receive much less support via this method than by RFA. -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we can even know that. Surely, we'll likely see fewer >95% support percentages, but pile-on opposes over minor issues are less likely without group effects. Will give some actual feedback tomorrow. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're one of the handful of people I've been thinking about giving an WP:AWOT. My main concern is that your activity fell off a little bit toward the start of the year, but it's not an extreme drop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that your chances might be better than at a normal RFA given the wave of noms and restricted discussion/question period: The results for your AFD !votes/noms have been close to a coin flip this year, your only accurate Keep vote ever has been for an April Fools joke, and your only other Keep vote stated "I haven't fully investigated the article, but I would agree with this statement. So leaning keep", which is not great. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your username change makes your AfD stats look worse than they are, with a 74% similarity percentage if you include both usernames. That said, if you want to help out in deletion processes, it may be worth joining a few more discussions with in-depth analysis and see if you can be the one that delves out the missing sources. When you nominate, it may be worthwhile consistently noting what BEFORE steps you took, so that others can more effectively search in more specialist collections. (For accessibility, keep in mind WP:NOHIDE for your source assessment tables). Most requests for page protection are honouned, and the few times it led to a block rather than a protection, both options had merit (there were at least 2 accounts/IPs). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]