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

Should I become an admin? – ILike Leavanny: December 23, 2024

Advice has been provided. isaacl (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I am an experienced editor, as I have been using previous websites like Fandom for a long time and I understand how things work. Just, I am not editing frequently on here, and I don't what else I would do as an admin, other than try protecting Wikipedia from vandals or fixing typos…and providing information, that's it. Though I think I usually am too busy to go walk to Blackburn Park here in Brookhaven, even though I live on the opposite side of the road of it (just I hate walking), make a page for Blackburn, and provide as much current info as I can, but I can do that, just I probably would never be in the mood to do that. I don't know too-too much about Blackburn's history, but I'm very familiar with it.

What do you guys think? Would I make a good admin?

Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 05:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia admin generally have years and tens of thousands of edits, but more importantly have a solid understanding of policy.

If you wouldn't be in the mood to create a single article, there wouldn't be much of a mood to give you the advanced permission. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add, with 105 edits in the 10 months since you joined and a quarter of those consisting of you adding to the forest of userboxes on your page, your chances of becoming admin are currently zero and won't improve unless you start editing more regularly. An unofficial minimum would probably be something like 10k edits over at least 2 years with regular edits every month. People also like to see some content, doesn't have to necessarily be your own articles, could involve adding reliably sourced content to existing articles. Valenciano (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an expectation that admins read material that's relevant to them. At the top of this page, there is a box with text that starts with Please read ... It's obvious that you didn't do that. It would be good if you got into the habit of reading relevant info. Schwede 66 09:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (-1/10) This is an unserious request from an account not currently permitted to even !vote for admin, much less run. Such unserious requests are disruptive. This discussion should be speedily hatted and archived. BusterD (talk) 14:33, 23 December 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.

Vanderwaalforces: December 23, 2024

Vanderwaalforces (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 am seeking feedback from the community on my likelihood of passing an RfA in 6 months or so. I am currently comfortable working in several areas of the project; these areas include WP:UAA, WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:NPP, WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:AFC and several others. Also, with the help of several other users (admins and non-admins), I recently started working on unattributed translations, copyright violations and close paraphrasing. I have also written a handful of good articles from scratch and improved one that I did not create to the same status. I also improved two other articles to the featured list status. These are available from my xtools and userpage too. Happy to receive your feedback! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic stats: ✅ >7,700 edits. ❌ Account age >2 years. ✅ >1000 edits in last year. ✅ Good article. ✅ No blocks in past 5 years. ✅ User talk page has archiving, and all significant messages are archived rather than deleted.
If your biggest problem is that your account is only 1.5 years old instead of 2 years old, that's pretty good. I think you'd probably pass right now as long as no temperament problems are found and you answer the questions well. Good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae Thank you so much for the feedback! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a good look through your contributions and there are a few things that worry me, such as: e.g. Talk:Udagbedo/GA1, from 4 months ago. The article contained a few instances of close paraphrasing, issues with text-source integrity and a citation to a black-listed source. Being able to accurately reflect sources is a skill important for a lot of admin work (where you have to accurately summarize people's comments, for instance). This combined with [1] (patrolling apparently obvious copyvio), and a few other example Clovermoss showed on your talk page in September. After problems are identified, I believe voters at RfA want to have a slightly longer period of problemless editing to show you've improved. It's good you're working on copyvio and CLOP now, to strengthen your understanding there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke Thank you so much for giving my contributions a good look. Yeah, I can clearly remember that particular GA nom and fully acknowledge Thebiguglyalien’s concerns. The article was still a work-in-progress for GA, I wasn’t aware I had nominated it. I still have plans of reworking that article though, there must have been a mix up with my sources. I also fully acknowledge the copyvio concerns that were brought up back then. I doubt that has ever happened again since then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glitches can of course happen, but even if you weren't yet ready to GA nom, text written by you should not have issues with source-text integrity. Reworking old articles with issues is a good step forward to show you have improved. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Novem's analysis of your tenure, but I want to note that you will need a convincing answer to this situation. I looked into it a little, as did others, and nobody found actionable evidence against you, but it will raise concerns. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As the editor who raised concerns in that discussion, I had not noticed as many problems in Vanderwaalforces' content work as of late; my review of their recent failed FAC nomination did IIRC expose a few issues with promotional language and undue weight. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 Your comment is well acknowledged and appreciated. Thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (10/10) Eagerly waiting for their RFA. An excellent editor, and they will do well with a mop. But kindly consider the feedback provided by others for a smoother RFA ride. Maliner (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will, @Maliner. Thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Net-positive. I don't see someone who is eager for the mop instead, the mop is eager to have him. One thing I like about VF is his courageous way of enduring criticism. Your RFA may likely draw a bit controversy but never like it was stated. Remember to apply some effort to those little mistakes pointed out by Josh and Clovermoss, even though I don't expect one to be perfect. I am eternally supporting.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Very well appreciated, thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]