Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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) or run in an admin election 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 or Advice for admin elections candidates. The result of a poll may differ greatly from an actual RfA or election, so before proceeding, you should evaluate your contributions based on the advice there 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 instead 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. ~~~~

Taking Out The Trash: November 2, 2025

Taking Out The Trash (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)

Please see User talk:Taking Out The Trash/sandbox and provide feedback/comments on my draft RFA submission. I was directed to post this notification here, but please note that I have already decided to run either at RFA or Elections, so I'm just looking for feedback on the actual content of what I've written in my sandbox. Please leave comments on the linked page, not here. This is purely a invitational notification. Thanks.

  • Great you've decided to run, but.. I'm going to give feedback about when it might be wise to run as well as feedback on your nomination. RfA is stressful at the best of time, and we've lost editors to !voters being plain mean in the past. Running too early also makes a subsequent RfA/AELECT more tough. First, the nomination: your story about the 2021 accusations of sockpuppetry are a bit weird. It's a sign of not being ready when you say that you haven't broken any rules knowingly. You should understand this policy as an admin candidate enough to know whether you broke the policy as a new editor. Similarly, you should not have "(I think)" in Q3: figure out when this happened. You seem to be attacking another editor in Q3, which you should absolutely not do. There are other signs that it's better to wait and plan this with a nominator. Your AfD match rate is low. Now, you've not done too much AfD wise recently, so maybe your understanding of notability has improved, but you should show that. It is not clear whether you're doing consistent WP:BEFOREs before nominating. Improve your record, and reach out to experienced nominators for advice in maybe 12 months (even if you want to self-nom). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke: Thank you for your comment! I was geniunely trying to avoid giving the appearance of "attacking" another editor by simply stating the facts. But I do understand the possible misconceptions or misunderstandings. What would you suggest as improvements? Should I just state "I was falsely accused of socking but I've buried the hatchet and moved on" and leave it at that? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better, yes. You've so far written mostly about how to avoid conflict. When you start blocking vandals, you can't always avoid conflict, so it might good to expand on how you de-escalate too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some edits that take onboard this feedback. Thanks again. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&oldid=1320140991"