Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll
 | Please read the really simple guide to requests for adminship and the advice for RfA candidates or advice for admin elections candidates page before you add your name to this list, as otherwise you might be wasting your own and everyone else's time. Self-evaluation is very important. |
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. ~~~~
| Start a poll on your chances of passing RfA |
Fade258: November 28, 2025
Fade258 (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)
Hi all. I don't want to bother anyone for this. I have certainly thought about an AELECT3. So, I am curious to see how the community views me today as compared to last couple of years when I was blocked for sock and comparing my edits to then and from my last optional poll, which I asked on 29 May 2025. Thank You ! Fade258 (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! With a warning for copyright violations this month still, I don't think you have a chance at being elected this time around. I'd like to see at least a year of editing after a serious warning like that. There's loads of opportunities for growth. For instance, the most valuable !votes in an AfD explain how you've assessed notability. Did you search for sources and where? Did you analyse the existing sources using a source table? Your contributions at AfD are quite short. Think quality over quantity. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Femke. Thank you and appreciated for your honest and strong feedback. I accept and understand the concern regarding the recent copyright warning and agree that I need a longer period of edit to improve. Regarding AfD work, I will focus on quality rather than quantity. I honestly tell you that, till now I didn't use source assessment table in assessing notability and even my !votes is short but before my !votes every time I did BEFORE search. Can you tell me is there any other area's where I need to improve? Hope for positive response. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Fade258, if you've done a search, you should tell us what you searched, if you came up empty. A simple "doesn't meet GNG" doesn't help closers at all, but "I get absolutely zero hits for this topic in JSTOR and the 15 google scholar results are all false positives" is very helpful both to closers and other participants. Remember that AfD is a discussion, not a vote - we're trying to figure out, collectively, whether the article should exist or not. -- asilvering (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering. Thanks for the feedback. I will try to give indication of my search from onwards. Fade258 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Fade258, if you've done a search, you should tell us what you searched, if you came up empty. A simple "doesn't meet GNG" doesn't help closers at all, but "I get absolutely zero hits for this topic in JSTOR and the 15 google scholar results are all false positives" is very helpful both to closers and other participants. Remember that AfD is a discussion, not a vote - we're trying to figure out, collectively, whether the article should exist or not. -- asilvering (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Femke. Thank you and appreciated for your honest and strong feedback. I accept and understand the concern regarding the recent copyright warning and agree that I need a longer period of edit to improve. Regarding AfD work, I will focus on quality rather than quantity. I honestly tell you that, till now I didn't use source assessment table in assessing notability and even my !votes is short but before my !votes every time I did BEFORE search. Can you tell me is there any other area's where I need to improve? Hope for positive response. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- I broadly agree with Femke. On AfD, you do not need to use source assessment tables, but some indication that you've searched for sources is always good. I notice that you almost exclusively use boilerplate !votes (e.g. all of your !votes to delete look exactly the same) and also that you lean heavily, almost exclusively towards !voting "delete" or "redirect". Neither of those things is necessarily an issue, but they could be indicative of a lack of due diligence in your assessment of articles up for deletion. Since you are looking for specific, actionable feedback (a very good thing!), could you please tell me which article you think best showcases your content work? Toadspike [Talk] 15:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Toadspike. Thank you for your helpful feedback! I understand the concern raised by Femke and You about my AfD !votes and will try to improve it by adding descriptive or clearer reasoning. Regarding content work, I would like to highlight Hobsonia florida article. I did work on it with AxonsArachnida. Beside it, I had created a small number of articles but it is mostly a short. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hobsonia florida looks solid, though the fact that four separate instances of revision deletion had to be carried out to hide copyright violations is troubling. Since you seem to have learned from your mistakes, I suggest writing another solid article that you can point to in your RfA as evidence of your content work without this worrying history. Toadspike [Talk] 09:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. Sure, I will try to create good article in coming days. Fade258 (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hobsonia florida looks solid, though the fact that four separate instances of revision deletion had to be carried out to hide copyright violations is troubling. Since you seem to have learned from your mistakes, I suggest writing another solid article that you can point to in your RfA as evidence of your content work without this worrying history. Toadspike [Talk] 09:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Toadspike. Thank you for your helpful feedback! I understand the concern raised by Femke and You about my AfD !votes and will try to improve it by adding descriptive or clearer reasoning. Regarding content work, I would like to highlight Hobsonia florida article. I did work on it with AxonsArachnida. Beside it, I had created a small number of articles but it is mostly a short. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
History6042: November 29, 2025
History6042 (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)
I am thinking about running for AELECT3, I am not sure that I would be supported however, here are some reasons why: I have slightly less than 10,000 edits, and that I was told that I made a mistake with copyright a few months ago, the issue was that I translated a source then closely paraphrased it, which I thought was okay but I was told otherwise. The other issue is that I only have 50% edit summary usage. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Those are all very good reasons not to run at this time. In any event, my strong advice is not to run without a nominator. Even otherwise promising candidates have faltered without admin nominators - partly because it helps to have the introduction from someone who's already known and trusted, but imo equally or more importantly because an alert nominator will notice any issues and be there to offer advice. -- asilvering (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Are you aware of the setting in your preferences to warn when not using an edit summary? That way, you can reach close to 100% easily. Like asilvering, I suggest you don't run yet with a recent copyvio warning. You're showing decent work at AfD, but it would help other discussants and closers if you expand more on your argument. For instance, you found the sources at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gunnar_Sandborg that led to a keep, but you could have concisely described them rather than just linking. Finally, your signature and user page are hard to read and not accessible. Please check WP:COLOR for colour combinations that do work. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- I will keep the AFD comments in mind, I fixed my user page and signature, and I turned on the setting to war about edit summaries, thank you. @Femke History6042 😊 (Contact me) 20:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)