Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

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. [[User:Place holder|Place holder]] ([[User talk:Place holder|talk]]) 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Shoo Mila: October 9, 2021

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.

---

Shoo Mila (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)

• ...Clean record of Editing...Shoo Mila (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• (2/10) Thanks for your good intentions and putting yourself forward, but you lack experience. Might be a great editor and a fine contributor but we have no way of knowing based on 76 edits. Come back after about 6k-10k edits and we'll have something to discuss. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• (0/10) With less than two weeks of editing and less than 100 edits, there's nothing upon which to judge your preparedness to be an administrator. You have no experience at all in admin related subjects. It is also quite clear you've not read the instructions on this page and in the notices above the edit window when you added your entry here. Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh in any of this, but there is zero chance whatsoever of you becoming an admin within the next six months. Please, read the instructions and consider withdrawing this request. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• (0/10) - You've got less than 100 edits and have only been editing since last month; you'll need to build up quite a bit more experience before running. Hog Farm _Talk 20:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

Theleekycauldron: October 15, 2021

Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · previous RfAs)

Hi there! Any and all feedback is appreciated—most of my experience comes from DYK and content creation, with more minor participation in the Articles for Deletion process. Thank you in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think Cwmhiraeth basically gave you some good advice. I've seen you around, particularly at the DYK queues, and you certainly have the right mix of content and administrative skills to use the tools responsibly. The AfD stats are alright; I do see a bunch of nominations that you started, other people showed notability, and you withdrew, but that's not really a problem in my view as it shows you can admit when you're wrong and bow to consensus. My concern is over maturity, such as some of the comments at AfDs such as those at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CallMeCarson (3rd nomination), and the title of this will not win you friends. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)