Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

"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) 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. ~~~~

Jdcomix: August 10, 2024

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.

---

Jdcomix (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 have had second thoughts about possibly wanting to do an RfA within the next year or so. My main focuses as an admin would be countervandalism/sock puppetry, CSD monitoring, and new page patrolling, but I would be comfortable learning how to do other tasks. Content creation is something that I don't have a ton of time for, but maintenance and counter vandalism would be something that I could take care of easily as an admin. I know the RfA process is changing soon, so I wanted to evaluate my chances now. Jdcomix (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You're at least a year away because you've only been active since June and there's a sort of unofficial expectation of somewhere around 18 months of experience as a rough minimum. Prior to that, it was 3 years with almost no edits in most months. The last time I see consistent activity is 2017. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that is what I figured. I might re-evaluate in a year or so to see how I feel about it. Just wanted to find areas to improve at, which is why I'm here. Jdcomix (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Given how much emphasis is being put on content creation, could you point to your best contributions? I'm asking because the usual tools don't show you as the creator if you started with an existing redirect. What does show is you mostly setting up redirects. If there's not much to show, then getting some content creation under your belt would be most beneficial for an RfA. Schwede66 01:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I helped get some tornado articles started for the 2011 Super Outbreak a while ago, but that was a long time ago. I agree, I will have to start creating more content before any RfA. Jdcomix (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking to run, the two things you need to focus on are consistent activity and content. Like Josh said, most people look for around 18 months of regular activity, without substantial breaks in between. Content is also a must: at least a couple GAs, FAs, etc. Some people can get away without significant content creation, but generally they have some technical experience (for example, Pppery). —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

(0/10) <-- That 0/10 is what you will get in the future if, and I mean this will all kindness and not to dissuade you, you do not carefully read instructions and advice. In the second line of this page, it says "To seek feedback on what you can do to improve your contributions to Wikipedia..." and then when you go to edit this page, there's an edit notice that says "This page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors". Requesting input here on this page when you are, by your own admission, a year or more away from a potential RfA run is not correct. So, please take this 0/10 to heart; read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, and Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship. !Voters at RfA will absolutely savage you for failure to read instructions. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Jdcomix (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2024 (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.