Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

This is an optional polling page available for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges in the near future. Other experienced editors will give feedback and their best estimate of how the wider community may gauge the applicant. Note that the actual results for a submitted Request for Adminship (RfA) may differ greatly and opinions given here may be based on only a cursory assessment (see a summary of the RfAs for past poll subjects for historical information).

Disclaimer: Although starting a poll here about your odds of passing an RfA can help you determine if you're ready, nothing can replace reading advice pages such as Advice for RfA candidates and gauging your contributions relative to recent candidacies, both successful and failed. If responders indicate that you would likely pass an RfA, you are still strongly encouraged to seek a more in-depth examination into your editing history to be sure.

This page is not intended to provide general reviews of editors. If you are seeking general feedback on what you can do to improve your contributions to Wikipedia, contact a friendly, experienced editor on the editor's talk page and request a review of your work, or a recommended reviewer.

Instructions

Potential candidates

To request an evaluation of your chances of passing a request for adminship in the near future, add your name below and wait for feedback. Please read Wikipedia:Not now before adding your name to this list.

Responders

Responders, please provide a number from 0 to 10 (zero being the lowest and and ten being the highest chance) representing your estimate of the potential candidate's likelihood of passing an RfA. Note this number is not your own personal rating of the editor, but a prediction of whether or not the candidate would succeed in requesting administrative privileges. You can opt to accompany your score with a short comment; please leave any detailed feedback on the user's talk page. A helper script is available that allows one-click rating.

If you see a candidate receiving a favourable response, consider offering an in-depth review and possible nomination offer.

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)

Non-dropframe: February 9, 2017

Non-dropframe (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)

Hello! This candidate poll is my very first foray into the (potential) RfA world. But I've been around for 9 years so by no means do I expect punches to be pulled. Basically what I'm hoping for is feedback regarding "holes" in my Wikipedian resume. I know, for example, that I have very limited content creation experience. This has been pointed out to me as a potential RfA hurtle. I'll also point out that my contributions have some pretty significant time gaps. Pointing out any other issues you notice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance, —Non-Dropframe _talk 19:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• 4/10 Your absence from 2012 through 2014 might come up. And yeah you've created three articles unless I'm mis-counting, one of which is still a stub, so that might be an issue for some reviewers. Another issue will be the understanding/correct application of speedy deletion, considering light creation history plus warnings from a senior admin here (2009) and here (2015). Right now I'm going to say 4/10 because AfD has been kind lately and you have not been blocked, and the only case I see you named at in ANI was without merit. - Brianhe (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your candid feedback. I'd like to think that a warning from 8 years ago wouldn't be too detrimental to my success, having always taken such criticism to heart and appropriately amended my practices. Again, I genuinely appreciate your comments! —Non-Dropframe _talk 22:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• 5/10: The inactivity issue give me pause, and also a majority of edits are automated. I would recommend you wait another 6 months before considering an RFA. (might time to remove the I wanna be an admin ubox?) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10: I don't think this edit count monthly profile will be met with much enthusiasm by the RfA crowd. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• 3/10: the fact that you had significant activity in only two months of 2016 (and seven months of 2015), with lengthy absences before and after, is enough to decisively sink any nomination. If you have at least a few hundred edits in every month of 2017 and can assure people of your intention to continue such regular editing, you could stand a chance in 2018, but I wouldn't try before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb: February 10, 2017

Headbomb (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 · previous RfAs)

I'm not really planning on running for admin, since I don't really need the tools (at least in as much as I'm usually patient enough that admins will eventually get to my db-move requests, or whatever it is I want to get done) and have zero desire to get involved in behavior policing or the dramaboards in an admin capacity, but I'm kinda curious to see what the feeling would be if I decided to run to get access to a couple more tools that'd make some maintenance easier, or review deleted some old article for salvageable content that could be merged into other articles. If support is high enough, I might let that convince me it's worth running, but it's mostly a hypothetical for now.

I've got a few hats already (filemover, templateeditor, WP:BAG member). I had an editfilter or accountcreator (can't remember which) rights at one point I believe, but I'm not sure where that's gone. I think it was mostly for technical reasons related to Wikipedia:Books, I forget what exactly I needed it for, or why exactly it's gone (probably lack of use). Some of my content work is given here, but that is mostly limited to pages I've created. I've got 1 FL List of baryons, 1 FA Quark, and 1 FP (File:Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map edit.jpg), 7 DYK (see user page for list), and I'm currently working on getting a DYK and GA (and eventually FA) out of bouncing ball. Some content work I've done is more on the "organizational level" and had a big hand in crafting WP:NASTRO which set up the groundwork to clean up the asteroid mess, and I've likewise laid the groundwork to create, categorize, and create redirects for everything in Category:Isotopes via bots. I've also touched WP:JWG, WP:NJOURNALS, WP:BOTPOL, and probably a dozen others policies or guides in ways I can't remember. I even got a namespace created (Book:). Also wrote/got interviewed for a couple of WP:Signpost articles (e.g. "The Science Hall of Fame").

I do lots of behind the scenes stuff, and came up with stuff like WP:AALERTS, WP:JCW and User:JL-Bot/Project content (although I take none of the credit for coding). I do lots of cross-project collaboration between say WP:JOURNALS and other projects like WP:FUNGI to improve our coverage of academic journals. I also run 3 bots (2 coded by me, User:Bibcode Bot, User:CitationCleanerBot), but my coding skills are blergh so they're currently inactive while I figure out how to revive them. The 3rd (User:AAlertBot) is coded by User:Hellknowz.

With some 150K+ edits, it's impossible to not have ruffled some feathers over the years, or to have had the occasional bad day, but I don't think anyone could accuse me of WP:NOTHERE or to be in danger of abusing the tools. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think you would coast through RfA. Please strongly consider running, I think you would be an even bigger asset to the community as an admin. Jenks24 (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  10/10: Great work! Strongly just go for it. Good luck at RFA! ;) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Changing score to 6/10: Not everyone need the admin tools but I'll advise you not to say "I don't need the tools" before considering an another RFA. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10 You've been around easily long enough to understand what admins do, the main concern is the attitude at ANI and elsewhere. 5 years ago you'd have got a lot of civility-based opposes, but you've dialled that back a lot in the past few years. It does still crop up in User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2016/October#I am displeased, so I'd expect a bunch of "candidate was mean to me waaah" opposes to crawl out of the woodwork. The edit-warring at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) doesn't help either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Although I'd probably advise against saying, I don't really need the tools, eh  ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think that's an issue, I'd rather have somebody who could make use of the tools if people felt it was useful for them to have them, as opposed to somebody putting the "I wanna be an admin some day" box on their userpage (which more often than not is a warning sign). To be honest, I think if Headbomb ran for RfA today, I'd expect a similar trajectory to Montanabw. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

'Crawl out of the woodwork'? Something else to advise against saying on the big day perhaps. I expect you mean 'Good faith opposes' :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I'd also argue that anyone that needs tools to get anything done hasn't been around enough, or needs to work on their patience. I don't have revdel rights, but that doesn't prevent me from dealing with things like User talk:Headbomb#You can remove comments with swearwords from a vandal?. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• 4/10 Good work so far, and you have plenty of experience... BUT saying you don't really need the tools puts me off slightly. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • My personal feeling, having observed the process these past few months, has been that the majority of current RfA voters consider WP:NONEED to be a fairly weak argument for opposing a candidate, so I don't think this will significantly drop Headbomb's chances on its own. Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10 I think there is a fair chance that an RfA might succeed and I note that the score by Class455 probably reflects his own opinion of the candidate rather than an estimated possibility of a pass. Headbomb has certainly ruffled some feathers over the years, including mine, and for a long time I was of the opinion that his temperament alone would make him unsuitable for adminship - Ritchie333's comments above are not without importance, and woodwork-crawlers are also very much a reality at RfA. However, others who have more closely followed his career claim this to have become milder. Headbomb is certainly a highly dynamic and much needed kind of editor and in his work he would certainly come accross the occasions where the admin tools would prove useful, so I am left wondering why he personally does not feel a distinct need for them. Any attempt at RfA would need very carefully worded nominations from strong nominators, and the answers to the set questions would have to be the result of very careful penning, and stepping back from what I anticipate may be a natural tendency to riposte against some of the inevitable opposition. Headbomb can go for RfA any time he likes, there will be no 'take your time and consider running in a year's time' - certainly not from voters who actually know what RfA is all about (and many of them clearly don't). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• 6/10 Like Kudpung and Ritchie333 said…You’ve ruffled some feathers and if my experience is any indication, they will all come out of the woodwork at the RfA. That said, if at first you don’t succeed, try again. It might take two runs, but if you stay above the fray and act like an admin during the RfA and thereafter, the second time may be successful. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• 7/10 – I've seen you around and have a positive impression of your work. Better not emphasize that you don't need the tools. People will probably accept that a person with 160,000 edits may occasionally run into a need for tools. You have stated "have zero desire to get involved in behavior policing or the dramaboards in an admin capacity", but this does take away some of the case for your adminship. It wouldn't be very risky to take on the task of blocking obvious vandals that you might run across while doing your other work. Also, handling requests for protection is unlikely to get anyone in trouble and is usually not hard to do. People might want to know your record on speedy deletion nominations and it wouldn't be difficult to enable logging for that. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Oh, obvious vandals and RFPP sure (I already take care of a couple edit requests on protected templates), but it's fairly rare I run into those in my every day routine. I'm just not interested in doing mediation or policing edit wars, or be an WP:AN regular. How exactly do you "enable logging for speedy deletions?" Is there an adminbot that can dig through my deleted contributions? I can't recall any instance in the last 5 years that a db (or PROD) request I've made has been declined, possibly longer. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a good example since I don't have a CSD log, but see WP:TW/DOC for how to turn it on. Twinkle is now a gadget and just needs you to enable it in Special:Preferences. From there I think there is a further step to create the CSD log. The template used here in the ORCP poll has an entry called 'CSD log' (if you have one set up) so many of the admin hopefuls who post here already have it on. This won't report on your previous speedies, only any new speedy tags may apply from now on. This might seem like busy work if you don't use speedy much, but the log is used by RfA voters to get a view of someone's judgment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Bleeerghhh Twinkle. But I if it's a gadget now I suppose it's not tooo much of a big deal. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sanjev Rajaram: February 18, 2017

Sanjev Rajaram (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)

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.

---

Yo yo Sanjev here and I'm running for adminship. I am a rather new editor with fewer edits than most people have but I'm able to be a fairly active user on Wikipedia and can quickly respond to inquiries. I've contributed some good stuff to the encyclopedia and I upload alot of images I take to be used across the wikis this gives you an advantage since everything I publically photograph is fair use. I'd be a pretty chill admin who is fair minded and firm. Let me know.

• 0/10 Per WP:CIR. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 See the notice at the very top of the page and WP:RFAADVICE. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• 0/10 - If you cannot do something simple as file this correctly then to be blunt there's no hope for you at all!, "Yo yo Sanjev here"[1] doesesn't do you any favours either!, Come back when you've grown up!. –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You know, Davey2010, I think he's 25...? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:48, 18 February 2017 (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.

GeneralizationsAreBad: February 20, 2017

GeneralizationsAreBad (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, I'm GAB, and I'm interested in making a run for adminship. Currently, most of my work revolves around my SPI clerking, and I am seeking the tools (deleting pages and viewing deleted edits, history-merging cases, and blocking socks) to battle the daunting SPI backlog. I am also heavily involved in recent-changes and new-pages patrolling, and have considerable experience in CSD, RFPP, UAA, and the like. I have acted upon the recommendations in my previous RFA attempt by participating more in AFD, and have added further content work under my belt, including Operation Infinite Reach (DYK, GA, FA), 1995 CIA disinformation controversy (created, DYK, GA), and Carré d'As IV incident (DYK, GA). Thanks very much, GAB^gab 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not ready to assign a rating yet, could you briefly address SMcCandlish's opinion at the previous RfA "UAA is basically trivia, and AIV and RC are 'sexy' and already have enough hands..."? This is bound to come up. Brianhe (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• 7.5/10: (edit conflict) Good work, but almost half your edits are automated which can receive constructive opposes based on your edits. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Not in the habit of giving numerical ratings. At your last RFA, though, I was neutral leaning oppose because of a lack of mainspace, non-automated edits, and generally low content work. I think you've addressed both concerns. Another red-flag some folks raised was a conomination by an editor described as a Neo-nazi (I'm not acquainted with them myself); this, of course, you should avoid repeating. I did a quick run through your World War II work, and I see no glaring neutrality issues; but remember that thanks to that conom, folks will go through your contributions with a fine-tooth comb, and your edits need to stand up to far more scrutiny than I am currently able to give. Given that these were the substantial issues the last time around, I would see you doing well; personally, I'd probably support. Honestly we do need admins who have had experience with politically fraught content work, whose edits can still stand up to scrutiny...because there are other such messy areas which need attention. Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• SPI is definitely not trivial (even if username policing is); rooting out socks involves a lot of work and judgement. Both RfPP and CSD require careful thought, too, though I'm unclear what your "considerable experience" in them would be as a non-admin; if your requests regarding them are usually correct and acted upon by the admins who respond to them, this will be a good sign. Be prepared with answers for questions about ones that were rejected. The AfD participation will help, if you're usually on the prevailing side and your input was thoughtful not just obvious. GA and FA work will help mollify those who feel a strong content record is essential (I'm increasingly neutral on the matter, but there are many who are not). Not prepared to offer a percentile rating without further examination, but "better prospects than last time", surely. :-) PS: KGirlTrucker81 is correct. The way to resolve that is to just put away all automated tools (at least any that leave an editing history trace) for several months and edit the project manually. There are lots and lots and lots of people patrolling new pages, recent edits, and new users, so nothing will fall apart if you give baddie hunting a rest for a while.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - Ive seen you around at SPI as a clerk and I do think you need the tools to expand your work in that area, as well as in other areas, but I do think a lot more mainspace work is required. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

YITYNR: February 23, 2017

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.

---

YITYNR (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 do not intend to run for admin in the near future; this is merely out of curiosity to see how well I'm doing so far and to receive feedback as to what areas I should improve in. My username is YITYNR, and I was formerly known as "Bad Weather 2014"; my account was renamed in March 2016. Since joining Wikipedia in October 2014 (February 2014 if you count sporadic anonymous edits), I have made roughly 1,600 edits and created one article. I am a rollbacker and extended confirmed user, and my focus on Wikipedia has been pretty varied over the years. Most of my edits are reverting vandalism, but I am also a WikiGnome, fixing spelling and grammatical errors when I find them; the latter is how my career started.

I hope I have done a good job in editing Wikipedia so far and welcome any comments or suggestions.

Thank you,

YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 23:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• 0/10 For inability to follow instructions. This page is not for general editor feedback. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Chris troutman: Is there a place where I can request general feedback, and may I withdraw this nomination? YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 23:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@YITYNR: We used to utilize Wikipedia:Editor review for that purpose but it was shut down years ago. Yes, you can withdraw your request; just strike your request and leave a comment stating such. I'd recommend you ask individual Wikipedians you respect for their opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This nomination has been withdrawn. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 23:48, 23 February 2017 (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.

Cameron11598: March 1, 2017

Cameron11598 (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 · previous RfAs)

Hello! I'm Cameron11598 and I'm considering make the run at RFA. I spend my time on Wikipedia at The Wikipedia Library providing access to Oxford University Press and Newspapers.com. I'm involved in counter vandalism work, which is how I got my start at editing wikipedia. Until recently I avoided content creation mainly because I couldn't find an area to interest me. I recently found WikiProject Olympics where I've started work on getting Djibouti at the Olympics up to a good topic, as a result of finding a topic of interest I now have four good articles to my name, which is something I didn't think I'd ever be able to do. I'd be more than willing to answer any questions people do have about my editing here on wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to respond I really appreciate it! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• 6.5/10 Good content creation. I've seen you at IRC, so I know that you're fairly active, but your edit count is low for someone who has been on WP for over 6 years. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 Good CSD and AfD stats, some GAs, and you've had an "attaboy" from Bishonen. If 6,500 edits is not enough to pass these days then I despair. Let's chat about getting an RfA set up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 Clean block log, a fair amount of content creation and involvement in the adminy-areas topped off with a calm and collected response to conflict and vandalism. Given the current RfA climate I personally think you'd pass if you ran now. Agree with Ritchie that 6500 ought to be enough editcountitis, and with his backing you'll sail through -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 15:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• You guys have more faith than I do. Some of the oppose reasons from a recent RfA: "just over 11,000 edits"; "only two years and 11,000 edits"; "11,000 edits, although a mesmerizing number to a budding Wikipedian, just doesn't cut it in an RfA". It may not sink the RfA entirely, but "only" ~7,000 edits will definitely garner some objections, unfortunately. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• ought, but not suggesting that Cam won't get some editcountitis-based opposes :-( -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 15:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I had over 24,000 edits at the time of my RFA, and I still got an oppose based on edit count...I'm not saying that such a concern would be justified, but it will be expressed. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• 8.5/10: Edit count is not a problem here, but your RFA could pass anyway with those constructive opposes. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8.5/10: Almost certainly a pass, but Julian is right: if, and it's a big 'if', the trolls would stay away with their ridiculous demands for high edit counts. No need to feel ashamed if it doesn't work out, plenty of our best admins passed at their second run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)