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 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)

GeneralizationsAreBad: February 20, 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.

---

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)
• 7.5/10: The automated edits are going to raise some questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8.5, 9 on a good day, 9.5 on a very good day with the wind behind you and a strong nomination statement and strong answers to the three standard questions. When you took Infinite Reach through FAC, I was very impressed and thought then that you'd make a good admin, but I thought the last RfA might have been a bit fresh in the memory. You were calm and responsive in your responses to criticism of your work, and getting a big article like that promoted involves lots of the same sorts of skills we look for in admins. Having people pick holes in something you've spent weeks writing requires patience and leaves you with policy shortcuts burnt into the back of your eyeballs. Most of the opposition in your last RfA focused on insufficient experience outside of Huggling. There's nothing wrong with vandal-whacking (it's essential, and it's bread and butter admin work) but adminship is about judgement and you needed something that showed that you can make complex decisions that involve weighing up policies. A year on, you've made a name for yourself doing other things and you've got a featured article to your name (hopefully the first of many). I wouldn't expect a unanimous pass because it's RfA—there will always be something you've done wrong or someone's toes you've trodden on, and some people will oppose for the sake of opposing—but I would say you're in with a good chance. I'd be more than happy to nominate if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8-9/10 - I agree with the comments above. Editors of your caliber have passed with relative ease. I shouldn't be generalizing like that though; it's bad. — Yash ^talk stalk 14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8.5/10 – The automated edits are going to certainly raise some opposes, although I seriously doubt that will sink your second RfA. J947 18:20, 22 March 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)
• 7/10 – I hate to be pessimistic, but I agree with Juliancolton strongly in regard to that low edit count. Although you will probably receive around 85% support, the opposes count most and can be quite unpredictable. Me and many others will !vote support, but expect a lot of constructive opposes. J947 02:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• 4/5/10 - I would oppose purely based on the edit count & tenure alone, But I would probably also oppose due to the fact you've been at ANI more than any other Wiki-space here, There hasn't been much experience with UFAA or AIV either, and last but not least you've not really had much experience with AFD or any XFD either, All in all I personally don't believe you have much experience here to run for RFA just yet however I could be entirely wrong and your RFA might succeed, I suppose I'm a "troll" now but hey ho I'm sure I'll live with that. –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  That was a rollercoaster of a poll response! Having an opinion doesn't make you a "troll" -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 16:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks @Davey2010: for your perspective and insight, I don't consider you a troll by any means. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• 5.5/10. Sorry to rain on your parade. My best guess is that an RfA now would end somewhere in the 60s and either end up being withdrawn or being closed as unsuccessful. Yes, 65% and up is bureaucrat discretion, but in reality the bureaucrats only have discretion because they almost never use it, and crat chats have been consistent in declining to pass an RfA that has substantial, well-reasoned opposition, which I would expect yours to receive. There are a handful of things in your CSD log that raise an eyebrow just on a quick glance, you've made almost 450(!) edits to ANI which sends up lots of red flags, and the edits themselves tend to add little (an unnecessary closure here, a drive-by comment there, but nothing that improves the signal : noise ratio). I'm not seeing any evidence of judgement or decision-making or deep policy knowledge. A lot of adminship is about judgement and not rushing in headlong when you actually have no idea what you're doing (some would say that's rich coming from me, especially in my early days as an admin), and the large number of short comments at ANI suggest to me a tendency towards the latter. I'd want to see evidence of weighing up arguments and policies (be it at AfD or FAC or RfCs or somewhere else, but preferably not ANI) and more involvement in the project space. At the moment, I'd oppose. So why 5.5? Because your content work and work with the Wikipedia Library show dedication and promise. Carry on with that sort of thing, maybe write some longer articles on bigger subjects and aim for FAC (itself valuable experience), and get to know the back end a bit better and in a few months your chances could be much improved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• 5/10 OK let's start with the good news. I don't see any real Red Flag issues (i.e. show stoppers). Your content creation looks good and you've been around for a while. The problem is that I see a number of Yellow Flags, which is to say issues that are going to make people pause and think carefully. If you get enough of those the tide tends to swing against candidates. Here are my yellow flag issues. Your edit count is low for RFA. Whether we agree with it or not, the current standard for most regulars at RFA seems to be 10k+. On the flip side your edit count at ANI, as already noted is a bit high. That's gonna cause more than a few editors to take a deep breath before pulling the support trigger. We don't want editors who look for drama as admins. And your behind the scenes work like AfD is also a tad light. A lot of this has already been pointed out above. My general take is that you are a good prospective future candidate, but you need to polish up your resume a bit. Here are my suggestions. Spend the next six months focusing on various adminny things like AfD AIV UAA and maybe see if you can help out at SPI which is perpetually backlogged. Maybe help out with closing some RfC's that aren't so contentious that people are going to insist on an admin closure. Avoid the drama boards. You've spent enough time there. And you can always try helping out in some of the areas that don't get a lot of love and attention like the main page (OTD ITNC etc.) and FTN. Then come back with the 10k+ edit count and we can take a second look. As of right now however, I think your chances of passing are dicey. If you do choose to run in the immediate future be prepared for a week of stress as I can all but guarantee you will get some oppose votes. In the end though I don't see anything that is likely to cause a SNOW close and the shortcomings in your resume are mostly correctable with a little focused editing in some of the neglected areas that people tend to look at in RfA discussion. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• 8/10 - It'd be 10/10 if it wasn't for the people who think edit counts & experience are the same thing. Feel free to counter them with the fact that someone once created 18,000 articles and they were all nonsense. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I realise Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dr. Blofeld is not likely to happen any time soon, but it's not very nice to call his work "all nonsense" :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear god, do not call the wrath of Blofeld down upon me! Exemplo347 (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I think HJ Mitchell who has made a greater in-depth assessment than I did, has made some very valid observations. Not all voters at RfA are drive-by ones (even if I may appear to assume that many of them are), and it only takes one seasoned RfA regular to oppose with the same rationale and it could make an RfA come tumbling down. I'll not revise my score, because I still think it could go either way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: March 22, 2017

Cwmhiraeth (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)

I have been considering running for admin and thought I would ask what others thought of my chances. I have been an editor since 2010 and have around 65,000 edits to my credit. I am basically an article creator / expander / improver with plenty of DYKs, GAs and FAs, some of the latter groups being joint efforts. I have won the WikiCup twice and am now a WikiCup judge. I am much involved at DYK, and am principally seeking the mop so that I can do more there, moving prep sets into queues and providing the administrator attention that is not always available at short notice. I would also aim to get more involved in maintaining the main page, another area where administrators are sometimes needed at short notice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• 3/10 To cut a very long story incredibly short, unless you can settle your differences with Fram (random example) I predict there will be just too many pile-on opposes to pass RfA. FWIW I see a similar trajectory to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thine Antique Pen (except you're probably older than 15). Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Although the vote is my view on how likely an RfA is to pass, I might as well give my personal view as well. You clearly have the project's best interests at heart and have continued contributing in the face of some pretty unpleasant abuse that would cause many a person to give up and go elsewhere. My concerns are typical of what I feel towards regular WikiCup contributors, in that you sometimes contribute a little above your station, and seem to try and run through a process to get the green blob or brown star at the end, at the expense of what is actually best for the article and the end reader. For example, in Talk:Severn Railway Bridge/GA1, I said the bridge's completion date was not in the source given, and you immediately removed the claim. While that technically means the article is closer to the "factually accurate and verifiable" part of the GA criteria, it conversely takes it further away from the "broad in coverage" - an article on pretty much any British bridge in the last 200 years will have a source somewhere with its completion date. If you'd said, "I haven't got a source, let me ask around" or "I can't verify this, what options have we got?", that would have been fine. Later on in the review, you pressed me for completion to meet the West Country Challenge; I said it would be done when it was done and there were still outstanding issues. Put that altogether and you've got someone who superficially seems to be doing a lot of really good work, and indeed in many cases probably does, but scratch beneath the surface and you find issues that just seem ... wrong. If you had the mop, I feel you'd slowly accumulate enemies, and it would grind you down so much you'd get completely frustrated and worn out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• You know you are possibly the strongest argument I've seen for unbundling the ability to edit fully-protected pages...I'm afraid I have to agree with Ritchie. Your content work is really solid, and that will bring you a number of supports: and you'll probably get a few more from people who have seen the massive amounts of hard work you put into DYK. That said, I can think of a few heavyweights who, justifiably or otherwise, will express strong opposition, and I'd guess that this will lead to enough pile-on opposition to sink an RFA. That said, you are no stranger to standing up to harsh criticism, so if you're willing, perhaps you should give it a shot. Yours is not the sort of candidacy that will necessarily be improved by waiting X months (unless by some miracle there are no difficulties at DYK for that period!). So if you can find some strong nominators, I'd guess it would do no harm to try. Vanamonde (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support you, but that may not be to your advantage. You're cool enough under pressure, you are neutral in tone and do a lot of very good work. The issues noted above will not help you cause, not because they don't make you worthy to be an admin, but because you're a human being and Wikipedians don't, in general, like human beings, they prefer robots. There is not one iota of evidence that you would be anything other than a net benefit to the project with the mop. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10: There are no age limits in any RFA, but there will be some opposes based on your age that you're too young. In my experience, I always hide my age when running a future RFA compared to yours. That's an tip for preparing an RFA. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe Cwmhiraeth has asserted at least once she is married with kids, so you must be getting confused with somebody else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And, of course KGirlTrucker81, although it's easy to hide one's precise age, it's a lot harder to prevent a general impresion being given. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, its quite easy and a bit hard to prevent it. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• 4/10 - I would 100% support you without a doubt however the issue with Fram won't help the RFA and as noted above you need to resolve the issue with them before running otherwise your RFA will probably sink (In all fairness it may not but I have a feeling it will), You've done some amazing work at DYK and elsewhere so I'd happily support but I don't think others will, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 15:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• 4/10. Ritchie333 sums it all up pretty well. Like Davey2010, I would probably support your RfA but the DYK issue is likely to attract some very strong opposition. You are obviously a dedicated Wikipedian and a content contributor par excellence, one of a kind the encyclopedia desperately needs, however, DYK is such a complex and contentious area, it's probably the one corner of Wikipedia I have never gone near in my long career as an editor and admin here. I have always regarded it as a mainpage trinket, but at the same time, I do not belittle it's worth as an important motivator to the regular editing community and as such, I find it a shame when even admins resort to language which my generation has rarely accepted into their everyday personal lexis - leastways not in the politer workplaces or in public. There was a time when when attacks like Fram's would have got an admin hauled before Arbcom. I'm pleased to see that TRM would also support your bid for the mop, but again, his comments here are pertinent. Adminship is not a badge of honour, in fact it can be really hard work if taken seriously, and can make one a target for a lot of unwarranted nastiness. To the exception therefore, of the recent issue at DYK (I'm not judging anyone here) which could well be sufficient to scupper a run for the mop, your Wiki career is so illustrious, would you wish to damage it with a failed RfA? Not that the community would care two hoots of course, but I'm worried about how you would take it personally and how it would affect your enthusiasm for the encyclopedia. (BTW, if ever you need a second opinion on translations from German, you can always ask me). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)