Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

WP:ORCP

Optional poll for RfA candidates

This is an optional polling page available to potential RfA candidates. It can be used to help see what the community thinks of your chance of success. Note that actual RfA results may differ greatly and that opinions given here may be based on only a cursory assessement.

Disclaimer: Although starting a poll here about your odds of passing a RfA can help you determine whether you're ready or not for RfA, 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 indepth examination into your editing history to be sure.

Potential candidates

If you wish, add your name below, then allow the community to provide 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) to give your view on the potential candidate's likelihood of successfully passing an RfA. You can opt to accompany your score with a short, one-sentence comment; please leave any detailed feedback on the user's talk page.

Poll

Example

Candidate information

Example (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

5/10 - Place holder (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add your name here:

SBaker43

Candidate information

SBaker43 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

7/10 - User:78.26 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8/10 - davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10/10 --Jayron 32 00:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7/10 - Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7/10 - --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8/10 - maintenance experience is important, but anyone versed in content creation would be able to pick up requisite knowledge easily. Esquivalience ^t 20:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7/10 --sst✈^discuss 05:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8/10 Jim Carter 14:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6/10, you are experienced and competent in content creation, I fear that means you're doomed! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7/10 - Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oiyarbepsy

Candidate information

Oiyarbepsy (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

I'll be a guinea pig for this, why not? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6/10 - (please note this would be considerably higher, except your contribution history only goes back just over a year. 10 months from now I'd give this an 8 or more likely 9, the contributions appear exemplary.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8/10 - your CSD work in particular looks good. Whether your edit warring on Thine Antique Pen's RfA today will get pulled up and incur a pile-on (hopefully not as it seems to be a one off), who knows. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6.5/10 per a cursory look. Esquivalience ^t 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6/10 - you haven't been here long enough to piss off lots of people, but you apparently said something that upset someone, and that's all it takes to attract the swarm ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sparklism

Candidate information

Sparklism (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

I'll play along too :) — sparklism ^hey! 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8/10 - good content; sufficient maintenance contributions. Again, just a cursory look. Esquivalience ^t 23:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8/10 - good content work, good CSD taggings, no major red flags except maybe a lack of recent admin-related work (not much AFD/CSD in the past year, would people find that problematic)? — Earwig ^talk 07:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9/10 - 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9/10 Yash! 17:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5/10 - you've been here as long as me and you've created lots of excellent content, you must have pissed off someone at some point and that's fatal ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supdiop

Candidate information

Supdiop (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

1/10 [1]--Ymblanter (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1/10: Hat collecting of Autopatrolled; hat collecting generally. Esquivalience ^t 02:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to provide a number. Nobody knows how much you would improve after 1 year, but read this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt sst✈^discuss 05:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2/10 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you run right now: 1/10. sst✈^discuss 13:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1/10 Jim Carter 14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
0/10, considering your reaction after your RFA earlier this month failed. EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1/10, considering the disruptive way you behaved after your RfA. Admins need to be calm in stressful situations. But, maybe in a year, you'll have matured as an editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1/10 what? Datbubblegumdoe^talk _contribs 00:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
0/10 It may seem to be hat collection because it is.... F**k autopatrolled right and f**k content creation. Yash! 01:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that there are now enough opinions here to provide the candidate with a good impression of their likelihood of success, perhaps we do not need any more. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yash!

Candidate information

Yash! (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

8/10 --sst✈^discuss 12:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6/10 - 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7/10 - you exist in the sweet spot of not having been here too long and no active blocks, but search your name at wikipediocracy; if you appear at all, they will notice...! Montanabw^(talk) 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6/10 - Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6/10 - you might get some moans over very slight idiosyncrasies in English, not that I think it would be reasonable in your case, but !voters can be strange. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mww113

Candidate information

Mww113 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

I'm reasonably certain that if I had an RfA today, it would not pass. I'm not planning on having one anytime in the near future, but I'm interested to know how the community thinks I could improve and how they might respond if I were to have one. Even for non-RfA purposes I think feedback and healthy scrutiny of my contributions thus far could be helpful. Mww113 (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1/10 if you were to run now; you would fall into the upper-WP:NOTNOW range. However, wait a few more years (twelve months at minimum), increase your activity, and continue contributing, and you should pass a RfA. Esquivalience ^t 01:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]