Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll: Difference between revisions

Line 110: Line 110:

:I find myself echoing the advice of [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]], who advised you to remove your RfA only a month ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EditorShane3456/Archive_1#Adminship]). Adminship isn’t something to be seen as a goal to attain: it’s a natural progression for some experienced editors. Ultimately, you need to gain that experience before applying. Thanks for reaching out, [[User:UpTheOctave!|UpTheOctave!]] • [[User talk:UpTheOctave!|8va?]] 15:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

::I also acknowledge those incorrect CSD taggings, I dont usually go to AFD due to how long the process can get [[User:EditorShane3456|shane]] [[User talk: EditorShane3456|(talk to me if you want!)]] 15:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

:::It’s more that these factors add up to suggest a lack of the experience needed. [[User:UpTheOctave!|UpTheOctave!]] • [[User talk:UpTheOctave!|8va?]] 15:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Archive index

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This optional polling page is for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges (RfA) or run in an admin election 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 or Advice for admin elections candidates. The result of a poll may differ greatly from an actual RfA or election, so before proceeding, you should evaluate your contributions based on the advice there 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 instead 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. ~~~~

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

Hello, I’m Pbritti! I’m sure most of you here will have seen my two prior runs at AELECT (Oct ’24, July ’25), where I received approximately 67% support in both elections. The dubious honor of being the only candidate to not pass twice aside, I wanted to float the possibility of running at RfA. At the prompting of a few editors I greatly respect, I told myself a few months ago that I would consider another run once my second FAC nomination was closed. That has happened, and I think I’m in a bit of a better headspace to consider the responsibility of adminship. A good piece of feedback I received during and after the last election was that I should attempt to engage a little more with the community elements of the project. While I have determined that I’m squarely not a fan of Discord as a communication platform, I’ve tried my best to establish closer ties with fellow editors both on an off the project. If you want information on me and my editing, see my user page or voter guides from July. Oh, also, I haven’t missed a single edit summary in over a year and 30,000 edits, so you have to like me. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to run with an admin nominator this time? I believe you’ve had offers. That will really set the community at ease. Having nominators also means easy access to mentors, which is incredibly helpful as a new admin, (or even as an experienced admin trodding into new areas). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I run, it would be with a nominator. I’ve discussed nomination with other editors in the past, but decided to wait on asking for someone to contribute the time needed to consider nominating me until after I had sought some additional community commentary. I’m open to nomination by any experienced editors who are familiar with my work. Regarding the mentoring aspect, I am also extremely open to any sort of support I could receive from current admins, and I already have private lines of communication with admins off-project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checking my emails, I had personally offered back in November of 2024, and made clear that, at the time, there was no expiry date on the offer. I’m aware of one other person who I won’t mention here who also explicitly made the same offer, and we had thoroughly vetted you at the time as well. Honestly the two of us had been expecting to co-nom you when the time came around based on what you had said to us (though both of us absolutely would have been fine if you had used other nominators), so we were quite surprised when you self nommed. So, with that in mind, I’m very curious why you chose the route of a self nom? I respect everyone’s right to do so for what it’s worth, and as I said in the email, I would never be insulted to not be a nominator for someone running. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Firstly, that offer you extended last year was greatly appreciated. Secondly, in July, decided to “go it alone” after requesting a nomination from another admin that didn’t pan out due to procedural constraints. In retrospect, I went into that second election feeling like the nomination process was more relevant to RfA than AELECT, and thus felt it was fine to press on with the run. My evaluation on this has since changed: AELECT, while different from RfA in form, is still a community process and editors like seeing nominations in such circumstances. Please expect an email from me in the coming days. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s good to hear where your head is at on that, appreciate the response. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I think nominators are more relevant at EFA, where the community engages in far less discussion than at a typical RFA. — asilvering (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure I voted for you at both elections, and was quite surprised that you didn’t get through because you seem such a strong candidate, although you did come very close on both occasions. If you go for another attempt, defo get an admin or two to nominate you, it seems to make a difference, and near the boundary could be the difference between getting through or not. And somehow my gut feel is that RfA might work better for you than another AE, although I can’t really say why. Good luck, if you do go for it! — DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(9/10) I’d be interested in reading what kept others from supporting you more fully during your runs. This poll might help you get helpful feedback not obtained during the aelections. You’re on my list. I voted for you twice, and will do so again when you run. Don’t get in a hurry. Better to run when the community (and you) are ready for the change. Recent move history looks fine. You’ve vastly improved your edit summary usage (almost 100% in the last two years). Your pagework is quite good. Your only recent AfD “mistaken nom” (July) turned out to be a good catch on a highjacked page. If you were to make a mere 40 or so more requests for page protection, your admin score (beta) would be perfect. 1,171 as it is right now. Yours and my personal interactions have been 100% positive. And for the record, I created my Discord account today (exclusively for SPI training); I prefer to keep all my interactions on wiki if possible. So I’m on your team now. Address any feedback received here. Find the finest two admins you can get for noms; this shouldn’t be a problem for you. Then pick your moment. BusterD (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: No noms and not enough time to evaluate all the candidates properly, but willing to rely on trustworthy nominator(s) doing that for me at the time, so I voted abstain if not mistaken (possibly even an oppose). I think with noms you would pass no problem, we’re talking about 3% short at AELECT, arguably that translates to more than enough at RfA. I wouldn’t have any issues supporting you with noms I trust, it’s a shame you didn’t have them before otherwise probably would of pased. CNC (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(10/10) I have only had positive impressions of your work in the many places I’ve seen it around the project. It seems like each of the two AELECT runs were derailed by editors who had mild concerns about temperament (concerns that, as I noted at your second AELECT discussion, I didn’t fully think were well-founded) and it seems likely that was just enough negative feedback to give enough voters pause in the privacy of the election process. I think having nominators would calm those concerns, and using RfA would allow those concerns to be filtered through the context of the truly strong support you enjoy from the majority of the community. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you RFA, I will watch it with interest. There is spirited debate in AELECT RFCs about whether the 70% cutoff for AELECT is too high, and not much data so far since few candidates do both processes. Would be good to start getting some evidence and work towards an answer to that question. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m no stranger to being a guinea pig—I’m just glad it’s for a good cause! Haven’t had the chance to say it on other forums, but your work on the AELECT process has helped contribute to one of the most significant shifts of the project’s culture since I joined. I think it’s been a massive success! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. The fact that you’ve put yourself forward at AELECT twice and have so little feedback on why you weren’t successful shows significant flaws with that process. At the very least, RfA will give you better insight on what to work on, but from what I’ve seen of your work you will do fine. – bradv 16:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please run, at RfA, with nominators. I don’t know what more feedback to give. I vetted you twice, found nothing of interest, and thus voted for you twice. As others have said, worst case, we’ll finally discover why some folks didn’t support you. Toadspike [Talk] 17:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should run. I don’t know why you didn’t get elected those previous two times. You are one of the most qualified candidates who has not yet been elected. Running the traditional way should at least get you some feedback. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing what Toadspike said. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have a stellar content record, you have plenty of experience. One element that could have contributed to oppose votes was your nomination at AELECT2 of a somewhat inexperienced editor. Could you talk more about your thinking for that? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That puzzled me, too. It felt like you were acknowleding a nominator was important, but you didn’t get one for yourself. Valereee (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke and Valereee: I’ve known Darth Stabro for a little over five years through our shared interests. Just prior to AELECT2, DS and I had been discussing his increased participation in the project (I like to think I played a role in him volunteering more time here over the last 24 months). DS has a fair number of technical skills and regularly produces quality content. Having seen him demonstrate a high degree of competency and collaboration that compared favorably to some of the successful AELECT1 candidates whom I had voted for, I offered my nomination. The low support he received indicates that the community considered him still not experienced enough. However, now that DS has spent more time helping with DYK clerking and continuing to build great content, I would be fairly optimistic for DS if he ever ran again. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may be competent, and great, but the demonstrated experience in relevant areas just wasn’t there, that was the issue, not that they weren’t necessarily experienced enough. That didn’t sit right with a number of folks, myself included if I’m being honest. I’m glad they stuck around and are continuing to contribute, many nominators fear nominating someone too soon (for the nominee’s own good). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m on record saying that I’d like to see our standards for admin candidates become more loose. We do not need every candidate to be able eventually to work in AE, copyright or closing sensitive discussions. I like to see people with good judgement (including knowing what they don’t know), clue, and a proven ability to take on feedback and learn. Before you nominated, how aware were you of the standards the community has historically looked for? Were you aware you were pushing against them? With the admin elections, one hopes we can take slightly more risk without harming individuals, as the discussion is much more deliberative than in an RfA, but keen to hear your thoughts. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized that these were questions for me, sorry! I was unaware of any previous problems other users had with DS (besides their rather unfortunate first edits long, long ago) and I compared their experience and skills against previous successful candidates. I felt that the purpose of AELECT is to get more mops in the hands of qualified editors and knew that offering a nomination would help nudge DS towards making that decision. I think some of the time-based experience concerns raised during his run were unfounded, but the process exists for a reason and a consensus disagreed with me. Ultimately, my criteria for a positive admin !vote requires a candidate to have a clue, not be liable to break the project, and have the humility to ask for help and admit errors. I wouldn’t nominate someone in the position DS was at the time of AELECT2 because of the same concerns HMIJ noted regarding possible dejection, but I still see DS as a possible future admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My notes for DS at AELECT were: “Darth Stabro: Hard yes”. I think I had a similar sense as Pbritti that DS has a clue and that is enough and he has a good shot at becoming an admin in the future. Toadspike [Talk] 07:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it’s that there were 17-35 candidates and you didn’t have a trusted nominator. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to the pile on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was going through the previous AELECT and found this. I’m not sure why you didn’t pass and I don’t think we’ll ever get an explanation. Adding to the pile on, I think you would make a great admin and would support your RfA. HurricaneZeta^C 18:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t remember how I voted at the elections. An FA makes me inclined to support unless there are other issues (I’ve always said that successfully navigating FAC demonstrates many of the skills we look for in an admin). The drama with TarnsihedPath probably lost you some votes the first time; that you’d patched things up by the next election by admitting your error is admirable so I’m not sure what held you back the second time. The only thing I would say, based on my reading of your previous nominations, is I don’t get a sense of what you want to do with the tools. That makes it difficult to assess whether you have the experience. For example, if your interest is anti-vandalism, I’d look at your reverts and AIV reports; if your interest was AfD, I’d assess your votes there; if it was CCI I’d look at your copyright knowledge. Having a clear sense of the kind of admin you intend* to be might put voters’ minds at rest. *Expressing an interest in one area doesn’t bind you to it forever; it’s fine if your interests change or experience to take you in a different direction but it might help to say what you plan to do the day after you get the tools. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voted yes both times, and I believe you quoted my voter guide from your first election during your second go round. I still think you’d be a good admin, and I’m looking forward to your RFA (but please get some noms this time!) BugGhost 🦗👻 23:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t done a deep dive in a while, and while I can brush off a couple things I didn’t like (the self nom and the nom of Darth), I think myself and others want to do a deep dive again just to verify things a bit. At this point, I think it’s clear you have some good support, and have received some minor critiques, but I do not think your path forward is AELECT. You have the #2 and #3 highest net votes (supports vs opposes) for anyone in an AELECT, and I think that you want people to outright state why they might oppose you. If for nothing else, so that you can improve as an editor and person, which you genuinely seem interested in doing. RfA can be more stressful, but I think you can handle it. It’ll force people to state why they oppose you, and you’ll be able to grow and actually address why you’re not passing, instead of just seeing that you didn’t and wondering why. I think if you don’t make any major snafus, you’d be likely to pass at regular RfA on your next try, but I’m not sure I feel the same way about AELECT. You’re one of that subset of editors that would benefit more from the old process as opposed to the new after these past unsuccessful elections I think. Consider who can be the most helpful for you at RfA or EFA if you do want to try that again, reach out, don’t be afraid to be rejected by those you think highly of because they’re likely to at least tell you why they’re not comfortable doing so at this time (I was rejected by some nominators, it did help me). Hey man im josh (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. I think you should run with nominators (plural), though a well-written self-nomination statement could perhaps cover for that at RFA, and I won’t come by and hit you with a trout or something if you don’t. But for Pete’s sake, don’t EFA again. Do it the old-fashioned way, and make people stand up and explain their objections in public. — asilvering (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mean this in a negative way, but I think you were the perfect candidate to demonstrate the shortfalls of AELECT when it started (no process is without shortfalls and this is not intended as a gripe against AELECT). I’m pleasantly surprised with how AELECT is maturing, especially with the latest round, but it’s first iterations were always going to produce harsh(er) results for those in the middle and deal easily with outliers. That was partly my reason to avoid AELECT; relatively speaking, I felt RfA would allow an assessment far more grounded in my contributions than in impressions of me. I’m most likely projecting my own bias, but I prefer candidates that have been around awhile, long enough to see their strengths and weaknesses and work out to what extent that may or may not hinder their capacity to be an admin (so in your case that’s ticks for me). I think the advice above is very correct, better to seek an RfA, but also I’d really encourage you to be very explicit why you wish to be an admin. Personally, I’m not of the “demonstrate-you-need-it-school”, but more of the “will-you-make-the-admin-corps-stronger?” but the former view remains strong. I’d hazard that at least half of all the oppose votes in the last couple of rounds of AELECT were due to people not knowing the candidates. In my impression, while not always true, but being able to demonstrate consistent, high quality input in a particular area of the project outside of content production, goes a very long way. Regards, —Goldsztajn (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the only reason you didn’t pass AELECT was that you self-nommed (statistically, almost all self-noms failed and almost all nommed candidates passed), and I personally support you being an admin, so I’d be happy to see you RFA with some good noms behind you. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EditorShane3456 (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 · no prior RfA)

Hi!, I am shane, and I wanted to come here to see what chance of I becoming a admin here in the future,

Editing Wikipedia has been fun, yet stressful sometimes, and I acknowledge that I got blocked back in september for edit warring, and that was a small mishap. For the past 2 months, I have been using Twinkle to help me with my edits and work more efficiently, I also did a RFA poll back in August but nobody responded to it.
I have also been putting any edit I can with a edit summary, so its known what my edit is. I would like to be an admin as I have been here for 2 years, and learning every policy that I hear in discussions, and I feel I am ready to enforce those policies to any policy breaker.

shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorShane3456:, your entry here in August had responses from two editors. You can go back in the history of this page to see their replies, and I think it would be useful for you to read those. Schazjmd (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ShaneEditor3456, thanks for offering. A couple of things spring to mind at first glance. Firstly, for example, this page is for editors who are thining iof standing in the near future; are you? If so, I would advise against it I’m afraid; and if you’re not, an ORCP is premature. I’m sorry that your last time here didn’t attract much feedback; that might be because no-one wanted to depress you unduly. You see, you say you’ve been here two years, but that’s the point you registered your account. Your activity started in, say, March, to be generous, and as you point out, those few months include an EW block. Most editors will consider ~1200 edits far too few to entertain, and worse, only 15% of those are to articles. Your automated edit count is pretty high, particularly in context of low article edits, although conversely your edit summary usage is pretty good.I’d suggest leaving an RfA/AELECT at least two years, rack up several thousand positive edits—with no blocks of course—concentrate on article work (perhaps get a GA out of it), and do try to stop clerking ANI (which doesn’t necessarily give a potential admin the image they might expect). Hope this helps, —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March was when I got serious about editing, before then was just learning and bad edits shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shane. While I’m not going to give a score, I think it is quite unlikely you would pass an RfA:

You have under 2K edits: while edit count is not everything, and there are exceptions, the average candidate usually had around 10K edits when requesting.
Looking back at your block for edit warring in September, you claimed that I did 2 reverts…… that doesn’t count, which is a misrepresentation of the WP:EW policy ([1]). Admins are expected to be fluent in their knowledge of policy, and RfA voters usually expect them to have a clean block log for at least six months.
Looking through your talk page, I also see a few notices for incorrect CSD taggings ([2], [3], and more): admins should be able to apply these criteria exactly. You also have an AfD match score of 52.6%, which indicates there is some work to do there regarding knowledge of notability.

I find myself echoing the advice of Theroadislong, who advised you to remove your RfA only a month ago ([4]). Adminship isn’t something to be seen as a goal to attain: it’s a natural progression for some experienced editors. Ultimately, you need to gain that experience before applying. Thanks for reaching out, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also acknowledge those incorrect CSD taggings, I dont usually go to AFD due to how long the process can get shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s more that these factors add up to suggest a lack of the experience needed. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions

Potential candidates

Responders

Closure

Sample entry

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply