Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll
 | Please read the really simple guide to requests for adminship and the advice for RfA candidates page before you add your name to this list, otherwise you might be wasting your own and everyone else's time. Self-evaluation is very important. |
| 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) 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. ~~~~
| Start a poll on your chances of passing RfA |
Bunnypranav: August 25, 2025
Bunnypranav (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)
Greetings to the community. I am here requesting advice regarding a possible RfA in some months. If promoted, I plan to contribute the most in WP:CfD and WP:CSDs. CSDs are a never ending list of bucket items, and CfD has a very small amount of admin hands, so I see that as a space I can be useful. WP:AIV, WP:PERM, WP:UAA, and WP:RD1 CV revdels. are the other venues where I see myself working.
As of now, my major contributions are in the scope of WP:NPP and WP:AfC, and vandal-fighting. I also do a fair bit of technical work, which can be seen at toolforge:techcontribs/uid/bunnypranav, specifically the Gerrit and Phabricator sections.
I am open to any clarifications and would appreciate any feedback. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have any comments on your project-space work (although I see you around often and have never seen anything negative), but I would suggest trying to get one WP:GA - a lot of people look for quality article creation in administrators as it's a way to show their familiarity with content policies. I see you have 2 DYKs, which is a great start. If you do decide to go for a GA, I'm always open to questions/help. EF5 14:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was actually thinking of doing one before I go for an RfA/AELECT. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Strongly second EF5's GA recommendation, one thing that I noticed was in your AfD !votes it leans pretty solidly deletionist (80%+), some people may see it as concerning if you want to get into carrying out deletion work. I think the technical work you do can be a big plus and you can use it to your advantage in a RFA, I would try to think of some examples of ways you can utilize that in things like fully protected and mediawiki pages to give some more confidence in people. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 16:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, regarding the AfD votes, I do not plan to do much work in AfD/RfD deletion but mainly in CfD, which I believe is a very different scope compared to AfD. I forgot to mention it above, but I do plan on assisting with fully protected edit requestions, especially in MediaWiki pages. I personally have requested many such edits, all of which have been enacted (to my knowledge). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think you'd pass at this time. I'm not saying this to dissuade or dismay you. The issues that I see; (1) the aforementioned high level of delete votes at AfD with only a single keep vote is going to cause people to knee-jerk oppose you in that ground alone. I am not suggesting throwing around a bunch of keep votes to skew your percentages. Rather, take a holistic approach to your AfD votes by way of going to current discussions and randomly picking some AfDs to vote in. Don't try to be right; try to be good with your assessments and the rest will shake up. (2) To short of an editing history. You've become truly active on the project just one year ago. Again, a number of people would knee-jerk oppose just based on that. I'd wait until you've got two years under your belt. (3) The GA issue I don't think you have to get an article to GA, but demonstrating strong article building skills is going to be important. I haven't dug into all of your editing history, but looking at your editing summary I'm not seeing any articles that would demonstrate that. On the plus side; I think you're very much on the right track based on cursory review, so keep on keeping on! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Noted, thanks for the advice! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 01:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- ORCP tends to bring out nitpicks. Sometimes !voters don't really care about these nitpicks, but it often helps to be more prepared anyways. A GA wouldn't hurt too much and isn't too hard to get, but I already like how the shiny stuff in your userpage looks so it might not end up being necessary.
- I'd recommend against framing your nomination's "need for the tools" as primarily around deletion-related stuff. If you do a lot of NPP/AfC/etc stuff, you can easily talk about executing blocks. In general, try talking about areas you already are very experienced and hard to be nitpicked first, so if you don't have loads of AIV edits don't put the link up front. This will weaken the arguments about deletionism, I think. (although a better balanced participation at AfD won't hurt either)
- I'd also recommend against running in WP:EFA. dbeef [talk] 08:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the encouragement, dbeef! Would be willing to discuss a bit and answer a couple of questions in discord (@bunnypranav)? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)