Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

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 automatically archived by .

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

Fade258: May 29, 2025

Fade258 (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)

Hi. I have certainly thought about an RfA. So, I am curious to see how the community views me today as compared to last couple of years when I was blocked for sock and comparing my edits to then. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5/10 ~ don't take me as an expert, but there are a couple of things i feel the community will be likely to question:

A good explanation of your block ~ which may well exist, but you'll need to be prepared to give it;
Currently the first item on your talk page is a query about using AI, and it seems to be that the community in general expects candidates to have internalised such things before seeking the tools, which i suspect will lead to a number of oppositions ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LindsayH, Thanks for your comment and for highlighting two key potential issues that I have encountered and ready to give explanations when I opened for RfA in future. Thanks for your time. Fade258 (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support. At least not without some distance to things like Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser#User:Fade258 (and not as a still unarchived request). I'll nitpick Special:Diff/1290472491, creating TOTN (TV series) where it would have been more suitable to just add to TOTN's disambig page.

People will evaluate your understanding of both procedural and content policies (and guidelines), and I think it would be a WP:NOTNOW if opened. Admins are especially required to know when something is outside their ability to handle/judge, and the AWB request doesn't inspire confidence.

Thanks for asking here though, instead of launching an RFA directly. beef [talk] 10:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @0xDeadbeef. Thank You for your feedback here and it is much appreciated for me. Thanks for your concern regarding the AWB request and TOTN (TV Series). I am currently reviewing more about AWB after the declination and learning more. As for your concern about TOTN, I totally misjudged that and I will be more carefull in future before making those calls. For personal knowledge only, Can you tell me on which areas that I need to improve and to gain trust from community because I lost a huge trust from the community when I was blocked as a sockpuppet in June 2022? Once again, Thanks for acknowledging that I have asked above for feedback here before opening an RfA directly. Fade258 (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what you would want to do as an admin that is different than what you are doing now (and the AWB request does not indicate that you have a high level of understanding on a technical side) . Taking a very brief look at the background to the blocking issue, some red flags would be raised around maturity (and not making the same mistake again is not necessarily a sign of maturity). I agree with the comments above on use of LLMs/robots for communication; there's large parts of admin work that require fairly high degrees of analytical skill, using robots for editing is contentious at best, having to use it as part of admin work I think would raise very high concerns. Looking at this exchange over a draft at AFC, you seem to be telling the editor they must have four reliable sources with SIGCOV to meet notability requirements. If I've understood that correctly, I'm concerned that this is not in line with the actual text of the WP:GNG which explicitly excludes a specific numerical threshold for sourcing, nor the flexibility offered in WP:BASIC. Moreover, you indicate four references from one news source is not acceptable, but these four sources cover a seven year period. You also don't indicate that some of the sources are interviews. To me this suggests a lack of analytical depth. I would suggest working on high quality content generation - getting a few articles to good or featured status could assuage editors' concerns. Also think about participating at AfD more consistently - bearing in mind a long record of delete !votes may only demonstrate joining in with the crowd, focus on contributions which directly engage with policy and guidelines. Wikipedia does need more admins, especially from outside the Anglosphere, so please don't be discouraged. However, while being helpful and polite (which you are) is important in demonstrating a capacity to be an admin, analytical skills are crucial and these appear to need further development at present. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS - FWIW, I made a request for AWB five or six years ago and was knocked back, so don't feel alone! --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Hi @Goldsztajn. Thank You for your time to review my request and offer thoughtful candidacy feedback. I would like to take this as an opportunity to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised. I want to clarify on a few points, on how I plan to address them in coming days. If I become an administrator in someday, then I will help with backlog, page protection, AfC, AfD and in counter vandalism. I understand that AWB does not indicate on having technical knowledge. I was blocked as a sockpuppet, a couple of years ago. Since then, I have been contributing in more constructive way. I think I have lost a huge trust from the community and trying to gain it slowly. To be honest, I have used LLM/ChatGPT to improve my english proficiency skill only rather than to edit Wikipedia or to generate thoughts on particular topics. Similarly, I want to clarify you that, I am only telling that user about the references that user have added. At that time, I would likely to use WP:THREE on that draft. As advised above, I will participate more thoughtfully and consistently in deletion discussion, AfC, ANI, help desks or in teahouse too. I will take your feedback seriously and contribute constructively. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. While I don't exactly have a firm grasp of policies like WP:SIGCOV as I normally don't create articles or anything like that, the LLM concern is very real for me and IMO you'd be best off triple-checking everything you contribute using an AI before publishing it. However that being said, I do think that using LLMs for grammar and proofreading in order to make sure you're being understood is less of a problem. When contributing to Wikipedias in certain other languages I've done that too to double-check myself.
In regard to your anti-vandalism efforts, I'm actually pretty impressed. It looks like you've been actively involved in preventing vandalism on Wikipedia and I like what I see. Just be prepared to explain why you think you'd need admin specifically. I'm only starting to familiarize myself with the RfA process so I can't say for certain whether you'd pass, but from what I can see you'd have my vote. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gommeh, Thank you for your time in reviewing this request. I clearly understand the concerns in the use of LLM/ChatGPT. I agree that the AI-assisted tools should be used carefully. To be honest, I didn't use ChatGPT for content creation, generating thoughts on AfC, AfD and other relevant discussions. I only use ChatGPT for improving my grammer and proficiency level of English. Since, English is not my native language. I also appreciate your kind words on my anti-vandalism work. Obviously, I am preparing myself to explain in the need of admin tools and my previous block. I can predict that, regarding my block history and LLM issue, I think chance of pass of RfA in future is minimal. Once again, Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughtful feedback and best wishes to you for your dedication in learning more about the RfA process. Fade258 (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The additional tools made available to community members with administrator-level access can cause profound disruption; thus, it is prudent to only extend access to them in cases where it can be reasonably expected that the user in question will at least semi-regularly make suitable use of them. This is because the chance of an account compromise for each given person will be non-zero, and so the perceived benefits must be seen to outweigh the perceived risks. It strikes me that Fade258 is a well-intentioned and constructive editor whom the wiki & community both benefit from the presence of. That said, I'm not satisfied that they have a clear goal to achieve which necessitates (or, at the least, is substantially eased by) the acquisition of the administrator-level toolkit.

Having both read the contributions of others, above, and looked over some of Fade258's most recent activities on the website, I have to confess to a concern of this being something of a WP:HATSHOP - although, in saying that, I would like to clarify that I actually don't care for that page in its current form. What I mean is that I think Fade258 has a narrow view where he trusts his intentions (as do I), and essentially views himself unlocking access to these tools as being a positive-sum change where there is no effect on cases he would not seek to use the tools, but that he has the option if he sees an apparent need to do so. As stated in my prior paragraph, while we can all be prone to losing the forest for the trees in this respect, the community writ large needs to take a more global view.

Recent apparent interest in gaining access to sysop tools, AWB, and other utilities besides demonstrates to me an apparent aimlessness - or, perhaps, restlessness - on the part of Fade258. Rather than being an editor who has carved out a niche for himself and identified one or possibly two sets of tools which would substantially enhance his ability to fulfill that function, he instead strikes me as being an editor who's looking for something to do.

I like Fade258, and I could certainly see him potentially morphing into a suitable candidate for adminship at some point in future. At present, I would advise that he allow himself some time to settle into the roles he already has. To-date, rather than showing he has mastered those and perhaps outgrown them, he has seemingly functionally ignored them (e.g. seeking rollback, then subsequently only actually using it twice). Rather than his current roles being an argument in favour of him gaining additional ones, I fear they're the best argument against that - at least for now.

I do believe his commitment to being a positive influence on the wiki and his work ethic are each beyond reproach. ···sardonism · t · c 13:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sardonism. Thanks for the thoughtful and honest feedback. Regarding your mentioned statement, I am taking it short. I understand the concerns raised about me and having a clear purpose of tools. I will take this and will make focus on making the roles that I already have. I believe in myself that, I will grow slowly and purposefully and become good candidate for admin just say rather than strong. Once again, Thanks to you for your valuable time. Fade258 (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe in myself"

FWIW, I believe in you, too. 👍 ···sardonism · t · c 03:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]