Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Please read the really simple guide to requests for adminship and the advice for RfA candidates or advice for admin elections candidates page before you add your name to this list, as otherwise you might be wasting your own and everyone else's time. Self-evaluation is very important.

Shortcuts WP:ORCPWP:ORCP WP:RFAPOLLWP:RFAPOLL WP:RFACPWP:RFACP WP:RFAPWP:RFAP WP:ORFAWP:ORFA

Archive index

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time 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.

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, 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.

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.

==Example==
{{User-orcp|Example}}
*5/10 - Edit count seems okay, but there will be opposers saying you need more AfD participation. ~~~~

11WB (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)

Hello. If we haven't met before, I am @11WB, pleasure to meet you! I have been actively editing since February 2025, but registered this account back in 2017. My main areas of contributions have been at the WP:NPP "sphere", so WP:AfC, WP:AfD, WP:DRV and at new page patrol. I was a new page reviewer for 5 months between September last year and February this year. I decided to step back from that role to focus on article improvement, of which I have reviewed several WP:GANs and given feedback at WP:FACs, such as for Genshin Impact.

I am very passionate about reliable sources. I help with both WP:CITEUNSEEN and WP:CITEHIGHLIGHTER. The former of which I am now a merge requester, having accepted an invite from @SuperGrey, one of the maintainers, a little while ago. I am also familiar with @Novem Linguae, the maintainer of Cite Highlighter. I am active at the WT:VGRS board, where I both partake in discussions and also post about sources.

For content creation, I have authored 16 articles, of which 3 are GAs. I am most proud of 2001 Biggin Hill Airshow disasters and Cryptogram of Olivier Levasseur. I like to research more obscure topics, which are still considered notable, but are yet to have dedicated articles on the project. My main areas of focus are WP:VG and WP:AVIATION.

I've made a number of mistakes, I am more than willing to discuss these. Likewise, I am open to any criticism editors may have. I am optimistic about this, but am also realistic, so I am confident that getting some feedback from the wider community will be able to help in figuring out how to proceed. If I were to become an admin, I would mostly stay active in the areas I already contribute to, with the extra permissions the admin tools provide, such as closing AfDs as delete. I have also had a reasonably successful time with nominating experienced editors for AP at WP:RFP/A, including @Alex 21 and @TangoTizerWolfstone. I believe I have reasonable judgement for granting that permission to qualifying and experienced editors. The main things I still need to improve are my confidence, communication skills and knowing when to step back from a discussion or situation. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is a very strong set of qualifications, but I think tenure will likely be an obstacle - you're unlikely to pass RFA with just one year of editing under your belt. However, the content creation is strong and your interactions at ANI show clue. I'd say you are likely to pass in 12 months time, but if you started a RFA sooner than that it may be less likely. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. As you've mentioned WP:AN/I, I would like to address my activity there. I avoid reporting people there unless it is absolutely necessary (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4) and I do not go looking for drama. I want to mention my participation in one particular discussion there actually, I feel it is better to address it now. I participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1208#Andy Dingley's conduct a discussion regarding now blocked editor @Andy Dingley. I, without meaning to, bludgeoned that discussion unintentionally and defended an editor who held questionable racial views (I am trying to avoid specific strong wording for this explanation) and insulting views against WP:CCI volunteers. I was explicitly told I was bludgeoning, at which point I exited the discussion. Simply put, this was an extremely poor discussion to engage in and an even poorer decision to decide to defend the editor it was about. Even though I was acting in good faith, this was bad. I've had multiple occurrences of making poor decisions without properly thinking it through, this was another one, which thankfully ended up not causing any trouble.

I know it is risky to bring these up, but I believe incredibly strongly in admin accountability and strongly support WP:ADMINACCT and WP:RECALL. For the @Andy Dingley discussion, I was horrified by what I had done, and requested my NPR rights be removed. Basically, I have made mistakes, which I regret, and I try to learn from them whilst holding myself to account. Sorry for the long reply! 11WB (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't seen that Andy Dingley thread, thank you for pointing it out. You're right that it wasn't the best set of interactions, and it'd definitely be brought up at RFA, and the Pokemon Showdown suggested DYK hook wasn't great either. It's good to be able to point out mistakes and be aware of them, but seeing as these were quite recent, I think they would be discussed a lot during RFA. These aren't completely disqualifying but I would maybe hold back on opening a RFA for a year or two to prove you've gained more experience and have distanced yourself from these kinds of misstep. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. 12 to 24 months would give me much more time to carry on contributing as I have been. I can focus on authoring articles, improving existing articles, continuing to participate at venues like AfD and avoid AN/I for the most part! 11WB (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I think you're probably on the right track now, but it's definitely a case of it being too soon to me. Beyond the "technical" side of things, people will be looking at your temperament and how you handle stress and other editors. I'd agree to wait a year or two to demonstrate you've moved on from past issues, rather than just being able to recognise them. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I plan to keep this open for the full 7 days, but I think I've actually already got a very good of idea of my suitability. I'm not going to say anything regarding that, so as not to influence any other editors who come across this. 11WB (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]