Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional candidate poll

"WP:RFAP" redirects here. For requesting the autopatrolled right, see WP:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled.

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. ~~~~

Chorchapu: September 14, 2026

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Chorchapu (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! I am a frequent contributor at In the News (ITN) and to a lesser extent Main Page Errors (MPE). I have been editing since 2024, 2 years this month. I am thinking about running in the March 2027 admin elections or in an RfA around that time. Currently I'm leaning towards AElect over RfA. As an admin I would likely focus the majority of my work at ITNC, as we have a long-standing problem of items being left a long time without being posted due to a lack of admins. I am planning to run to help address that. I also check MPE frequently and could improve the speed at which minor errors (typos, punctuation mistakes, style issues, etc) are fixed. My best work article-wise is probably Pegasus Spiele and their game Dorfromantik, but I am also proud of my series of German politicians and articles on news events. I'm wondering which one would be best to highlight in Q2. As for conflicts, I try to avoid the endless wikidrama, but have been involved in a few AN/I threads relating to editors' conduct at ITN. One report, started by myself, ended with one user being CBANned. However I stay off AN/I and such if I can avoid it.

Right now, I have about 1,200 edits to ITN/C and about 200 to MPE. I have 24 ITN credits and 11 DYK. I also have a bit of experience at AfD, with 85 contribs and an 83% match rate. I don't plan to do much AfD-related work but would still like to contribute there a bit more in the future. A few concerns I have about running is my relatively low edit count and account age. I currently have 8,500 edits and, at the current rate, I will have ~11,000 in March. Every new admin this year has over 20,000 edits, with an average of 67,000. Most have been here over 10 years. So, will 2 years 6 months and 11,000 edits be enough?

If there are any more detailed or personal messages, feel free to email me, my inbox is open. Keep in mind that even though I might not reply I will read all emails. If it looks like I will be able to run in March I also plan to start looking for nominators.

Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:18, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, 11,000 edits and around 30 months on Wikipedia isn't a lot. Your votes at AFD aren't vote-stacking and tend to be substantive, so that helps as well. 33 created articles with none deleted may be enough for those interested in content creation, and you do appear to have a GA under your belt.

There has yet to be a user who intended to admin at ITN that's been elected at AELECT (albeit every case is different). I don't think your odds of being elected are particularly high if you ran in March 2027, but ymmv. EaglesFan37 (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. This is what I worry about - the editcount/tenure standards are so high that it's very difficult to run. And yet we complain about how our admin numbers are dropping! I think I'll probably wait at least a year, so maybe the January 2028 elections. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:26, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I think 11,000 edits and 30 months is much more than enough, and you'd absolutely have my support on those numbers (assuming the rest of your record is solid). The continuing inflation of our standards (used to be that a couple thousand edits and a few months would get you the bits) is detrimental to the project that, as you say, needs more people willing and able to do the work. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 13:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

+1 Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron knows better than I do, so if she's saying it's more than enough, it probably is more than enough (unless there are any skeletons in your Wikicloset). EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take that into consideration. I'll wait for more comments on here, but I will say that it's just a bit discouraging. I may still run in March, if I feel confident in my chances. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Chorchapu, don't be discouraged. 30 months is loads. See recent admin MCE89 (joined December 2024), and last year's The4lines (~12000 edits) and LEvalyn (~10000 edits). In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps I can still run in EfA6. I will see. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say ~18 months and 8k edits is a rough threshold for running. Those numbers can go lower for the right candidates as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Chorchapu Just wanted to follow up given what everyone else (who are all admins) said. If you continue to edit at your current pace, Efa6 is definitely a possibility. Adding another GA or having additional activity in another area (maybe AfC?) would definitely help things further, but given how active you are at ITN (think you're 4th in edits to the nominations page), that could be enough on it's own. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I plan on getting Dorfromantik to FA by the end of the year in addition to my other GAs. I should also note that I am a new NPP reviewer, and while I am still just learning the ropes I hope to make it another area of experience for me. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Chorchapu If you currently have NPP, you already have AfC permissions. If you create an AfC log and do just five reviews a day, by the time the next AE rolls around, you'd have around another additional 2550 edits from that alone. On top of your currently pace, that would put you around 15k edits. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I am indeed an AfC reviewer as well and have been trying to help out there too. I wasn't aware that there was an option to log AfC reviews but I've just turned it on. Thanks for letting me know! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

For someone focused on content, having 8,000 edits can be enough. Maybe even less. Edits don't accumulate as fast for content compared to for some more maintenance-heavy editing. In terms of tenure, 18 months can be fine, but some people expect 2 years. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I've seen you around at DYK and ERRORS and have only positive impressions from those venues. Being able to admin at ITN/DYK/ERRORS is a good ground for requesting the tools. I wouldn't personally have concerns about your current edit count and account age, and if you reach your projected edit count by the 2027 EFA I don't think many others would (the comment above notwithstanding). I may reach out via email with some additional thoughts after I look a little more closely. I'm glad to see you're considering this! Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

If you get at least one, preferably two experienced users (not necessarily admins, although that would help) to nominate you, many voters will probably be happy to trust their judgement and overlook your relatively short tenure. Conversely, someone even with 50K edits and a decade here, but no nominators, may struggle. This is, I believe, what we've concluded in the few elections we've so far run. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I had been a Wikipedia editor for less time than you will be in March when I successfully ran for adminship in WP:AELECT4. Even though I had an FA under my belt at the time, a large portion of my edits are attributed to gnoming, AWB, and talk-page article assessment. You're probably more qualified than I am given your continued ability to work in such high-visibility, high-tension areas as WP:ITN! (edited 17:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)) -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Excellent – this makes my day. I've had a look around and I like what I see. I know your work at ITN and Errors. Unless there's something hiding that nobody has uncovered yet, you will get through without much trouble. I'd happily nominate you. Schwede66 19:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's reassuring to hear this support, from you and others who have commented. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anything of major concern in your ITN activity—and that's not something I say often about the sort of participation there. Being able to participate at ITN by referencing sources and notability, as opposed to "it's (not) interesting" and "this is what we always do" type rationales, is a huge plus in terms of trust and competence. Although as I've said before, I have trouble holding my nose to vote in favor of someone who has made an open threat to harm Wikipedia at the behest of a third party. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

From our interactions, you seem to be pretty levelheaded, you know alot about policy, and as others have said, your work in ITN, DYK, and errors, have shown atleast from my opinion that you could be a great admin. shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EditorShane3456: September 16, 2026

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

Hello! I'm EditorShane3456, commonly known as just Shane, and I'm very interested in possibly being nominated in a request for adminshp.

According to my admin score, I'm around 909 points, the vast majority of pages/userpages/drafts that I have requested speedy deletion on have been speedy deleted.

I understand that I may have caused some issues in the past, but now I'm willing to prevent those issues from happening in other new users again. shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:37, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

0/10 – The circumstances have not changed at all since your last ORCP, which worryingly suggests you cannot, or will not, take on feedback from your peers. You still have only been active for less than two years, and have not increased your edit count to anywhere near the often quoted figure of 10K in that time.

Looking at more recent events, I see that within the last week you had two separate CSD tags declined on one draft, indicating that you have still not managed to properly familiarise yourself with the speedy deletion criteria since last year. Your activity has also declined significantly since April, which brings concerns about availability. In February, Cabayi had to remove your TAIV access for "persistent failure to respect PII". In addition to all that, your AfD stats lie at only a little above 50%, which is far below what I'd expect of an admin, and your content creation seems limited to creating two articles (Tornado outbreak of March 5–7, 2026 and Selam (moon)) that I'd rate at best a generous C class when you left them.

Several well respected editors advised you left this pursuit for at least two years at your last ORCP: you have waited less than one. Several others recommended you only polled again when you reached a usual amount of edits: you did not do this either.

I know I am being blunt here, and I don't want you to be disheartened, but you really need to stop pursuing adminship at this time. It is not a trophy to be won or a badge to be worn, but rather a position of trust. Until you show you are trustworthy by following the community's expectations, as have been explained to you several times now, there is absolutely no chance you would pass an RfA or AELECT. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:08, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

To address the activity:

I have gotten a new computer to focus more on my other habits, and the only realistic time that I could edit Wikipedia is during school hours, of which I'm currently on my school computer. shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:14, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Also I've created multiple articles, not just those two, but some of them got redirected, one of them I created a new draft for just now. shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, those speedy deletion declined are sometimes an issue, but as I said, the vast supermajority I would say, have been deleted from Wikipedia. I may have some issues with CSD, but looking at the track record for the most part: the pages and drafts I have requested speedied, have gotten speedied. I have done around 170+ more edits in the time that I have returned to Wikipedia, just because there are some hiccups with my editing skills does not mean that I am a bad choice. shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the above. My impression is that you are quite young still. Perhaps in a few years time you'll have both the experience, and you'll also have grown as a person. The advice from before still stands: you'll need a lot more high quality contributions. What about you focus on other important goals first, such as writing a GA? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, not alot of topics reamain out there, so it's kind of hard to find an article to write and such. shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're looking to write new articles from scratch but don't know what to write them about, Wikipedia:Requested articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red are good places to start. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Only a very low percentage of our articles are GA. You can take an existing article about a small topic and improve it. Start with a topic where there are examples you can follow (e.g. for a tornado article, there are other tornado articles that are already at GA you can use as an example). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:56, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Shane, I definitely understand that the Wiki can feel very "complete" in that regard, but I promise that there are still (and always will be) plenty of new things that you can find and write about. If you want my advice, find a notable building, a neighborhood, a person or even a community near where you live, find some sources, and see where you can go. That's how I found places like Bottleworks District or the many Argentine town articles I have written (can you believe there are so many towns that still don't have pages?). You are interested in tornadoes, right? I'm sure that there are many notable tornadoes that have not gotten articles yet, and I know there are many that could use expansion. We're all here to build an encyclopedia, and you don't have to be an admin to be an amazing asset to the community.

I concur with the others in saying that you are rushing into this, and I think you should try and focus more on content creation instead of an RfA. Being an admin isn't all it's cracked up to be, I'm sure most admins would agree with that statement. Lynch44 01:41, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Every notable tornado has had an article on WP, it's impossible to fnd actually devestating and notable tornadoes that don't have articles because they already have em. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:41, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

There are a ton that need articles; I have an entire section about finding one in my guide here. Additionally you can always help improve content; the project desperately needs revamps of many articles that would help build a portfolio. As for the other things I am in agreeance with Femke and UpTheOctave that it is too soon for an RfA or AELECT, and recommend following their advice of content creation. Eoline 15:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, just because I'm young does not equate to not having the conscience or the mental capacity to make rational decisions based on WP policy and guidelines. shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

You've come to this page for the third time within 12 months. On the two previous occasions (3 Sep 2025 and 12 Dec 2025), you were told that you are nowhere near ready. Not being able to comprehend that feedback is a sure sign that you lack the maturity for the role. In fact, if you were to run for adminship during 2027, say, coming here three times in a row will sink such an attempt immediately. Schwede66 03:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.