Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The way that ORCP is currently set up requires participants to rate each prospective administrator on a scale from 1 to 10 for their current chances of passing RfA; optionally, a more detailed rationale may be provided for the numerical score. I can understand why the system was put in place, as this page was always intended as a very lightweight, non-committal opinion system to gauge where one stands. Unfortunately, I feel that the system needs to be changed.

Simply put, I think the numerical system is too subjective and the RfA process is too fickle for the scores to be very meaningful for ORCP participants. To illustrate this, take a look at a few recent ORCP polls: some ORCP participants were giving Jbhunley scores of around 8/10; the RfA ended up being one of 2018's most controversial – in hindsight the odds were probably closer to 5/10. To contrast, Cordless Larry's ORCP didn't include any numerical scores at all, and he passed RfA very successfully. More importantly, I think a "low" ORCP score (e.g. 5/10 or 6/10) might have the unintended danger of being too discouraging for candidates who we admit would be net positives or who we admit we would support at RfA. In this sense, I fear that ORCP may actually be turning away more qualified candidates than encouraging them forward.

As a step forward, I was thinking we should start to move away from the numerical system, either abolishing it entirely or making it completely optional, and instead focus on giving the prospective administrators advice. I think all ORCPs should proceed like Cordless Larry's ORCP did. This is pretty similar to what we've already been doing for candidates, just minus the numerical score. Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting thought. This would obviously strongly encourage the provision of useful advice. However I think the increase of advice (however useful) might also have a discouraging effect on actually encouraging the individual to run (at least in the immediate future). In the sense that I don't think you'd get many people going: "You should run now", but instead "Your AfDs are a bit weak, but you could probably run now" - even when the candidate would be more than suitable.

I also feel that numbers being optional poses the risk that a few numbers poses greater inaccuracy - whereas outliers should be reduced by more numbered recommendations being provided. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah. I see where your coming from. Ultimately, I think this speaks to an underlying feeling of mine that the ORCP concept as a whole might be too discouraging inherently. It focuses on reasons that would make more-or-less weak oppose reasons, like "low edit count" or "low activity" or "low AfD score", and it sometimes underestimates or fails to foresee issues that might be more serious RfA sinkers, such as Jbhunley's ArbCom comments. I'm not really sure how to address that. Mz7 (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure they are weak oppose reasons - in the sense that RfA editors don't consider them such. (I leave aside the question of if they actually are weak). ORCP acts as a rough-grain filter: it might be discouraging when it shouldn't, but it strains out a number of potential candidates who would otherwise not enjoy the RfA if they just went for it. Because the 2nd RfA is much harder (if those who have been through the unpleasant experience once even go for it again), it is preferable to delay potential candidates for 3 months. We don't, and can't, do the fine-grain check that would catch such things like the ArbCom comments. However candidates are just as likely to have !votes against from low edit count etc as a niche issue.

What we should do however, though it would be a remit expansion, is be better at chasing down candidates we said "run in 3/6 months", rather than lose them forever. That would demonstrate we actually mean what we said. Whether we'd ask them to re-do ORCP etc is something that would probably vary case by case. If we kept a list of cases where we gave a time and action suggestion, I'd happily be one of the people who dropped a message - but it'd be nice if that wasn't just some potentially intrusive 1-man job. Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

These are all thoughtful points. I guess I'm a little jaded when it comes to opposes based solely on edit count and activity level. If you've got more than 18 months experience and 10,000 edits, my feeling is that most RfA participants will criticize you if you oppose on the basis of low tenure. Additionally, I think the trend at RfA is placing less weight on AfD accuracy/frequency as before (c.f. Pbsouthwood and, currently, L235). Low recent activity level is a valid concern that might affect an RfA, so perhaps I shouldn't have included that as an example of weak oppose reasons; however, I'll observe that it's probably something that is easily rectifiable if the issue is solely low activity level and there aren't concerns with breadth of experience or cluefulness. I agree that making an effort to contact editors who started an ORCP poll would be a good idea to try. Mz7 (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting idea, and I agree with what Nosebagbear is saying. I also think deducing what a comment is suggesting, without the aid of the score, is sometimes difficult. For example, if someone lists some positives and some negatives without specifying (too much) how much weight goes on each, that could be anywhere from a 5 to an 8. So the number is a very brief summary of the comment.

To address the point that low ratings may be discouraging, I get what you're saying and note that the candidate (especially when advised by experienced editors) is free to give more or less weight to each comment, in particular, say, if a comment clearly relies on shaky reasoning.

I like Nosebagbear's idea with the followups and think we could expand this into an active effort to recruit candidates. I know recruiting campaigns have come up frequently in discussions here and WT:RFA, and have been carried out by experienced editors in the past, but I feel like more people should get involved. Part of that may be having a dedicated discussion page or list of candidates. I can see obvious drawbacks of those, stemming from widely-held beliefs & thoughts about RfA, however. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly no-one thinks to read archives. :) WT:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 5#Comments with scores. --Izno (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah shoot. Thanks for pointing that out. I definitely should have checked to see whether this has been discussed before. Interestingly, I think the consensus there was along the lines of what I wanted: we should start to move away from numerical scores and focus on advice in prose. No one seemed to object to the idea of leaving the scoring system optional, just not required or even recommended. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's been discussed a few times before that conversation as well. As you noted, the bare score was supported by Anna and others with the intent of keeping this poll lightweight. I did not implement the proposal I had made since an objection was raised and no further discussion occurred afterwards. Although I think there is no harm in making the score optional, I also don't think it'll make any difference for serious candidates, who should at some point read the two pages listed in the summary box at the top of the poll and self-evaluate their readiness. (Regarding the accuracy decreasing further with fewer scores: as I discussed in the previous thread, in any case there's no way to measure their accuracy, and I think qualified candidates should realize this already.) isaacl (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• There are a couple of things to bear in mind: ORCP was intended as an estimation of how the community would vote. If this is going to be an exercise that demands more research and advice, it will become a subjective process and hence a pre-RfA inquisition. No candidates want to go through such a process twice. Recruiting drives have been discussed ad nauseam - the feedback is always the same: candidates of the right calibre will not come forward to be subjected to the cesspit that some users are determined to maintain as their venue where they can be as spiteful as they like to the candidate and each other with total impunity. Even if a candidate is going to lose their bid for the mop, there is no need for such behaviour. RfA should be subject to the same rules of propriety as everywhere else on Wikipedia and people who cannot behave should be firmly told where to get off. The place to discuss how to achieve these standards is WT:RfA which again has not had any significant posts for a while - but where there is disinterest, one cannot force more people to get involved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Although I've spoken in favour of focusing on comments rather than a numerical score, I will say that having a score gives you an immediate sense of what the commenter thinks of the candidate's chances. This helps provide context for the comments.
• That being said, is there any consensus regarding the changes I had proposed earlier (with a modification to keep the sentence on the one-click rating helper script):

  Responders, please provide short, constructive comments on the potential candidate's likelihood of passing an RfA, based on how you think the community will evaluate the candidate. (Note your personal evaluation of the candidate might be different.) Please be understanding of those who volunteer without fully understanding what is expected of an administrator, and phrase your comments in an encouraging manner as much as possible. A helper script is available that allows one-click rating.

• isaacl (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this edit displaying another shortcut: as per our previous discussion, can we just advertise one shortcut? Please, let's not go back to arguing about displaying a plethora of them. isaacl (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't edit war over displayed shortcuts. If anyone really wants to have more than one shown, can you please discuss it? isaacl (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: my comments from July 2018 at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 5#Additional instructions still apply, although I'm more amenable to the wording introduced this time around. But I don't like babying potential candidates: they should learn by themselves that being pointed twice to advice pages means it's important. As following instructions is an important quality for administrators, twice is enough. Just speedy close polls opened by candidates who failed to follow instructions. That will get the message across more effectively than putting up a third version of the same instruction that they will inevitably ignore (after all, any serious candidate is going to look for valuable advice on becoming an administrator; I doubt third time will be the charm for those who already ignored the instruction twice). isaacl (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see that someone even noticed :P Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll suggest an alternative: restoring the previous text, and then moving the paragraph in the lead starting with "Disclaimer" to be under the "Potential candidates" subsection in the "Instructions" section. The clarification on a time frame for "very near future" can be kept. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest this is a complete waste of time as (AFAIK) we haven't had a single person come forward to this poll so far this year who hasn't been a "0/10 go away". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure; just trying to avoid having this discussion again next year. isaacl (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me, Kudpung: the text you added seems to have a grammatical mistake. "Read WP:Advice for RfA candidates again, or if you have done so already". If you have done so already, what? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333: not entirely inaccurate, but I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of time. Most poignant however, is indeed the fact that no serious contenders for the mop appear to be bothering nowadays with ORCP - recently they do not seem not seem to be the kind of people who need to as they are sufficiently experienced to know what their chances are. Rare enough already, RfA has now hit an alltime low and I suppose this reflects it. However, I have always thought, notwithstanding the positive aspects of ORCP and my support for it, that any serious candidate who has looked into adminship, would have read advice pages such as WP:RFAADVICE before they come here, and should probably be well aware of how they would fare. No one knows better than a candidate what skellies they have in the cupboard - which will almost certainly be brought to light by the process however appropriate the votes may or may not be. Wikipedia just loves drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I've never posted on here before, so apologies if it's in the wrong place, but in the edit screen, it permit one not to dictate War and Peace, presumably to keep things concise. So here seemed the next logical place.

Laughably, The Duke of Nonsense is asking for people's thoughts on them becoming a future admin. Here's my thoughts: Over the past week, I have been besieged with messages by this editor, on my talk page. Firstly, they asked for the protection to be taken off of my talk page. Having done that, they came to my talk page to ask a favour. Annoyed at their interference, I declined and questioned them why they would want my talk page protection removed. They stated that it would enable IPs to contact me. I could see no plausible reason as to why they would want IPs to message me, other than for trolling purposes. Past comments from socks and IPs include some disgusting, vile things about my wife, and horrible things about the late Kevin Gorman. I removed their plea and in almost the same time it took me to do that, they reverted it.

I had no further contact with this person until two days ago when they left me a rather pointy, straw man message on my talk page reminding me of my civility obligations. They were reverted, but again, DoN reverted it almost on sight. We then, amongst all that, had an established editor thanking them for their harassment. But that's for another place. If that wasn't harassment enough, they then stalk my Featured Article contributions and decide to add this monstrosity to Dan Leno, an article that has received no such controversy in all the time that I've been associated with it.

Can I also just remind people that DoN is an editor was formally "Rank Organisation", who was formally In Memoriam A.H.H.. They received a CU block for abusing multiple accounts. In Memoriam A.H.H was an editor who engaged me in an infobox discussion which ultimately led to the ArbCom case against me and my year's hiatus from the project.

So if this isn't harassment by the back door, I don't know what is, and it is certainly not the kind of behaviour becoming of an administrator. Cassianto^Talk 17:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The time seems to be apt, to shut this down. No serious applicant for the sysop bit, appears to bothering any with a baptism by ORCP and this has largely outlived its purposes. ∯WBG^converse 19:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

While I never thought this page was a particularly good idea, at one point it did attract serious candidates. Now the main useful purpose it serves is making sure that the people who come here first rather than transcluding an RfA never transclude an RfA. That arguably has value, but I'd generally agree marking it as historical would be fore the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I endorse this. A potential alternative would be to apply ECP, which would filter out some obvious duds (though it wouldn't get all of them). We could also make the edit notice more brightly colored and strongly worded. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 08:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the edit notice for the poll has a huge font and is quite bluntly worded as it is. Anyone ignoring it isn't going to be swayed by some additional colour or different words. isaacl (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Although I can't remember the last time I saw an editor post here who had a serious chance of becoming an admin, I'm still reluctant to endorse closing the page because I found using it a genuinely helpful experience when I ran for admin - which wasn't all that long ago. I think the lack of serious candidates posting here is largely a symptom of the fact that hardly anyone is actually running for admin these days. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the page has run its course. In the past I have suggested a controversial candidate come here and sound out views; but nowadays they just go straight to my talk page, like this. I'll see if people have got good ideas why it should be kept open, but otherwise I support marking historical. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Although seeking the counsel of friendly, experienced editors is always a good idea, I think there is value in having other opportunities for feedback available. It's helpful that this poll has a group of watchers who are known to be actively interested in providing feedback on a potential candidate's likelihood of being granted administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree with closing it (though if we get nothing better by the end of the year, I might agree). It takes relatively little effort to handle the clear 0/10s - the mass pile-ons both require more effort than is needed, and don't help the target editor. It suits the band of editors between clearly unsuitable and clear slam-dunks. The arguments for closing are clearly understandable, but I think it only requires the (very) occasional benefit to outweigh the problems the negatives should be causing us. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• A few have mentioned the recent absence of serious candidates. The last generally well-received ORCP was Cahk in late November 2018 - (current edit count 78k). I'm aware of the limitations of edit count, but it's a quick objective filter for serious candidates Doctor Who in late December 2018 (7k) could also possibly be counted as a candidate ORCP is designed for. Looking further back, the fall was generally a productive time for serious candidates. Cymru.lass (15k), Feminist (139k), Dreamy Jazz (52k), IntoThinAir (106k) all came in October, while Power~enwiki (28k), and QEDK (16k) came in September. I'd count 5 or 6 other candidates from earlier in the past year too. Not all found a warm reception, but it was reasonable for them to ask. Last fall wasn't that long ago, and given the low numbers of serious RfA candidates in general, I'm inclined to chalk up the recent shortage to the random variance inherent in low sample sizes. Like Tony said, I think there is also some value in giving the less serious candidates a more informal venue to understand the process, though ideally the responses would be kinder. So overall, I'd recommend keeping this around. I also think EclipseDude's proposal of applying ECP could be a workable compromise. MarginalCost (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I've looked into all of the candidates you've mentioned here, MarginalCoast, and from what I can recall my conclusions were Cymru.lass = inactivity, Feminist = asked, wasn't interested, Dreamy Jazz = not just yet but maybe later, IntoThinAir = not sure, several past RfAs, Power~enwiki = inactivity, QEDK = declined speedies, also not interested. Not my personal opinion but just how I feel an RfA would fare for each of them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but the original concern was that No serious applicant for the sysop bit appears to bothering, and my point was that as long as you considered all those "serious" applicants (which I would), then you only have to go back to the fall to find several. MarginalCost (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - particularly since part of its purpose (or at least its modern purpose) is to point out issue to candidates for them to either fix, or to avoid going to RfA. Our success can't be measured just by the candidates who say thanks and immediately stride off to RfA. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• As the page is still getting rapid responses, I disagree with shutting down the poll. The no-chance candidates have been easily identifiable, so everyone is free to save their time and ignore them. (Little or no response is a clear indication to the candidate that they have no chance.) If interest in providing feedback to serious candidates falls off, then the poll's existence should be re-evaluated. As some may recall, I too was not that enthused about the poll at its genesis. isaacl (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• IMO there is too much 'marking pages as historicaI' for the sake of it. It's not taking up any space on the server, and it's not comparable with the issue over the inactive portals, for example. I therefore wouldn't say ORCP is a complete waste of time. I have participated on almost every candidate poll since Anna Frodesiak created it three-and-a-half years ago and for a long time it actually worked. There is a small core of dedicated participants here, and any new polls or comments here on the talk page show on our watchlists, but the majority are not regulars - as sometimes shown by their own failure to read the instructions.

The nonsense polls we have been getting recently have been quickly and aptly processed; we don't get so many silly attempts at RfA because we have take measures to prevent them, but I don't find it particularly burdensome to come here and participate. Without being unfriendly to them, it is an opportunity to help such users understand that they are disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously by simply not having read the instructions - which is of course a prerequisite of editing anywhere on Wikipedia.

Most poignant however, is indeed the fact that no serious contenders for the mop appear to be bothering nowadays with ORCP - recently they do not seem to be the kind of people who need to as they are sufficiently experienced already to know what their chances are. RfA has now bottomed out at an alltime low and I suppose ORCP reflects it - but we're not going to deprecate RfA as a cosequence of the dearth of cadidates. Let's take a serious look at these stats before we do anything drastic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I clearly have too many edits to the page and too little to show for it, though I presume that's why I was solicited on my talk page to this discussion.... :^) (though by wikitext added, I'm only 38th!). --Izno (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Cordless Larry and Kudpung here - The issue isn't OCRP ... the issue is less candidates are applying for the bit, RFA candidates have dwindled down and down as the years have gone on however there's still a lot of life in OCRP .... it just needs serious candidates, If we close this we may aswell close the RFA process. –Davey2010^Talk 01:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• It took quite a while for me to decide to go forward with my RFA two years ago, and I must say that the results of my OCRP in December, 2015 helped me make that decision. Personally, I would be sad to see it shut down. If it is kept, we need to foster a culture of being kind and gentle with the obviously unqualified newbies. Firmness is fine but brutal frankness sometimes goes too far. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Some thoughts, as they were solicited...
  • I think marking a page historical which otherwise has an interested audience that partakes in the page probably doesn't make sense (save where submitted to a group-consensus-building MFD/RFC).
  • I think the evidence presented above regarding "no-one serious comes here anymore" indicates reasonable use of the page at this time.
  • I don't see a lot of value in page protection here. Quantities of HERETOOEARLY polls are low and probably would end up using the "edit protected page request" button presented at the protection screen anyway.
  • I think I tend toward "it's a meh idea" as a whole after the couple-years of existence. My poll felt a bit RFA-lite to me, which I appreciate for the experience....
  • I've increasingly moved into the camp that I think a number of the editors on this talk page fit into, which is that "the wiki is a big deal to the rest of the world... but we probably should be doing a better job of letting mostly-reasonable people be admins so that we can do a better job of making the big-deal wiki a good resource". I'm not sure if ORCP helps or hurts that mission....
• Maybe other thoughts later. --Izno (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I had no idea there was this huge edit notice for the poll. That wasn't there when I signed up for this in 2016... Since this is meant to be a low-pressure, no-strings assessment alternative to an actual RFA, it seems a little strange to have a vaguely threatening large font warning on it... On the page itself, it was certainly serving a good use a few years ago. And although my rating here turned out more negative than the actual RFA, it was still a useful place to come. I would try to work out what's changed and why good Candidates aren't coming here any more.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Kudpung. I feel we do need somewhere like this to tell people their chances at becoming an admin. Sure, you'll get people who haven't got a chance of ever gaining the bit come here, and those who like to collect hats, but it's better that than dodgy, 0/10 RFAs keep coming up. I would like to think that the sponsor of the RFA would be able to weed out the wheat from the chaff pretty quickly; but they are only human and things can become missed. At least here they are able to get an indication as to whether they would be accepted or declined in a future RFA, including much needed advice. But I also get the argument about its inactivity due to a decline in applicants. I just think that's indicative of the times. I'm of the opinion that having a few good admins is much better than have countless dodgy ones. So maybe it's good that the number in admin applicants has declined. Cassianto^Talk 07:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Now we got two clearly serious (by any standard) candidates.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Kudpung, albeit for slightly different reasons. I don't really like this page and wouldn't be sorry to see it go, but I think it's important to have a place where good-faith "I'm not sure if I qualify, what do you think?" queries can be handled. In an ideal world this would be WT:RFA, but in recent years that's become the personal property of a handful of bullies who take pride in being as obnoxious as possible, and we don't want to be directing good-faith enquiries there. If and when action is taken to stop its WP:OWNers from treating WT:RFA as their personal blog, I'd be happy to support deprecating ORCP as a separate page. ‑ Iridescent 08:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Two serious candidates there right now - hope even the individuals against the page will give their thoughts Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• No, absolutely not, I do not support shutting this down. Yes, it's barely used these days, but we currently have two active requests! And as others above have pointed out, any reduction in use is probably because the entire RfA process has barely been used of late - should we shut that down too? I support initiatives being shut down and marked as historical when they serve no realistic function, especially processes that are becoming remote from Wikipedia's general processes and ideals. But ORCP doesn't fit that definition. Leaving it here as a place where would-be RfA candidates can get a first overview of their chances is of significant potential benefit, while being of no harm whatsoever. (And, as an aside reply to the idea that it's "not taking up any space on the server" - it would actually take up slightly more server space to close it and mark it historical ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Nosebagbear and Cassianto; there's no need to shut this down. For those editors that desire to be kingmakers to serious candidates, you need to exercise more patience. ORCP has to be seen as an institution for your opinion to adopt the veneer of authority. I think ORCP exists specifically to handle the clueless TOOSOON candidates. I don't feel particularly good about admins unilaterally and extrajudicially closing RfAs when those 0/10 candidates deserve their pile-on. ORCP is the place for hopefuls to gain honest straightforward advice. The only reason I don't participate here anymore is that I don't suffer fools, not because I don't believe in the wisdom of this project. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• I think the question has been answered with two serious candidates requesting feedback. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure, but they've each just done a tremendous disservice to their own potential RfAs since ORCP is far more critical than RfA is. That of course, is not an argument to shut down something people still use. It is an argument to discourage anyone who is a serious candidate from ever posting here, which is what I did whenever it was more popular. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: - Is that saying that ORCP brings up points that an RfA wouldn't? Or that ORCP would advise putting off an RfA when it could, in fact, go ahead? The former definitely isn't the case. The second is sometimes the case, but at a minimum, isn't occuring wit the 2nd of our two serious candidates atm Nosebagbear (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  ORCP looks at candidates in a far more critical light than RfA does and will often bring up points that would never be mentioned at RfA. I believe at one point I called ORCP the single most toxic part of the RfA process (this was when going here was a ritual that was expected a few years ago.)

  There is zero benefit to an RfA candidacy in posting here. It can only hurt it, not help. A strong candidate who is a 99%/250+ support pass might get a nominator they hadn't have thought of or get the nudge to run, but the overwhelming majority of candidates will not. They will receive a paragraph that lists anything that might possibly go wrong in their candidacy. Even if the people posting that would have supported them. That just gives trolls things to feed on and point to on RfAs they never would have supported anyway. ORCP cannot help an all-star candidate, but can seriously damage a good candidate who would pass with 160 supports and 85%. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I thought the point was for sub-optimal candidates to get their flaws pointed out here in a smaller venue that for it all to blow up at RfA. We're sparing them wider embarrassment while also depicting for hopefuls in the audience what we expect. Lurking editors might be learning from what they're reading. But if you think every criticism is toxic then I'm not sure how we separate the wheat from the chaff without being toxic. Perhaps you want votes with no explanation and no opinions? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I almost made the point that what ends up at ORCP is often superficially-minor mistakes for serious candidates that end up more as a dossier, but I thought that might be too navel-gazing for someone who actually had a poll.... I would have found it helpful if, in private, I had been communicated with as to whether I would have been voted-for, but I suspect if feedback was so-positive as to make me a good candidate, I would have been approached in that regard. --Izno (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  My point is that candidates who are likely going to be 160 support/88% pass are harmed by this process because it documents their every flaw in significantly more detail than RfA does because the vetting at ORCP is usually more intense than at RfA. I'll go ahead and say it, but if QEDK had transcluded today instead of posting here, they likely would have passed an RfA until they posted here, and now it is likely they won't for a few months.

  My toxic comment was a reference to the 2017 RfA culture that held up being pilloried at ORCP as all but required even for obvious passes. It's being used less and less for serious candidates compared to it's peak in 2017 is nothing but a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I do not know whether you are right or not ofc (from my knowledge, you mostly are), but even if it were true, I would not run. RfA is not that important to me and I mean, I could have probably sacrificed other things in my real life and have actively edited for 1-2 years and ran before but I never did because it wasn't important enough. In my entire tenure, I've been asked a total of 4 times whether I would run for adminship, only one of them being an experienced admin who was willing to nominate me and another one recently, which was just a query. That to me, is not an awe-inspiring vote of confidence but an indicator of possibilities, just. I guess what I'm saying is, I'm fine not being an admin and I don't mind the critique at ORCP, however close to needle-threading it may be. My assessment of me running for an RfA will still depend on my own opinion and I think I'm not there yet. And in the end, my RfA will be on my terms, irrespective of what other editors have to say about me. I do appreciate that you think I would have passed, maybe I won't poll the next time afterall. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  @QEDK: Correction: Not a query. I really wanted you to run. You've taken up the challenges of closing the WP:MOSMAC3 RFC and clerking WP:SPI. I fully appreciate the work you do, and it'd be a godsend to the backlogs to have you as an admin. Separately, since I have absolutely no plans of ever running for RFA, I really want to write a co-nomination statement for someone. It'd have to be with a super-duper experienced admin, though ^{and isn't likely to happen}. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  @MJL: I really appreciate you asking me at all, tbh. I mean, we're all volunteers here, so it's good to know that we're being helpful at all. I don't know how useful I am to the community as a whole, but if atleast one editor considers my work worthy enough, I think that's a good enough reason for me to be around. And for your "no plans" of running for RfA, I'd call it a loss to the project if you never made an admin. You're one of the few editors who never take anything to heart, keep advice in mind and readily get back to doing the right things and that, in my opinion, is the single-most important requirement in any member of this project. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  @qedk: I'm glad you think that, but I feel like that would become problematic for me real fast. It could bring the project in disrepute were the word to get out that an active politician had admin rights or something. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I might eventually do a poll here in a few years, but I keep a wall of shame for good reason. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Regarding people in the past expecting RfA candidates to do an optional poll first, I disagree. The number of commenters who referred to the poll were, to my memory, a small percentage. And as far as I recall, most of those referring to it negatively were doing so for obviously flawed candidates. I do agree, though, that well-qualified candidates have nothing to gain by opening a poll. As I've said before, I think the best candidates should be capable of self-evaluating their readiness, and don't need a poll. Where this poll may be helpful is for those who need some encouragement to think about taking on administrative duties and are willing to prepare for an RfA, including reviewing past RfAs and past optional polls so they know what to expect. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  We'll agree to disagree on whether it was becoming culturally expected a few years ago. On all the positive things you've said, those can be accomplished even better through email with zero negatives. Anyway, this is a different discussion than was originally started, but ORCP is effectively all of the oppose section at RfA with none of the supports for anyone but the obvious passes. Requesting an assessment here is the single riskiest thing you could do for an RfA, and I'd continue to encourage serious candidates to pretend it doesn't exist and just email regular RfA commenters they trust to be honest. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think you overestimate how many people have heard of the optional poll, amongst the large number of people who comment at RfAs. I agree that asking trusted editors is a fine way to get feedback. isaacl (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I absolutely agree with User:TonyBallioni. It is no surprise that people at RfA refer to points raised at ORCP. When I ran in 2017 I was overwhelmed by criticism on a single issue mentioned here and which I thought was overblown. I would not undertake another ORCP. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  To see if commenters were expecting a poll to be done first, we'd have to look at some cases where none was taken and see if there were any comments about it. For your case, I appreciate you believe the issue was overblown. Nonetheless, even if you hadn't commendably raised it in your initial statement, I feel confident the person who initially raised it in your poll would have done the same in an RfA without a preceding poll, with similar results ensuing. I like candidates who self-evaluate, so more power to you if you choose to take another route to decide on requesting administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  (replay to Isaac) I've been pretty active on Wikipedia the last few years and I never heard of the optional poll until a few days ago. Enigma^msg 00:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• per various views expressed, I'd keep it going for now - review at end of the year? Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• It was useful for me. I was seriously considering an RfA at the time. Yes, as several people here have pointed out, my chances of passing an RfA dropped after the discussion, but it was still useful. I followed the advice given to me and have learn't a lot. I wouldn't say it is for everyone, but at the time I opened a thread here, it was useful for me. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• As far as the original question, I don't see any reason to shut this down. I feel I should note that there isn't exactly a flood of candidates skipping ORCP for RFA. We're at four this year in 5 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• As a further note, this poll is just one way of giving potential candidates feedback. As long as it can serve that purpose in a timely manner, it doesn't matter if RfA candidates first use the optional poll. If we get a flood of well-qualified RfA candidates who self-evaluate, that's great, and doesn't rob this poll of its utility. I appreciate, though, that the watchers of this poll may drift away without occasional serious candidates, and that is a factor to watch as time goes on. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Given that some serious or semi-serious candidates have resumed using the page, I withdraw my previous endorsement for marking the page as historical. If there comes a time in the future where the page completely falls out of use, or if no serious candidates use it for an extended period of time, then it may be appropriate to mark it historical. But, clearly, that time is not now. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 18:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• We shouldn't be in a rush to shut this page down. We're an online encyclopedia. We're not short on office space or shelf space. Even one serious candidate using this page in a year makes it a net positive. If we're concerned by the number of frivolous requests (and at the moment, I'm not) let's just EC-protect this. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Several of us mentioned issues with RfAs/RfBs while this was/is ongoing. I suspect several of us have a different meaning, and we need to clarify them if we're going to provide advice about it in multiple advice requests.

I interpreted my advice to be "you're going to get some particularly tough questions that have to displease one section of the community at least, thus making RfAs harder at this particular point".

Looking at the current RfAs, lots of opposes based on "regardless of candidate/questions, we don't think we should have RfAs in the current climate until the issue is resolved"

I will definitely make any similar comment clearer in the future and I'd hope that others would too Nosebagbear (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding threaded discussion between commenters below one of their opinions: I believe this was last discussed in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 4 § Is a 0-10 scoring system the best method. I know no agreement was reached to proceed with limiting threaded discussion. In the interest in keeping the feedback focused and concise, however, can commenters consider not replying directly below the comments of others, and taking any extended back-and-forth replies to this talk page? I appreciate that some feel they should point out perceived issues in the comments of others. But as this isn't a formal, well, anything, personally I think candidates are able to make their own determinations after reading all comments where everyone makes their points. isaacl (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I certainly agree with this. Question is: how many RFA experienced commentors are still watching the page? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Or perhaps, as a compromise that would still be attached to the review, make a sub-sub-section beneath all the 0-10s, and hash it out there? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The original intent from Anna was for a lightweight poll: a simple evaluation by each commenter about the candidate's chances at attaining administrative privileges. Extended threaded conversation makes the poll more heavyweight. It often drifts into a debate on the criteria for becoming a trusted administrator that is not specific to the candidate, which has been had many times and is better not to repeat itself across candidate polls. It can also take away focus from other expressed opinions. Having lots of back-and-forth discussion prominently appear in the poll can unduly highlight candidates' shortcomings over their beneficial characteristics.

I understand why some commenters would like to have threaded discussion for their convenience. But this personal advantage may be detrimental to the candidate getting an overview of opinions from a wide variety of commenters on their strengths and weaknesses. As I said in my original post, people can have their say, and candidates can judge for themselves; there's no need to hash out a conclusion. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Previously I've said that this poll should continue as long as there is interest in providing feedback to serious candidates. With the latest candidate, opponents of the poll actively responded with "don't take this poll", resulting in the poll being withdrawn thirteen hours later, possibly before any interested commenters had the chance to provide their views. I understand why people don't think this poll is helpful, and I too did not support its creation. But once a serious candidate has started a poll, I think those who see value in the poll should be allowed to respond. If there is a consensus that the poll should continue, opponents ought not to vitiate its purpose by trying to stop candidates in mid-process.

On a related note, to address some of the expressed concerns, one possible change is to turn the poll into a solicitation for email feedback. The requests would continue to be archived after a fixed period of time. Respondents could note they've sent an email, in order to maintain a community of editors known to be interested in providing feedback. This would of course limit participation to candidates and respondents who have registered an email account. Serious candidates would probably benefit from having an associated email anyway; it might be a bigger issue for respondents, however. isaacl (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• If participating can hurt someone’s chances, they should be told that. This forum can only hurt serious candidates as it is significantly more critical than RfA itself. People are free to disagree, but if the point is to give serious candidates advice, the best advice is to skip this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  I understand your point of view. Candidates have the right to decide that they want to participate, though, in spite of this advice. If every poll is just going to attract a swarm of people saying "don't do this", essentially making candidates withdraw so they can be responsive to feedback, then there's no point in having a poll. I'm one of those who, if asked, would tell people not to take the poll (though for other reasons than yours). But I don't believe I should try to override the consensus of people who see the value of the poll within the poll comments. I accepted that consensus was against me, and that my personal reasoning may not be shared by everyone, and let those who are interested in participating as candidates and commenters do so. isaacl (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  On the point of the poll: it's to give a quick overview of the candidate's chances of passing a request for administrative privileges, and not specifically for giving advice. Anna envisioned it being a bare number. The poll shouldn't become a place where the helpfulness of the poll is argued; that's what this talk page is for. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  That’s arguing that people should be allowed to go forward with something without being told the risks that what they’re doing is likely to highlight things no one would notice in an RfA. That’s not fair to candidates, especially ones with some flaws but who could easily pass an RfA. Candidates who fall in the camp I just mentioned absolutely should be told of the risks. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  No, I never said people shouldn't be made aware of potential risks.(*) It can be put in the instructions, or just like always, people can give advice to others on their talk pages. RfA has its pitfalls, and some of it is detailed in its instructions and advice such as Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. Commenters in RfAs shouldn't keep bringing up these issues within an RfA itself, though, as candidates are expected to read and understand the advice. Now there are so many commenters at RfAs that a few doing so doesn't matter much (and yet they'll still garner way too much attention from others). This poll, though, has so few commenters that it makes a big difference; polls will be stopped dead in their tracks, essentially overriding community consensus. isaacl (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  (*) Frankly, serious candidates should look at past polls and thus be able to judge for themselves the risk of having their pros and cons listed in brief. But sure, a reminder might be helpful. isaacl (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  No one reads disclaimers. I’m not saying that it should be done every time, but if as an experienced RfA nominator, if I feel that a candidate will be hurt by a poll, I’m going to say that and encourage them to withdraw, and I think it’d be doing them a disservice to say people who feel that way shouldn’t say it. All I’d do if there was consensus not to have it in the poll would be post on their talk page or email them, which absolutely should not be censored, so I don’t really see the point in saying “no telling people they’re hurting their chances in the poll.” It’s honest feedback that has a place. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  If there's no point in having a poll, let's get a consensus for that. Or let's move to having feedback by email instead of a public location. There's no point in letting people start polls when they're just going to be pressured to withdraw. isaacl (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You won’t hear arguments from me against closing this down, but note I didn’t say it should be done for everyone. If the poll still exists and there are candidates who are likely to be disproportionately hurt by it (i.e. people who aren’t likely be in the 90s but will likely pass) people should be free to tell them that they’re hurting their chances. Group think that doesn’t let potential candidates know of criticisms of the process is not helpful to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, you're attributing things to me that I didn't say, and I think the broad spectrum of views on this talk page belies the idea that groupthink is driving the poll. By all means, let people know your views. But also afford the opportunity for those who disagree with your views to express theirs. We need a way to do this that still allows for people to participate in processes that you and I disagree with. Making this a page to solicit feedback by email might be one approach. isaacl (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We’re in agreement then: everyone should be allowed to express views, even if others disagree with them. It’s up to the candidate on how to take them. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Where we disagree is how to frame the viewpoints. Although it wasn't my idea, lots of places in project space point to this poll as something to consider taking. I think we need a better way to deal with the risk of taking the poll than asking people to withdraw from the poll after they've started one. We're needlessly making potential candidates run through a maze. isaacl (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the way to avoid the needless maze is to think about how and where we refer people here then? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Generally they say something like, if you are thinking about becoming an administrator, consider taking the optional poll. The problem is that the only value some see is in providing a filter for those absolutely not ready to become an administrator. There's no good wording to say, take this poll only if you aren't ready yet, so the poll can try to keep you from filing an actual RfA. It's unclear to me that enough people pay attention to this poll for a list of shortcomings to make a difference. I know one previous candidate thinks so, but it just hasn't been my experience that it matters enough with the many dozens of commenters at RfAs, particularly as this poll has aged and its pool of commenters has shifted. If the goal is to eliminate this list, however, the only way I see to address the issue with a public list is to change to email-based feedback. This would basically make the poll an open solicitation for email feedback, as opposed to a targeted request for email feedback from specific editors. isaacl (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Poll participants have said in the past that they appreciated it (both those who ran and who didn't). Unlike TB, I support ORCP in general, but endeavoured to give a neutral answer on which route to take ORCP vs trusted admin for the specific individual in question. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see what's wrong in someone who is considering standing as an admin to come to this page to seek feedback. If their chances at RfA are going to be damaged by this poll, then are they the right people to become admins? Of course, if someone is going to be emotionally hurt by either process, then that's a different matter. I certainly found it worthwhile, and I was surprised at the suggestion above that it is somehow more damaging than a full RfA. Yes, we all need to be polite and not hurtful in how we engage with other people. But a bit of feedback and positive criticism can be a useful thing, and an admin surely needs to be able to cope with people highlighting things they've done poorly in the past. But I'd be equally happy if ORFA changed so that people only emailed comments privately, leaving just their name here to show that they have followed up directly. That said, what I think is really missing is a totally private way for someone to test and assess their knowledge and understanding of our policies and guidelines for themselves. As I suggested in a comment in the latest Signpost, we really could do with developing something to let anyone test their knowledge and assess their understanding. It would be great to see a page of, say, 25 to 50 serious questions - perhaps with multiple choice answers - so that anyone at any time can a gauge how much they actually understand of our workings and decide on their next course of action. Get beyond a certain number of correct answers and you might well be RfA-fodder a suitable candidate for the mop. Get full marks and you can move straight on to this. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  I like the idea of a self test. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  I do as well. Some might view it as a way to gain knowledge of how to pass RfA without actually having the experience. I don't see it that way at all. It should cover the areas where admins really need to have knowledge, at least in so far as areas where they want to work. Such a self-test might result in some of the questions being asked at RfAs to be changed, or removed entirely. There might be other unintended consequences. The best way to test yourself right now is to review the last many RfAs and see what sort of questions were asked and consider your own answers to them. But, such a method is imprecise as it doesn't guarantee your knowledge is sufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  I was going to ask you on your talk page if you planned to start a draft or a discussion somewhere. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Admin Nominators in theory could host a discussion, though due to the WikiProject becoming inactive not long after creation, you'd have to post notices in other locations to draw attention to the discussion. (But that's probably the case no matter where the discussion is held.) isaacl (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a shame WP:WikiProject Admin Nominators wasn't called WP:WikiProject Admin Recruitment - it might have lasted longer with a broader-sounding remit.

But regarding a self-assessment page for potential admins: for reasons I won't go into, the timing is not good right now for me to kick off a detailed discussion on this idea, and to see it through. Maybe in a few weeks time. That said, I have risen to your challenge and have spent this morning drafting out a few initial thoughts. See User:Nick Moyes/Wiki SkillCheck. You or anyone else here are most welcome to add any thoughts or suggestions to it, or to its talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The issue with the wiki project was that it couldn't figure out what level of discussions it felt was appropriate to have in public, without unduly exposing potential candidates to unnecessary scrutiny. As discussed above, it is tricky question to deal with.

I just wanted to give you the chance to start an initiative, if you wished, before anyone else tried to do so. It is something I may be interested in pursuing further, but there are a few other discussion threads that I committed to starting, so will probably work on them first. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I like the concept, but I'm concerned that the knowledge in question could be misunderstood as being sufficient rather than necessary for adminship. For the people in the audience who don't do formal logic, I'm imagining less-experienced editors taking it, passing it (perhaps retaking it a couple times as they learn the policies), and then going "okay, I passed, that means I'm qualified to be an admin!" when that clearly isn't the standard applied at RfA. More generally, there's a gap between "understands admin-related policy" and "can earn the trust of the community," and I doubt it's possible for any automated feedback to effectively capture that (I'm looking at you, AdminScore...) ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I take your point, Creffett, thank you. To that end I've modified the text of my mockup, but I'm not going to rush to bring it forward for a proper discussion right now, as I'd quite like to work on it further. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with Isaacl: On the point of the poll: it's to give a quick overview of the candidate's chances of passing a request for administrative privileges, and not specifically for giving advice. Anna envisioned it being a bare number. The poll shouldn't become a place where the helpfulness of the poll is argued. (the bolding is mine). An important statistic on the usefulness of the poll is this one. questions to be asked are:

• Does it reflect the trends in interest/disinterest in adminship/becoming an admin?
• What is the quality/relevance/experience of the comments of those who contribute to the poll, and have they themselves read the instructions and understood the spirit of the poll?

A significant number of poll candidates do not read the instructions. Being able to read instructions is quintessential to adminship. If they had, they would have been provided already with more than enough background and opportunities to carry out a self assessment first. Before they arrive at the poll stage they will also have read that they are welcome to contact an experienced user on or off Wiki for advice, all which makes this poll the last step they should undertake before actually going ahead with a RfA. There are absolutely no rules or policies that forbid the use of email or off-Wiki communications, and contrary to common belief, not everything needs to be discussed publicly under some pretense for the need of 'transparency' - in fact where some well meant and appropriately worded good advice is sometimes made on user talk pages, it is often deliberately taken out of context by not-so-friendly talk page stalkers and used negatively elsewhere (I'm sure Worm That Turned, one of our most expert and cautious situation diffusers, will be aware of this effect. Indeed, an email is very often the best ad rem solution). Quite obviously, polls started by users who don't stand the slightest chance of passing an RfA should be closed and archived as quickly as possible, with perhaps a simple message without any further explanation, on their user page from the closer that the poll has been closed - those users have clearly demonstrated that they have not read the instructions. A poll candidate can naturally close or withdraw their poll at any time.

Unless a contributor has gone overboard with their comments or missed the point of the poll entirely, there should be no need to comment on their comments or occasion a threaded discussion. Unlike TonyBallioni, for example, if the comments are therefore strictly objective and don't go overboard with advice I do not see how starting a poll would damage a candidate's chances of passing at RfA. However, it's a big 'if' because as Tony correctly explains, there might be a negative issue that could cause a huge and disproportionate pile-on of oppose votes for one event, eg at this RfA (I am especially reminded of Nosebagbear's voting - and this is not a criticism), although even as one of the nominators of that RfA I'm not saying that the final outcome was wrong; it just did not need to be another classic RfA bloodbath of the the kind that discourages potential candidates of the right calibre from running - history (old and recent) has shown that schadenfreude and grave dancing is not absent from Wikipedia. Lies, deceit, PA, and comments taken deliberately out of context, are all too common at RfA, and other noticeboards and/or elections where editors come under close scrutiny.

The poll therefore is something that should never be referred to during the course of an RfA unless there is a very good reason to, and that would generally be on an RfA that wouldn't have a chance of passing anyway. Based on the response to the poll, and if the comments offered are succinct and objective, the decision to run or not is the candidate's choice and the possible outcome is something the candidate will still have to extrapolate for themselves. It might be an idea to ask Money emoji what they think about the value of the poll. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung, I’m not sure I’m the right person to ask, since my situation is more unique than most who will come to the poll (low edit count, but extremely strong reason for wanting the tools). Going past that, my personal experience leads me to believe its good for people who are in good standing and have easy to fix issues- if they have any. I withdrew because of the advice of those who responded, but also because I know what I need to work on and I was worried that it would only amplify those issues. I’m not too sure about how much weight it holds overall; think about fwth, who had a poll that went poorly here, then went to rfa and tanked badly (which probably started the downward spiral that got him arbbanned, cbaned, and glocked) I guess the value depends on who takes it. Sorry for the ramble, 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 03:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Money emoji, no need to apologise, yours is exactly the kind of feedback we need here - your situation is not as unique as you may believe. Thank you commenting! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I was actually quite glad to get the feedback I did last year from the 4 people who chimed in. I had an idea of what I was doing well and wanted to know where to go next. And I did get some helpful things to look at. I'm not running for adminship yet because I want to keep developing those things without giving up my content creation, but it did give me a helpful springboard when I felt stuck on what to work on next. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• I was glad to get feedback but overall it was simply a net negative for me as the same person who turned up at my ORCP turned up at my RfA (not questioning agendas, just stating facts) but ORCP only benefits you if you can ensure: 1) you literally never commit a mistake again that is mentioned in the poll. 2) the people at your ORCP become agreeable to you gaining the mop. Both of my ORCPs were fairly "meh", with a general no consensus vibe all around but my RfA still passed at 95%. It is more critical than RfA will be (provided you do not make major mistakes or the sort). The major point of contention at my RfA was the same raised at my ORCP, just ended up rehashing the entire affair. I previously told TonyBallioni (always right, it seems!) that I wanted general feedback and ORCP is still a good platform for the same, but if anyone is willing to run for adminship, I do not recommend it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)