Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 7

Providing general feedback in a candidate poll
The original intent of this poll from Anna was to keep it a brief review of the candidate's chances of gaining support to receive administrative privileges. Accordingly, the whole format of the poll is designed around this, and many people since then have also expressed the desire to keep this a lightweight poll. There are also concerns that having a detailed discussion of a candidate's weaknesses in public can be detrimental.

I appreciate how some people want to give in-depth feedback, even to those who aren't considering a request for administrative privileges in the immediate future. I just think that this page with its current format isn't the best place to do it. I suggest discussing directly with candidates on their talk pages, or in email. Alternatively, the editor review process can be revived and suitable instructions be created for it. isaacl (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Providing feedback or score
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&diff=1023192231&oldid=1023065960 this edit]: personally, I've always favoured encouraging short, constructive feedback. There has been, however, a significant number of participants, including the poll's creator, Anna Frodesiak, who preferred a simple score as a quick, lightweight evaluation. It's been three years though since de-emphasizing scores was last discussed, where no one commented on the proposal I made, and four years since I made (almost) the same proposal and one objection was raised. Perhaps we can establish agreement this time on whether or not more prominence should be given to short, written feedback versus a numerical score? isaacl (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, I find a score with 2-5 sentences on why yes & why no, and what to improve, is what's most useful. I have no objection to those who feel they'd rather just provide the useful short text, and some circumstances I am the same, but feel it's beneficial to maintain. In lieu of evidence that the presence of a score is unhelpful, I'd leave guidance as is Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I always find the score to be irrelevant, as either I would support someone, neutral or oppose. What is a 7/10? I'd rather give a response as to what might give them a better chance, but I've also found this to be better handled over email. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When you say "as is", do you mean in its current state, after the edit that was made yesterday? The edit flipped the instructions to first request that short, constructive feedback be given, and then state that some responders also provide a score. Previously, the instructions asked for a score to be provided, followed by stating that you can optionally provide short, constructive feedback. isaacl (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of the numerical rating, but it seems mostly benign. I made the change largely to reflect what commenters have been doing recently. Pretty much everyone leaves constructive feedback, but the two ORCPs open now have a lot of feedback with no numbers, so instructions that say scores are required but constructive feedback is optional struck me as...weird. The 2018 discussion has a lot of good reasons to use numbers, so I don't think we should remove them from the instructions, but harmonizing the instructions with what commenters are doing seems useful to me (whatever way that goes). — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 5/10 i.e. no strong opinion one way or another. Failure to come to any past consensus probably suggests we all have mixed views, and variable amounts of time to give to the feedback process. Numbers are instantly visible, but that can be good or bad. If an ORFA candidate has already received one or two quite perceptive, but rather low numerical scores out of ten, then I think adding even more of them must be extremely dispiriting for them to see. Hence this recent edit of mine (under discussion below). If one person offers a rating that I feel is unjustified one way or another, I might add my own in as counterbalance. But generally, I feel a personalised response -whether short or lengthy - giving an honest opinion and offering support and suggestions for the candidate is probably more useful to them than just a rating out of ten and a couple of sentences. But I have to ask the obvious question: has anyone ever followed up with the less successful candidates themselves to ask them how they felt about it? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A past consensus was reached on focusing on a score, and having a brief set of accompanying sentences. No consensus has been reached since to change the guidance. But with Anna no longer able to access Wikipedia and a lot of other changes in contributors, perhaps it's time to form a new set of guidelines. isaacl (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding what works best for potential candidates: I have no doubt that ongoing one-on-one interaction with a candidate provides the best feedback to them. But we ought to consider why this poll has continued versus the discontinuation of other initiatives like admin coaching, WikiProject Admin Nominators, and editor review. I think the lightweight, informal nature of this poll is a significant factor, enabling many people to participate. It's not easy to sustain the effort required by other approaches, so we need to find a balance. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a balance here already. Some prefer one way; others prefer another. If doing it either way works, why worry? If you try to prescribe that everyone must do things in just one way, you'll likely lose the input and feedback from those willing to put in a different amount of effort to assist editors in slightly different ways. I'd suggest that simply helping and encouraging editors and future admins is far more worthwhile than fussing around, worrying about changing guidelines about adding numbers/not adding numbers. If you want to change anything, why not simplify succes ratings to just Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor/Nil i.e.from four down to zero ? Nick Moyes (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As it's a collaborative initiative, I think hard feelings can be avoided by having the guidance reflect what people want to do, rather than making editors ignore guidance. If there is agreement to just let commenters comment in any format they want, then let's say that. isaacl (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Level of detail in feedback
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&diff=1023424723&oldid=1023375699 detailed feedback such as this edit]: I think it is very useful for editors to receive detailed advice and encouragement. Historically, though, the guidance for this poll has been to keep feedback on this page short, to encourage more people to provide quick takes in a lightweight manner, and for more detailed feedback to be posted on the candidate's talk page. Personally I think the user's talk page is better suited for ongoing discussion that can typically be triggered by extensive advice, and for the personal nature of such conversation. What do others think: should this poll be focused on short, constructive feedback, or should the instructions be modified? isaacl (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite giving rather shorter feedback, I don't really care. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That specific edit was long enough to probably be better suited to a user-talk page (or a project space essay), but I agree with John M Wolfson on not caring. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 20:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think fragmenting discussion is usually a bad idea, and I believe the visibility (compared to a talk post or essay) is actually a net positive.
 * Some editors are interested in running but may not feel ready to post an ORCP. Long-form feedback can help them gauge their readiness by being clear about the assumptions and undocumented aspects of current RfA culture;
 * While personal advice may be hyper specific, potential candidates may see themselves in some of the people posting here. The personal advice may be more helpful to others than we realize as onlookers may empathize with particular points and reflect on how it relates to themselves;
 * Some editors may want to get involved as voters or nominators, but want to be informed about the "soft skills" involved in the process. Long-form feedback provides examples for these editors on how to analyze a candidate and come to conclusions about what makes a good one in the current RfA culture;
 * Longer feedback can (sometimes) be less confrontational and more encouraging as "politeness" usually winds up taking more space than direct statements;
 * Allowing feedback in multiple forms (short, long, threaded, etc) increases the number of voices that feel comfortable providing feedback which ultimately increases the accuracy of advice.
 * So I don't think we need to limit things to a particular length. There's certainly benefit in keeping the process lightweight; at the very least short feedback is better than no feedback. But advice that is longer, threaded, personal, etc can also be useful here. Like others, I don't have strong opinions on whether to modify the instructions, but I think there are definitely benefits to having multiple kinds of feedback even if not explicitly documented. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think one comment being longer form can give it additional prominence, potentially shifting the poll away from lightweight feedback as commenters ratchet up the length. Change is OK; I just want to ensure it is a conscious one, given that past sentiment (particularly from Anna, who really wanted to emphasize a score as a quick evaluation) did not favour this shift. isaacl (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As for advice that can be helpful on a broader level for many, I think there are lots of other places where people like to talk about the RfA process and what it takes to be successful. Personally I feel it would be more effective for the poll to focus on the individual candidate. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's all fair, and admittedly I participate in few polls myself so I'm not about to tell everyone how to write. I just wanted to share my perspective as someone who lurks around and how I've found this page useful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Wugapodes I think you bring up an interesting point that there's not really an "Advice for nominators" page or at least not one linked to any of the main RfA pages that I saw. Thinking about my own journey as a nom, my first co-nom fell into my lap because of the personal relationship I have with the editor. I enjoyed the experience so the second person I nominated was someone I sought out after doing a screening based on what people who had screened me, formally and informally, had looked for. That nomination experience was a rocky one which taught me a lot and basically helped turn into the system/criteria I look for now. But perhaps all that should be turned into more formal guidance, just as we have multiple level of guidance for potential nominees. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The guide to requests for adminship has a section on general advice for nominators. Regarding criteria, I think all of the advice to candidates serves just as well for nominators. When it was created, I had hoped that WikiProject Admin Nominators would serve as a forum for nominators to exchange advice, but it faded out fairly rapidly. There is an essay written by Mr. Stradivarius, WikiProject Admin Nominators/Nomination checklist, which perhaps could be further developed. isaacl (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My short comment (as the person who gave the detailed positive feedback): I think any feedback - whether long or condensed - is useful, so long as it's done in a spirit of positive encouragement and doesn't cause any editor ever to lose heart...
 * ...but my longer comment is below. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Regardless of what the "standard" is, I applaud you for taking the time to review, encourage, and offer seeds of improvement to up and coming new editors. Since brevity appears to be the theme: Support your efforts. — Ched (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * As the person who wrote those long-winded words of advice and encouragement to - and then split the suggestions up for clarity - I'm obviously likely to defend their use. I don't see Isaacl's points as a criticism of me at all (though I know I can waffle a bit), but I make no apologies for being wordy or offering detailed advice if I think doing so would have a net positive benefit for any editor who has taken the trouble to come here and ask. I accept that any long negative critique and dissection of any editor's failings would be counter-productive, inappropriate and highly off-putting for anyone in such a public forum as ORFA (I would do that privately or on their talk page). But I do believe giving positive words of encouragement as I did, or at least tried to do - whether short or long - should be welcomed if we want to encourage editors to think about adminship in the future. Especially in this light of discussions like this one.
 * Honestly, I think long words of thanks and encouragement are far more helpful than effectively having a few posts curtly saying, in effect: "1/10 No chance, go away for 12 months, and read this" and then having someone snow close the matter. How off-putting would that be, and what are the chances of that editor coming back if curtly snubbed by us in that way? Of course, I also made my extra long comments in the light of my apology to RailwayJG (both at the Teahouse and on their own Talk page) for unintentionally denigrating the merits of some of their recent contributions, and am willing to repeat that apology again here. So, if I can make up for my rudeness by spending time looking at what they've done thus far, and giving them support and encouragement, plus some useful tips on what work I think they could start to explore on in an administrative sort of manner, I will do so. And, to be honest, I'll continue doing it like that, no matter what the guidance says, if I genuinely believe putting in that extra time and effort to give a longer supportive answer will help foster the admins of tomorrow, and not put them off in any way. But I guess ORFA candidates like RailwayJG are really the only ones qualified to comment on how helpful to them my type of personalised response actually was here. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Having gone through ORFA as both a potential candidate (ORFA was much more pleasant than my RFA) and as a commenter, I think the longer advice can be useful. It's generally better to say why the score is as such, rather than just state a score, which leaves the candidate wondering what went wrong. Hog Farm Talk 01:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not invested in any particular set of guidelines, or even having a poll at all (some prominent editors think it is actively harmful for promising candidates). No one is going to revert or collapse any edits (based on history, no one has to date), so the guidelines are just that. I think though that resentment can be fostered if some commenters follow the previously agreed-upon guidance (*) to provide short, constructive feedback, while others provide multiple paragraphs of wide-ranging advice. If commenters are going to do what they want, then I suggest modifying the guidance accordingly so everyone can follow suit. (*) Without doing an exhaustive check of contributors, I suspect there's been a lot of turnover, so perhaps new guidance is needed. isaacl (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, if we want to rephrase to something akin to:
 * Commentators are requested to provide feedback on the potential candidate's current status. This may take the form either of a lightweight summarisation or a moderately detailed review. Extensive examination should either be emailed or held on a user talk page.
 * Commentators may, optionally, provide a score summarising the odds of the potential candidate passing RfA, were they to run immediately. It does not represent the commentator's personal score of the potential candidate. If a score is provided, it is requested to provide at least a lightweight summarisation to explain the scoring given.
 * I'd have no objection to that Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the expressed opinions so far, I suggest something more open-ended, such as the following:
 * Responders, please provide feedback on the potential candidate's likelihood of passing an RfA. 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) 19:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I particularly like this approach as it sets the tone to be encouraging and supportive, even if it's likely to be a snow close. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it came about from the discussion at (I copyedited Anna's change into [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&diff=777848740&oldid=777815004 the current form]). isaacl (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * — Ched (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Could I offer a version which (I think) incorporates all the concerns raised above:
 * 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. If you think it helps, you may wish to offer a numerical likelihood of passing an RfA (from 1 to 10). But for heavily critical or very detailed feedback, please consider contacting the editor directly. A helper script is available that lets you give a one-click rating.
 * Nick Moyes (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest making it a bit more concise:
 * 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.
 * isaacl (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Minor comment — I suggest piping “be understanding” to WP:DONTBITE (redirects to the same guideline) so that source code readers subconsciously see “please don’t bite” instead of “please bite” :) DanCherek (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure; I suggest using the full article name, actually. isaacl (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can wait a bit before making [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&diff=1023717223&oldid=1023546745 any (more) edits to the responder instructions]? Establishing consensus requires patience. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy archiving of poll seen by candidate (reprise)
Regarding the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&diff=1025458182&oldid=1025452325 restoration of a poll that the candidate deleted], note I manually archived the poll already. I appreciate that as per discussion four years ago, some editors at that time wanted the poll to remain present on the main page for the full seven days after closure, even if the candidate had seen the poll results already. For context, other editors have expressed concern about keeping negative feedback up for some time. I don't feel strongly either way, but with the turnover in commenters, I thought I'd start a thread if anyone thinks if this minimum post-closure period should be revisited. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An ORCP exists purely to help potential candidates know their viability. If that individual wants it to be removed then I would certainly view that as an absolute indication it should be archived. Now that information may be worth knowing for a future RfA, so that reasoning wouldn't extend to not archiving it at all, but I can't see any harm to the Community in not keeping it up on the active page but I can see harm to the editor. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with . The process should be about support and encouragement of editors, and helping them to understand what would be needed to be done if they're not yet ready to run. If it become an excoriating process to have negative feedback displayed for longer than is necessary, I'm quite happy with the editor having the thread archived sooner. By not doing so we might put them off running when they are finally ready. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no harm in archiving immediately if that's what a candidate wishes, or if the candidate wishes it to disappear from the page. Deleting a poll, which is what some candidates would really like to see, is not an acceptable option.  Schwede 66  20:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Are we allowed to ask for candidate polls on editors other then ourselves?
Title. The link to open a poll substitutes your own name in, so I'm not sure how feasible technically even doing it is. casualdejekyll 19:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Honestly, if an RfA isn't imminent enough that the editor in question isn't prepared to file their own ORCP, it doesn't appear worth the trouble. Playing around with hypotheticals seems like a poor use of editor time and resources. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * No. This is a venue for the candidate to get feedback for themselves. Not for others to solicit it on their behalf. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is especially the case since there is an appreciable minority who specifically advise against ORCP. Doing candidate polls they didn't ask for seems very dubious to me. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's someone you think could make a good admin, pick your favorite person (or three) on the list of editors willing to make a nomination. Recommendations of others has been an important way I've found some good candidates (some of whom decided not to run, but that's a different issue). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This question has come up before. As per the instructions, you should only start a poll for yourself: To request an evaluation of your chances of passing a request for adminship in the next 3 to 6 months... isaacl (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2022
Hello, From last 1 year I, have gathering the knowledge regarding Wikipedia i.e. How wikipedia works, Category's of user's and permissions they have. I know this is not pretty enough but I shall continue to sharping my skills. I request you to kindly grant me the adminship. RAJENDRA PAL SINGH (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You have seven edits. You obviously did not even read the first sentence on the page stating This optional polling page is for experienced editors (bold in original) Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  23:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)