183:, in general, there are still certain basic levels of contributions that the community looks for beyond a flat edit count and tenure, without which an RfA is certain to fail. When a candidate fails to meet a number of fundamental community-accepted criteria, occasionally a pile-on of oppose comments may occur. This can be demoralizing for the candidate and some users feel deterred from further productive contributions. This is clearly not in the best interests of the candidate or Knowledge (XXG), because it often takes more than one attempt. An RfA that is clearly going to fail will often provoke a number of responses suggesting early closure.
49:
113:
254:. You would not have submitted yourself, or accepted a nomination, to be an administrator if you hated this project. An early-closed RfA is not a good reason to start feeling hate towards it. Go back and do what you were doing that made you enjoy Knowledge (XXG). If you feel that a break is necessary, take a
166:
onto the main RfA page. However, if an RfA application is clearly not going to succeed, it will likely be closed early. If you are reading this page, it is possible that this has happened to your RfA. Alternatively, you may have been sent here by another
Wikipedian, whom you approached because you
125:
stands no chance of succeeding. On these occasions, experienced editors may close it before the scheduled end time, after respectfully notifying the candidate. If that has happened to you, please remember this does not mean we don't want you in
Knowledge (XXG), just that we have high standards for
281:
be seen by the community as being dismissive toward the time they spent evaluating you and providing you with feedback on your last one, and result in that RfA being closed with more opposition and additional concerns from the community regarding your patience and ability to understand and act on
276:
for adminship and submit another RfA, or do so much too soon. The editors who contributed to your last RfA have taken the time to give you feedback, and you need to understand, act on them, and allow your contributions and history to build a consistent track-record over time so that you can
314:
This essay is specifically written to ensure that we do not discourage newcomers or the relatively inexperienced, and to explain why certain minimum standards are expected at RfA even though they are not codified in any document. This guideline should
228:
that the early closure was a good thing, please ask the editor who closed it to reverse their actions. In general, assuming a good faith nomination or self-nomination, it is acceptable for a candidate to request their RfA to run for the full amount of
126:
adminship and the community does not think you are ready yet. Many highly respected admins passed the second or later time around, and you are welcome to apply again in the future, provided you have addressed the concerns raised.
217:
that there was no chance of your request passing at that time, you don't need to do anything. The editor that closed your RfA will have made you aware and probably pointed you at this essay. They will have taken care of the
201:
Many experienced and highly respected administrators have failed one or more RfAs before being granted the tools. Do not think that a failed RfA reflects badly on you or prejudices a future RfA.
319:
be linked to from RfAs of more experienced
Wikipedians; this could be perceived as condescending or rude to seasoned editors who are well aware of what adminship entails. See also
400:
34:
This page is about rejections of
Requests for adminship by relatively inexperienced editors. For rejections of Requests for adminship by intermediate-level editors, see
405:
360:
344:
72:; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Knowledge (XXG)'s norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of
350:
309:
320:
395:
335:(essay – similar but for moderate experience editors who are neither new users nor quite experienced enough to earn enough support to pass RfA)
338:
195:
If your past conduct was a concern, it will be seen as old after some months, once a better track record exists and you can show it is 'old'.
192:
You are welcome to reapply in a few months when you have more experience and have taken care to address the concerns brought up by opposers.
69:
198:
Editors are commenting on your suitability to be an administrator today, based upon the current accepted norms, not on you as a person.
152:
122:
65:
355:
148:
264:. There are many great options and willing editors ready to help you grow as a Wikipedian. Several options are listed in the "
180:
57:
375:
277:
demonstrate that you've improved or overcome any concerns expressed. Immediately re-applying for adminship will almost
380:
132:
332:
365:
163:
35:
167:
wish to become an administrator. In either circumstance, you have been directed here to find out why both
370:
255:
77:
73:
283:
171:
and those with only limited experience are extremely unlikely to pass an RfA and become administrators.
248:. Again, it happens. It has happened to some of our best administrators on their first attempts at RfA.
87:
299:
Remember: an admin needs to be a good judge of consensus, even on issues that concern them personally.
28:
168:
219:
17:
389:
290:
for you to pass an RfA, as you now have to show the community that you've overcome
294:
in addition to demonstrating that you've improved from initial feedback given.
156:
258:, and return when your mind and your emotions have had a chance to clear.
286:
will not benefit you in any way, and will certainly make it take
107:
43:
95:
179:
Although the only technical RfA requirement is being
310:Knowledge (XXG):When not to link to WP:NOTNOW
8:
321:Knowledge (XXG):Don't template the regulars
187:Things to note if your RfA was closed early
162:RfAs run for up to seven days after being
401:Matters related to requests for adminship
70:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
209:What to do if your RfA was closed early
151:. These can only be acquired through a
406:Knowledge (XXG) essays about adminship
7:
266:
238:to do if your RfA was closed early
25:
396:Knowledge (XXG) information pages
111:
47:
41:Knowledge (XXG) information page
361:Guide to requests for adminship
345:Adminship is not for new users
1:
351:Administrators' reading list
149:who have certain extra tools
422:
307:
304:Cautious use of this essay
85:
33:
26:
339:Advice for RfA candidates
292:these additional concerns
175:Reasons for early closure
119:This page in a nutshell:
27:Not to be confused with
246:Worry about it too much
18:Knowledge (XXG):NOT NOW
308:Further information:
284:Argumentum ad nauseam
153:Request for adminship
123:Request for adminship
252:Quit Knowledge (XXG)
226:If you do not accept
135:, commonly known as
66:encyclopedic article
356:Closing discussions
274:Immediately reapply
147:), are Wikipedians
181:extended-confirmed
220:technical aspects
130:
129:
106:
105:
16:(Redirected from
413:
145:system operators
115:
114:
108:
98:
58:information page
51:
50:
44:
21:
421:
420:
416:
415:
414:
412:
411:
410:
386:
385:
376:Snowball clause
329:
327:Further reading
312:
306:
267:Further reading
240:
222:of the closure.
211:
189:
177:
112:
102:
101:
94:
90:
82:
81:
48:
42:
39:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
419:
417:
409:
408:
403:
398:
388:
387:
384:
383:
381:Hat collecting
378:
373:
368:
363:
358:
353:
348:
342:
336:
328:
325:
305:
302:
301:
300:
296:
295:
271:
259:
249:
239:
232:
231:
230:
223:
210:
207:
206:
205:
199:
196:
193:
188:
185:
176:
173:
155:(known by the
133:Administrators
128:
127:
116:
104:
103:
100:
99:
91:
86:
83:
63:
62:
54:
52:
40:
36:WP:NOTQUITEYET
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
418:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
393:
391:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
357:
354:
352:
349:
346:
343:
340:
337:
334:
333:Not quite yet
331:
330:
326:
324:
322:
318:
311:
303:
298:
297:
293:
289:
285:
280:
275:
272:
269:
268:
263:
260:
257:
253:
250:
247:
244:
243:
242:
237:
233:
227:
224:
221:
216:
215:If you accept
213:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
190:
186:
184:
182:
174:
172:
170:
165:
160:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
124:
120:
117:
110:
109:
97:
93:
92:
89:
84:
79:
75:
71:
68:, nor one of
67:
64:It is not an
61:
59:
53:
46:
45:
37:
30:
19:
366:Adopt-a-user
316:
313:
291:
287:
278:
273:
265:
261:
251:
245:
241:
235:
225:
214:
202:
178:
161:
144:
140:
136:
131:
121:Sometimes a
118:
55:
288:even longer
262:Refuse help
203:It doesn't.
164:transcluded
56:This is an
390:Categories
282:feedback.
270:" section.
157:initialism
29:WP:TOOSOON
371:Help desk
256:wikibreak
169:newcomers
96:WP:NOTNOW
74:consensus
159:"RfA").
88:Shortcut
347:(essay)
341:(essay)
78:vetting
279:always
141:sysops
137:admins
234:What
229:time.
76:and
317:not
236:not
139:or
392::
323:.
143:(
80:.
60:.
38:.
31:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.