Wikipedia:Not now Information & Wikipedia:Not now Links at HealthHaven.com

This is an information page, and describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. However, it is not a policy or guideline.

This page in a nutshell: Sometimes a Request for adminship stands no chance of succeeding. On these occasions, experienced editors may close it before the scheduled end time, after respectfully notifying the candidate. This does not reflect poorly on the candidate, and any comments should not be taken personally.

Shortcut: WP:NOTNOW

Most Requests for adminship run for seven days after being transcluded onto the main RfA page. However, in certain circumstances they are closed early. If you are reading this page it is possible that this has happened to your RfA.

[edit] Reasons for early closure

Although RfA has no specific minimum requirements, in general the community looks for certain basic levels of contributions 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 deter them from further productive contributions. This is clearly not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Furthermore, an RfA that is clearly going to fail will often provoke a number of calls for early closure and associated discussion.

Any editor in good standing may close a clearly failing RfA. However this should be done with caution and good judgment. If there is any doubt, posting to the candidate's talkpage and asking them about their RfA is often a better course of action than abruptly closing their good faith attempt at adminship. Note that some editors prefer their RFAs to remain open, even if clearly failing, as the feedback is useful.

Any candidate who sees that their RfA is failing may make a request for it to be closed early. Simply strike through your acceptance of the RfA and note that you withdraw.

[edit] Things to note if your RfA was closed early

You will be welcome to reapply when you have more experience and have addressed the concerns brought up by opposers.
Comments made on an RfA are not personal. Other editors are commenting on your suitability to be an administrator today, based upon the current accepted norms, not on you as a person, or even your general contributions.
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. It explicitly doesn't.

[edit] What to do if your RfA was closed early

If you accept that there was no chance of your request passing at that time then 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 technical aspects of the closure.
If you do not accept 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, if a candidate wishes the RfA to run for the full time then this is acceptable. However, please consider editor review as an alternative method for getting feedback on your contributions.

[edit] What not to do if your RfA was closed early

But don't:

Worry about it. Again, it happens. It has happened to some of our best administrators on their first attempts at RfA.
Quit Wikipedia. You would not have submitted yourself, or accepted a nomination, to be an administrator if you hated the place. An early-closed RfA is not a good reason to start hating it. Go back to what you were doing that made you enjoy the place, or even take a Wikibreak.
Refuse help. There are many great options and willing editors ready to help you grow as a Wikipedian if you decide to stick around. Several options are listed in the "See also" section.

[edit] Further Reading

[edit] See also