Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 21:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 15:04:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Purge this page

Recently closed RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
ONUnicorn RfA Successful 30 May 2017 192 2 2 99
Vin09 RfA Withdrawn 15 May 2017 2 10 0 17
Cwmhiraeth RfA Withdrawn 10 May 2017 20 41 7 33
Clpo132 RfA Successful 10 May 2017 174 1 3 99
CookieMonster755 RfA WP:SNOW 8 May 2017 0 11 2 0
Pvmoutside RfA Withdrawn 8 May 2017 63 68 20 48
Dane RfA Withdrawn 13 Apr 2017 74 56 13 57

Poor AfD stats[edit]

Can someone explain to me why "poor AfD stats" is seen by some people as an argument to oppose a candidate at RfA? Does that mean they want people to not voice minority opinions in AfDs? Do they want people to add a sixth "delete, not notable" vote to unanimous AfDs in order to boost their stats? If a candidate has AfDs where they did not end up on the winning side, this tells us how they behave in disputes that they do not win. This is useful information, as admins typically disagree with each other a lot and then have to accept and uphold decisions they do not agree with. I think whether the candidate agrees with the majority should not be important as long as they have a useful and meaningful contribution to the debate. My personal AfD stats these days are poor, as I do not contribute to unanimous debates at all (other than as nominator) and only comment on AfDs that I find interesting, sometimes as the lone dissenting voice. How does this make me a bad admin? —Kusma (t·c) 12:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Interesting point. Speaking as someone who perhaps isn't as familiar with the admin role as he should be, I would additionally ask: given that the role of an admin with regards to AfD discussions is to close them, not vote (which they're certainly entitled to do, but then they wouldn't be the closer), how is how they vote on AfDs pertinent? Is the suggestion that an admin who tends to cast minority opinions on AfDs would be ill-suited to close them competently? If so, that doesn't seem to me like it logically follows. If nothing else, a good admin simply wouldn't close AfDs in cases where they disagreed with the outcome. It seems like there may be somewhat of a failure to assume good faith here. I look forward to gaining additional insight into this subject. DonIago (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I also think there's a difference between assessing an article or topic for compliance with rules (voting in an AFD) and assessing and carrying out consensus (closing an AFD). Moreover, I don't trust that tool that gives the AFD stats - for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redwall doesn't show up in my AFD stats for some reason, and it's not the only one. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political party control of United States state legislatures and governors shows up as me casting a redirect !vote instead of a delete as nom, simply because in a later comment I said I'd be fine with it being redirected and bolded the word redirected, which confused the tool (although the tool still thinks I got it "right"). Like Kusma I see little value in adding a sixth "delete, not notable" vote to a unanimous AFD, or a sixth "keep" vote to a unanimous AFD unless I have something new or different than what others have said to add to the conversation. That doesn't mean I couldn't close the unanimous delete and carry out the consensus. The only thing I can think of for why people are hung up on AFD stats is that they may be looking at it as a measure of your ability to persuade others to your point of view. If there are a bunch of delete !votes and you can persuade others to change their minds and successfully get the article kept, or vice versa, that's a measure of your ability to know the rules, apply them effectively, and get others on board with you. But that would be better judged by looking at the content of both the "correct" and "incorrect" AFD comments, not merely the results. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • While I can sort of understand this, I logically cannot support it in any way. As long as they are backing up their votes with logic, then it should have no bearing on an RfA, much less a negative one—logically backing up one's arguments may actually be a good thing, at least compared to a really high AfD percentage just going "by nom" all the time. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I addressed this in the RfA, but I'll repost it here. It all boils down to the fact that for many people, having a number to cite is much easier than actually digging into the substance of an editor's contributions, whether you're talking about AfD "success", edit count, percent edits to various namespaces, featured articles/DYKs, or the various other numbers that people have used as a proxy for suitability for adminship. With AfD stats in particular, as you mentioned, the roll of an editor in an AfD discussion (judging notability) is completely different from the role of an administrator closing a discussion (judging consensus). This leads to a bit of a paradox: if you are planning to run for RfA you would always want to !vote with consensus to improve your stats, so your AfD stats might be an indication of your ability to judge consensus. However, someone who is !voting against the merits probably isn't the sort of person we want as an administrator. On the other hand, if you're truly !voting at AfD to improve the project, and are therefore the kind of person we want as an admin, you would be !voting based on the merits and not on consensus, and the your AfD stats wouldn't have much correlation with your ability to judge consensus. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 14:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There might be a reasonable argument made that someone who sits with consensus in an AFD understands the correct weighting of the arguments made in an AFD--an understanding which he will need as an administrator to close AFDs correctly—as in, without too many false positives, as evidenced by the number of times he ends up at DRV or AN(I) or whatnot—since consensus is not a headcount. I'm not entirely sure I subscribe to this argument (I think some question is begged regarding whether the user in question might have gamed the system by !voting as discussed above [please AGF], or might not have !voted with some significant rationale actually indicating his agreement with what ends as the consensus position), but I think that's the one I might make. --Izno (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
If you are talking about my take on this, I didn't mean to imply an editor running for adminship gaming the system, I just meant that an editor will generally vote on not too controversial noms, which is what a lot of editors (at least I do it) do. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I did not intend to respond to your comment. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record, I've repeatedly argued that the entire idea of using AfD stats as a criterion for RfA is outrageously wrong, and that indeed any such votes should be discounted by the crats as a matter of principle [1][2]. Fut.Perf. 17:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I think you are incorrect for the reason Primefac mentions below (and which I mentioned at ONUnicorn's RfA). AfD percentages are a valid criterion but not the way people currently use them. A very high percentage of "mistakes" indicates a user is !voting in a pattern, without considering the article's merits at all (such as !voting delete or keep on every AfD). Conversely, a high percentage of "correct" !votes indicates a user who might prefer to "play it safe" and just !vote in AfDs where the consensus is already clear to increase their "winning" percentage. So we don't need crats to discount such !votes in general, just those who don't use the stats to check whether the candidate is able to make policy- and guideline-based arguments. Regards SoWhy 17:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There's nothing inherently wrong about someone having a minority viewpoint and having something like a 60-70% accuracy rate at AFD. There are really two types of "bad" percentages: the first is simply voting delete on everything and being wrong sometimes. The other is what's mentioned above - looking at the situation, making an assessment, and occasionally being wrong. I think "bad AFD stats" isn't a good reason to oppose, whereas "bad AFD stats because 99% of the time they vote delete with no rationale" is a valid reason to oppose. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The underlying problem is human nature; we are quite willing to look at objective measures and believe they give us wisdom. However. wisdom usually comes from the subjective. We have plenty of ways in which to objectively measure candidates. People refer to those rather than do an indepth review of a candidate's edits. So, if someone has <insert arbitrary % level> corrected votes at AfD, people conclude the candidate must know what they are doing. It's a false metric, but people latch onto it anyway, and there's really nothing we can do about it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that stats are unhelpful. There is a big difference between voting delete the day before a footballer has their first team debut, or voting delete on an article that is rescued with paywalled sources and voting delete on an article that could have been saved with a simple websearch. Raw statistics don't show you whether this is a person who makes sensible contributions in edge cases or one who usually votes per nom and occasionally does some deletion nominations that are hard to tell from vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 20:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Another issue I don't think I've seen mentioned here is that AfD stats are particularly poor grounds to judge this candidate since a lot of the AfD's they !voted "Keep" were closed as "No consensus". That means that the end result of the discussion was to keep the article as ONUnicorn suggested but the statistics do not count that as "vote matched result". So, as lazy as the argument is in general, it is even less applicable here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • re the afd stat tool getting it wrong, as someone who adds afds to the various discussion lists, the tool sometimes (around 2% to 5%?) assumes i have 'voted' in line with the following editor's 'keep' or 'delete' vote, annoying/surprising but you get used to it:) Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    Coolabahapple, speaking as one of the maintainers of the tool, feel free to drop notes on my talk page about errors of this type, since we should definitely fix that :) Enterprisey (talk!) 02:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    hi Enterprisey, no probs, it just looks like some funny aberration, oh wait, its just that it could ruin my almost(?) perfect record, oh no, from some of the comments above a very high 'success' rate means i won't ever become an admin, phew!Face-smile.svgCoolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Fads come and go - and so do they at RfA. This year's fashion is an obsessive concern with candidates' AfD stats as if that were all that matters for becoming an admin. ...having a number to cite is much easier than actually digging into the substance of an editor's contributions... (Ahecht). Exactly, and it also often precipitates a raft of unqualified pile-ons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • My opinion - I hate to see raw statistics such as these used to make an arbitrary judgement on a candidate's suitability. Whenever I see a !vote based purely on AfD stats, length of tenure, number of articles created, number of posts at one or another Admin board, simple edit count etc. with no evidence that the voter has actually examined the candidate's contribution, I just scroll past that lazy vote, completely discounting it. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • AFD stats can be useful if used correctly. If an editor is out of sync 30% of the time, it could indicate that they are not up to date with policies. But there are a number of other factors to consider before reaching that conclusion. If the majority of that 30% consists of well-reasoned arguments citing policies it's not a problem. Similarly if they were out of touch with consensus years ago but have sharpened up their game in recent years it may not be an issue. In all cases, people need to look beyond raw stats. Valenciano (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I was curious about this as well. If someone steps in with reasoned rationale in a contentious AfD that doesn't go their way, that shouldn't be harmful. If anything, this trend would probably discourage candidates from voicing their opinion on anything other than slam dunk AFDs. South Nashua (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately while everyone here is moaning that AfD stats and percentages aren't/shouldn't/won't/can't be used, a sister project (at the less-than succinctly-titled Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search/Poll candidates) is merrily advising would-be candidates- and more importantly, those searching for new candidates- to ensure that would- be admins have 'good participation[in AfD] and a high percentage of green.' Oops! 😀 — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
That's not a contradiction. It is perfectly reasonable to recognize that AfD stats are a part of the decision-making process for many RfA voters while also disliking that fact. The OCRP candidate search folks are not trying to find editors who they like, they are trying to find editors that they think will pass RfA's. It would be silly for them to ignore de facto RfA standards, however much they disagree or agree with those standards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: Just so. And who mentioned contradictions...? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 21:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Reply- "Overall" AFD stats show how much the candidate knows about article notability guidelines, but in this case about ONUnicorn the decision was wrong as most of her red boxes were 10 years old. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether here or on an online dating site, if someone's only concern is "stats" it's pretty shallow. Jonathunder (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedians seeking wikipedians. 24-year old male, questionable sense of humour, even more questionable sense of personal hygiene, seeks loving relationship with something, anything really, has available access to sheep dip.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Poll candidate search[edit]

ONUnicorn was on the raw list at the Poll candidate search project. She was vetted then received the post suggesting she take the poll. The poll results were encouraging. She is now at RfA and doing well.

The Poll candidate search caused a spike in entries for April. More poll entries = more RfAs, right?

I am posting here To MusikAnimal, SoWhy, Enterprisey, Ritchie333, Mr. Stradivarius, Bri and Samwalton9: and anyone else who can make scripts and that sort of thing that produce names for the raw list.

For years people at this page have spent hours and thousands of keystrokes going on about not enough admins and possible solutions. Well, this might be working. I keep posting again and again with appeals for raw list names. I am mystified as to why there is so little help here.

Please feed the machine with names.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Stay mystified Anna. It's the same at WT:NPR, a lot of talk about problems but when the issues have been clearly identified no one want to take the initiative to implement the solutions, and so the keystrokes continue, but they are all banter, not programming language. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. All I can say is: rats, dang, grrrrrrr, hmmpf, jeez, awwwww, and sigh. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, instead of waiting for people to volunteer their abilities, I will have to knock on doors one-by-one. So... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Who here knows of people who know how to populate the raw list? Name names! Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I think the big barrier is that "go forth and make a list" isn't something you can tell a script to do. We need parameters on what we want to be on the list. Once those parameters exist, then we can call on a coder to take up the task. Computers are stupid, so we have to be very exact about what we want anything automated to do. How about the following as a basis for a list?
  1. Pull a list of everyone who has edited AIV, RFPP, AN, or ANI in the past month. (Feel free to suggest other centralized project-related pages or other means of generating some initial list that we can then reduce. Everyone who's edited in a time period is too broad. We could pull lists from user groups as an alternative to something based on individual pages.)
  2. Remove from the last anyone with the sysop or bot flag.
  3. Remove from the last anyone without the extendedconfirmed flag. (Note: Checking edit count is likely an expensive operation. That's best done by vetters.)
  4. Remove from the list anyone who has been blocked in the past month.
  5. Remove from the list anyone who's account was created less than two years ago. (Mostly as the "cheapest" substitute for checking edit count - a check on a single log entry is easier.)
This would pull a broad list of people. There would need to be substantial cuts in vetting. Is this what you're looking for? ~ Rob13Talk 01:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, a smart move that doesn't require a script would be to add everyone who failed an RfA in 2015 or earlier to the list and vet for current activity/improvements upon their initial candidacy. I imagine some could be convinced to go again, but they may not decide to do that without prompting because failing an RfA can be brutal. ~ Rob13Talk 01:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Checking edit count is actually fairly cheap, so long as it doesn't have to be exact; there's a column for it in the user table, and it's also available through the API if you really prefer that route.
My concern here is that any given thread on WT:RFA is at least 50% likely to be how horrible an idea it is to use statistics to evaluate candidates, and you're essentially asking us to do exactly that even before they're candidates. —Cryptic 01:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
We're really trying to find candidates with these statistics, not evaluate them. Of course, we might miss people because of these statistics, but the other option is manual searching, which we're already doing. So we're just creating a new pipeline for candidates, if I'm understanding everything correctly. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cryptic. Exactly what Enterprisey said. Well put, Enterprisey. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Remove from the list anyone who has been blocked in the past month." - this doesn't account for accidental or self-requested blocks...which is just one small example of why any one set of parameters won't be useful for this, and why human vetting is still the best way to go about it despite the massive inefficiency. And yes, what Cryptic said, better than I could and (luckily) before I could. ansh666 02:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
As an extremely broad first pass, quarry:query/18456 has all non-sysop, non-bot users with at least ten thousand edits who registered at least two years ago and aren't currently blocked. There's 4571 of them. The cutoffs I picked were completely arbitrary; if you want that narrowed down at all, you'll have to be more specific. —Cryptic 06:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Cryptic, you are fast becoming our extra special superhero! We'll get back to you as soon as we sort this out! Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you...... SFriendly.svgSFriendly.svgSFriendly.svgSFriendly.svg Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cryptic. Here is a list of other various things. Can the query do some or all?
Hopefully others will read this and add or subtract some. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Some of that is impossible, some of it slow, some of it just inconvenient. The toollabs databases don't have any page text, so this can't directly cull by whether someone's already listed, nor by keywords in talk archives. The databases are set up to make the sort of things that are done very, very often on Wikipedia fast, not to make arbitrary data mining easy. For example, it takes about thirty seconds to show most of my edits to the WP: namespace, and there isn't any faster way to get that count than to retrieve all that data. (It's only a total edit count that was made to be efficient, and I'm surprised that even that much was.) Multiply that by 5000-some users, some of whom have lots more than me, and things blow up.
Time of last edit should be doable, depending on whether I can stumble on a query for it that mysql doesn't arbitrarily decide to make stupidly slow. That'll take trial, error, and patience, since the quarry interface I'm using doesn't have permissions for the either the normal first line of defense (the EXPLAIN statement, which tells you just what the query is doing wrong) or second line of defense (make a temporary table from the output of one query, then populate it row by row with slower-to-retrieve data). That's something that someone with an actual tool labs account would have an easier time with than me. (I suppose I should look into that; the last time I did was probably close to a decade ago, and the requirements at the time were fairly onerous.)
Is there a better talk page we can move this to? WT:RFA's high volume and doesn't really need the gratuitous technobabble. —Cryptic 08:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cryptic: Labs accounts are very easy to get these days, much easier than Toolserver accounts apparently were. I got a labs account with this request, so you (or anyone else here who is interested) should have no trouble getting one. Graham87 09:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought: Is there a way to vet akin to what the NSA does with phone calls? Like, some sort of query that looks for quantity of key phrases at their own talk archives like "final warning", "excellent", "thank you", "great job", "barnstar", etc? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I took Cryptic's query and made it into a tool, at toollabs:apersonbot/candidate-search. Going to try to add as many options as possible! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Another extra special superhero!!! Thank you so much, Enterprisey!!! SFriendly.svgSFriendly.svgSFriendly.svg Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Results! J947(c) (m) 07:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Odd results, J947- was one of the search strings for accounts to only be over thirteen years old?! Unless there's more pages that I'm missing? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The results returned are only the oldest 50 by account age, from what I can see, which is suboptimal. Aside: Fx 53.0.3 has the last box (last edit) grayed out for no observable reason. --Izno (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@O Fortuna, the "user" list in MediaWiki is sorted by registration time by default - I'm going to add some more sorting options.
@Izno, I disabled that because I was having a lot of trouble getting the query working. As soon as Quarry gets back to me I'll know if the latest code is correct. I hope to get it working Real Soon™. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Enterprisey: quarry:query/18456 now has a last-edited column. You should either be able to select on that, or if doing so fools mysql into throwing away the indices again, at least be able to filter it out manually before displaying. —Cryptic 21:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Awesome! Updated the tool. Izno, the "last edit" field works now. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

To BU Rob13, Cryptic, Enterprisey, Ansh666, J947 and Izno:

I suggest we end this thread here now that we have a basic, raw list.

I've started Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search#We have a raw list. We can continue things there in the right place. I will link to this thread. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cryptic: I am not sure if number of edits should be a criteria in the script. If you can add the following in a script:
  1. edits in multiple namespace
  2. number of bytes of an edit
  3. at least x number of edits in past 30 days (500?)
  4. number of reverted edits
And few other similar criteria, then we might find more users like Golden Ring.
But i still think that running a program wouldnt be feasible here. How about me n Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi try alchemy for that? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Please read above more closely. —Cryptic 00:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: I'm not sure I have a role to play here. But thanks v much for the ping  :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: hmm
@Cryptic: hmmm —usernamekiran(talk) 09:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Instant removal of RFA when the nominee is too inexperienced[edit]

Just wondering: has there been a past practice of immediately removing the RFA when the nominee seems unqualified? See the self nom of Bobby Jacobs, a relatively new editor, whose nom was removed after 6 minutes by User:Bbb23. I've seen lots of noms of noobs with too few edits, which got a few opposes and no supports and were then withdrawn, but I don't remember others that were removed like this. This is not to say I thought it had a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talkcontribs) 21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The candidate was also blocked as a checkuser block, so I think that is the explanation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You really need to sign your edits (you didn't sign the one on my Talk page, either - screws up archiving). The issue is moot now because I've blocked Bobby Jacobs as a sock puppet, but, really, 100 edits who says he wants to become an admin because it would be "fun"? And you want to go through all the procedural stuff anyway? Truly astonishing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It has happened before, yes. It is also stated on the Rfa page that ones with no chance of passing can be deleted via G6. Although it's not relevant in this case, deleting it also means that the editor who might make a good admin in the future doesn't have an embarrassing failed Rfa blotting their copybook if they run again later on down the line.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Putting a minimum number of edits to be an admin is a perennial topic that never gains traction. Since the number of relatively new people trying to become an admin is rather small, it is unlikely to get traction now. Half the time they are socks and CUs catch them within minutes of the RFA starting. Dennis Brown - 22:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Adding noping: GoldenRing. This user is being an ideal example for many instances lol. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
dang. I actually pinged GR in haste! —usernamekiran(talk) 22:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it could just be a case of my only noticing those RFA which were NOT removed in 6 minutes. Edison (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Technically, someone who has 100 edits has the same "right" (if there is such a thing) to request adminship as you do, if they do so in good faith. They usually get snow closed, there are a lot of people who seem to police it and quickly vote. Dennis Brown - 22:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think any editor has any "rights" around here, but I deleted this RfA before I determined they were a sock, and I'd do it again. Editors may argue - incessantly I might add - about how many edits someone has to have to be an administrator, but unless we're talking about 2002 where anyone who was stupid enough to want to become an administrator could, I think all reasonable editors would agree that 100 is not enough. Besides, as Pawnkingthree correctly states, I have the "right" (heh) to G6 an RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
On the RFA page, you just said "no" which is not an adequate explanation. On the nominee's talk page you just said "You are way too inexperienced to become an administrator." A better comment or explanation might have headed off my creation of this thread. How many months of editing and how many edits are sufficient in your view to avoid a preemptory end to an RFA? I don't see a way to search for such similar 6 minute RFAs, but I wonder what the best qualified candidates were in the past who got the bum's rush, as opposed to" S:0, O:10 Withdrawn, too soon" RFAs of which there have been many.Edison (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Those questions are impossible to answer, along with others such as why is this painting beautiful? Are you proposing that a standard template be used to notify candidates that their nomination has been removed due to WP:NOTNOW? Is someone volunteering to liaise with such candidates? One benefit of quickly removing a NOTNOW nomination is that it spares the candidate humiliation as their contributions are analyzed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The only thing we need are literate candidates, who will actually take time to read the many essays and warnings before posting an RfA. Quickly removing RfA's posted by editors whose chances of passing are obviously sub-zero is an act of kindness to them even as it saves everyone else from wasting their time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) We see about a dozen of these per year. Sometimes they're malformed attempts, but there have been ones where the RFA was created but deleted under G6. There was one in April, two in February, and a few in January. Mkdw talk 04:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Clearly we need a {{uw-premature-rfa}}. --Izno (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I know requiring a certain number of edits is a perennial failed proposal, so I won't suggest that again. But could an alternative be placing the main RFA page under extended-confirmed protection? That way such RFAs can't be transcluded while not really setting a bar for editors like GoldenRing. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    • That sounds entirely reasonable, and isn't technically an edit could requirement since, in theory, a new editor could request that an RFA be opened with {{Edit extended-protected}}. I fully support this. --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE
      ) 14:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    • That would set a standard of 500 edits to offer yourself as admin. I can't argue the logic, but you would have to have an RFC on it since the community has already shot down all attempts to set a minimum standard for admin many times in the past. Dennis Brown - 14:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
      • As Ahecht points out, it would not, since any editor can request transclusion here using {{edit extended-protected}}. Regards SoWhy 15:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth is the standard counterexample for edit-count related restrictions. Even with sub-50 edit candidates, a moment of thought is necessary before removing their RfAs. —Kusma (t·c) 15:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's a good counterexample. In fact that reinforces the proposal for edit count related restrictions having gone through their contributions. Commitment is required. -=Troop=- (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    • And that's exactly the sort of case in which {{Edit extended-protected}} could be used if the main RFA page was under extended-confirmed protection. --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE
      ) 17:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I absolutely hate it when I can't do things on other Wikipedias because I don't satisfy some silly edit count restriction they have. Also, as others have said, this is a solution in search of a problem. —Kusma (t·c) 13:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In principle I don't object to the idea of permanent EC protection. I just think it's a solution in search of a problem that doesn't really exist. We get a handful of these silly self nominations by nakedly unqualified candidates every year. Big deal. Their invariable fate is either speedy deletion in the same vein as we have just seen or a NOTNOW speedy close. Why spray bug killer all over the house to zap one or two flies? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a certain amount of wisdom in that, both metaphorically and literally. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)