Wikipedia talk:Not now

See also: Wikipedia talk:Early Close of Requests for Adminship for historical discussion

Title

Wikipedia:Not Now → Wikipedia:Not Yet? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Used to be that! [1] - (limited) chat was that NOT YET was misleading as it implied that there was a certainty in the future. Pedro :  Chat  20:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the "Not Yet" phrasing connotes a successful request in the future, merely that the current request is premature. I'm concerned about inexperienced Wikipedians noticing the "Not Now" label and interpreting it as "Get your butt out of RfA for good, we don't have time to deal with the likes of you". Since either phrasing may inspire unwarranted expectations or discouragement, perhaps a more appropriate title would be Wikipedia:Premature (or Wikipedia:Premature RfA, to be specific). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What about TOOSOON? I sorta stumbled across this page, but became intrigued. Comments? Is it even really an issue? TN‑X-Man 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No I think it makes sense at NOT YET because it gives a chance for the user to become more involved, and apply again in the future. NOT NOW to me seems more like a reprimand for trying to become more involved. I am in favor of changing the name to NOT YET. User1618 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Supplimental essay for new Wikipedians

Please comment on User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and add suitable pictures and make other changes if you think it would help. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Added to the main essay page. Pedro :  Chat  16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor tweak

I changed a word here. I figured changes to a page that is cited so heavily might as well be brought here. The sentence indicated that the reader has likely had a failed RfA due to NOTNOW. With over 300 page views in June, this would mean roughly 200 readers' RfAs would have had to have been closed per NOTNOW, which obviously isn't the case. I suspect only a small minority of those who visit this page would actually have had an RfA pulled per this page. Law _{type! snype?} 10:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A good change, reflecting the metrics and reality of shift in how the page has developed and referenced. Pedro :  Chat  19:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Misuse

This is a great essay for RFA candidates who are woefully underqualified, but I've now seen it used against candidates with over 5,000 contributions..... Can we set a threshold in this to avoid it being used as a substitute for a diff supported oppose? ϢereSpielChequers 13:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As if on cue! Wikipedia:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW ....Pedro :  Chat  14:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, now how do we apply this? ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Challenging poorly linked opposes I would think. Politely, of course, but firmly. Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Last section!

Last section: should it be "Further reading" or the old good "See also"?--Tito Dutta ✉ 20:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific?

"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."

What are these "basic level of contributions"? Does this mean a certain of edits? Action against vandals? Creation of new articles? Long-term collaboration on WikiProjects?

I understand that RfA are considered on a case-by-case basis but I think ambiguity over what is "basic" can encourage people to apply when actually the community is looking for "extensive levels of contributions".

Could, for example, an editor who has been on Wikipedia for 3 months and made 1,500 good edits (but no new article creation) be considered a viable candidate? Because that's what "basic" is. Meanwhile, I've seen people with long, long list of a wide variety of contributions (including GAs and FAs) get shot down during the RfA process. I think there would be fewer, disillusioned applicants if community expectation of preferred requirements and editor experience were more realistic and less vague. Newjerseyliz (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't aimed at candidates who are borderline or even close, this is aimed at people who have barely started editing. Yes there will be candidates who despite having a GA don't qualify because of recent blocks or a tendency to tag stuff for deletion overenthusiastically. But those candidates need a proper assessment of their edits and some valid reasons for opposing them. A NotNow candidate should be someone you can judge from a couple of stats. ϢereSpielChequers 16:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. This wasn't an easy close. It's fortunate that all involved seem to agree on some basic points: that NOTNOW is used more than it ought to be, that some of the alternatives discussed might be too BITEy, and that a name change would likely involve at least a partial rewrite of the essay. So my recommendation to those advocating a name change is to write a similar essay at one of the titles you've suggested. Perhaps the two essays will converge, or one will eventually become favored over the other. In the meantime, the overlap is very unlikely to do any harm, and the resulting nuance may help keep things diplomatic at RFA. --BDD (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Not now → Wikipedia:Adminship is not for beginners – This page's title, and its shortcut WP:NOTNOW, are frequently confused to mean "I do not support you for adminship now" for users with months of experience and thousands of edits. This is to the point that we have another essay about when not to link to this essay, WP:NOTNOTNOW. I propose that we move this page to a more descriptive title and also use more descriptive shortcuts to link to it, e.g. WP:NOTBEGINNER or WP:NOTNEWBIE. We could turn the existing WP:NOTNOW redirect into a soft redirect explaining how it is commonly misused. The reason I am proposing this is that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jinkinson was originally closed as "strong consensus for WP:NOTNOW" despite Jinkinson having 10 months' experience and 8000 edits. This was a misunderstanding on the part of the closer, as can be seen from my message to him on his talk page. I think a rename such as the one I am proposing would help prevent similar incidents in the future. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a change is called for, but "beginner" seems a little harsh. So does "newbie". How about "Adminship requires experience"? Also, a better link could be WP:NOTREADY. This is less judgmental and less insulting that NOTBEGINNER or NOTNEWBIE, and makes it clear that the problem is with the candidate's readiness, not the !voter's feelings. It also encourages the person to get more experience and try again. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I chose "beginner" because that is who this essay is aimed at; it isn't aimed at more experienced users who haven't yet got enough experience to pass RfA, but rather at newcomers who don't understand exactly what passing an RfA involves. The harshness you perceive in WP:NOTBEGINNERS is on purpose, as it will hopefully make people think twice about using it with experienced users. WP:NOTREADY doesn't work from this standpoint, as it could be used for "someone who I think is not ready", regardless of how experienced they are. "Adminship requires experience" is ok, although my preference would be to address the target audience explicitly. The main thing, though, is that we change the title and the shortcut from "not now" to something less easily misunderstood. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OIC. In that case I withdraw my comments. Your proposal makes sense for the purpose it is intended for, and could stop people from using the link to mean "you're not quite ready." However, the page here is not clear that it is intended for just that target group. In particular the nutshell just says "no chance of succeeding" without limiting it to "because the person is a newbie". If there is to be a rename, maybe there also needs to be a clarification of the essay. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this title is better than NOTNOW but I would note that several of the candidates where the NOT NOW criteria was applied have actually been editors for a while and aren't beginners. So to rename the essay specifically to beginners I believe would be unnecessarily offensive to some. I would suggest consolidating the information contained in this essay to Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and point that a section there. Both are simply meant to be information pages, both duplicate information in the other and neither is a "policy" which would require greater approval. It would also help to eliminate the running around one must do in order to prepare to apply for adminship. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Support, but as KumiokoIP/Melanie point out, we'd then need a separate page for the admittedly legitimate uses of WP:NOTNOW with non-beginners. The suggestion to add as a section in the guide makes sense too. Ansh666 18:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible to oppose someone civilly if you think they are neither a beginner nor ready for adminship. But to do so civilly you need to explain your oppose. If you think that a candidate has been blocked too recently or made too many duff deletion tags then say so - don't think you are being nice to them by instead saying they are a beginner by invoking NotNow. ϢereSpielChequers 17:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

But, as Melanie pointed out, there's nothing saying explicitly that it's for beginners only... Ansh666 18:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is "This guideline should not be linked to from RfA's of more experienced Wikipedians; this could be perceived as condescending or rude to seasoned editors who are well aware of what adminship entails." the reason for this move is to reduce the number of times when experienced editors are opposed per Notnow. Sometimes this essay has been used in a way that looks to some like a personal attack, the rename should make that rarer. ϢereSpielChequers 05:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See Axl's comment below. Ansh666 23:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support-the switch makes sense and orients the page more towards its intended audience.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support—As the motivating example for NOTNOTNOW, I agree that the phrase "not now" just simply doesn't usually mean to people what this essay is about. It means "not quite yet" or something along those lines; it shouldn't link to this article, let alone be the title. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support a change. Most of the suggestions above are better than the current title. WP:COMEBACKNEXTYEAR is mine. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• If this succeeds in stopping more people using this to label a non-beginner as a beginner then the move will be worthwhile. ϢereSpielChequers 17:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Meh. It's a shame people can't be bothered to read the essay they're citing. In any case, I'm thinking something along the lines of WP:Don't put the cart before the horse, an idiom which basically rehashes the sentiment of this page: no prejudice toward you becoming an admin in the future, but the natural progression of things dictates that you should keep working on the encyclopedia as an editor for now. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - 'Not Now' works fine. Calling someone a beginner is a slippery slope, because then you have people with differing definitions of what that means, which becomes disruptive. It also leaves a taint and lingering bad feelng. 'Not Now' is gentle yet firm. Please leave it as it is. Jusdafax 02:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  @Jusdafax: What do you think about MelanieN's suggestion of Wikipedia:Adminship requires experience, or Julian Colton's suggestion of Wikipedia:Don't put the cart before the horse? I don't really mind dropping "beginner"; I am more concerned that we find a way to stop people misusing the WP:NOTNOW shortcut with experienced editors. Come to think of it, I actually prefer Julian's suggestion over my own, because it sounds more essay-like, and also because WP:CART isn't taken yet. The page would need to be redrafted, but I would be willing to help out with that. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I do feel either of those is better than the original proposal. Allow me to add that I have !voted in more than a few Rfa's and do not recall ever citing NOT NOW. And Acalamari makes an excellent point just below. Jusdafax 22:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have the same feelings as Julian and agree with his proposed title: it's disappointing that some people just cite a shiny bluelinked shortcut with what looks like a fitting title and don't even bother to read what the page entails (I've commented on this at least twice in the past: [2][3]). To this day, I agree with and support Pedro's reason for creating this page: as a gentle letdown for newcomers/obviously inexperienced users who discover RfA, nominate themselves and find their nominations snowballed. It was never intended to be a cheap and quick way to oppose people, especially those who are experienced editors and understand what adminship involves but are not quite experienced enough to be admins themselves. It's important not to bite and/or malign newcomers, yes, but at the same time, it can be insulting to an experienced editor to essentially be told that they are no more knowledgable than a good-faith but clueless newbie. Acalamari 10:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The essay is relevant to "newcomers and those with only moderate experience". These two groups are not defined anywhere, and are entirely up to individual opinion. It would be reasonable to equate "newcomers" with "beginners". However this leaves the vague group "those with only moderate experience". In my opinion, the essay should be changed to remove reference to "those with only moderate experience". It would then only be applicable to newcomers/beginners. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Would it be a complete non-starter to consider adding a section to the essay to cover situations where it is desirable for an experienced editor to gain more experience (or specific experience) before requesting the bit; making wp:notnow applicable to the entire group deemed to not be ready for adminship now? Otherwise, this would be the approach I would prefer.—John Cline (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• For me, the answer to that is certainly "yes". WP:NOTNOW has always meant something very specific and there are plenty of other ways to quantify and demonstrate a marginal lack of experience that precludes promotion. Like I said, I hate to dilute an essay or its title because people don't necessarily read or bother to understand the essay they're quoting. Not to imply you're among them, but I think that seems to be one of the biggest issues at hand. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand your position. I believe however, that your premise deserves clarification.

When the essay was created in May, 2008, it was not reserved for beginning editors as you imply. It wasn't until 19 months later when the essay was boldly expanded towards this interpretation,[4] prompting Pedro, the essay's creator, to respond with a clarification; summarizing the edit with: "better clarity - NOTNOW was never anything to do with newbies to be honest, but I see the thrust".[5] With this clarification, Pedro added the clause regarding "both newcomers and those with only moderate experience [being] extremely unlikely to pass RfA". This clarification remains to this day and its connotation ought to remain as well.

In February, 2011, however, wp:notnotnow was added as a "see also" link;[6] effectively usurping wp:notnow's encompassing prose, while designating it an essay intended for newcomers. The "cautious use of this essay" section was added the same day.[7] Therefor, it is not entirely correct to say "wp:notnow has always meant something very specific" to qualify why encompassing prose dilutes it, and its shortcut. They were diluted already—ultimately bringing us here.

In my own defense, I was first acquainted with wp:notnow in March, 2010, during my own RfA; before its meaning had changed. I believed it did apply to the RfA I was closing, and linked to it believing it was less drastic, and more sensitive, than wp:snow. I even piped wp:snow through "strong consensus" in the closing statement, in furtherance of my desire to moderate the sting of an early close. My ignorance pertains to wp:notnotnow, and I regret having failed to remain abreast of these changes. When Mr. Stradivarius introduced me to wp:notnotnow, I felt rather foolish; knowing I would be seen as one who "just cites a shiny bluelinked shortcut with what looks like a fitting title [without bothering] to read what the page entails". But that is not an accurate reflection, nor is it true that the essay was created for a target audience of beginning editors.

Considering the 100's of RfA closes which cite wp:notnow, many being editors with considerable contributions, with many of them being linked when wp:notnow encompassed the circumstances of their snow close—I am not convinced that narrowing the essay's scope was an example of judicious propriety. Notwithstanding these, I take responsibility for my edit and acknowledge the error as mine.—John Cline (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

John, that is an interesting insight into the history of this essay. In my opinion, the scope should be narrowed even further, to include only newcomers/beginners. RfA !voters who believe that a candidate is "only moderately experienced" can easily express that opinion without referencing an essay, and it would reduce the number of inappropriate links to this essay, especially if the essay is renamed per the original suggestion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

And further, John, I don't think you were guilty of any "error" and you have no need to apologize. This essay (except for the very last paragraph) can be read in exactly the way you and many others including me have read it, as meaning "not ready" or "try again later." The nutshell, and the bulk of the essay sound like they apply to anyone who is "not ready". The final "NOTNOTNOW" paragraph almost seems at odds with the rest of the essay, which is addressed to the person whose application was rejected, not to commenters who might link to it. If this essay is actually supposed to apply only to newbies, it needs to be not only renamed but edited to make that clear. Better yet, as I suggested below, use the existing essay Wikipedia:Adminship is not for new users for the case of newbies, and continue to use this one for anyone who is not ready. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Just to note, as I've been referenced a couple of times, and as the essay's original creator (but, obviously not WP:OWNer!), that I'm aware of this discussion. I haven't had time to fully review the debate but will try and find some time to distill my thoughts in the hope it will help. Pedro :  Chat  15:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I just discovered that there already exists an essay Wikipedia:Adminship is not for new users which says exactly what some people are insisting this article ought to say. I propose that we simply create a link to that essay, such as WP:NOTNEWBIE, to be used in the case of actual beginners. Then delete the final paragraph of this essay, delete the essay WP:NOTNOTNOW, and let this essay continue to used as it is currently being used, for anyone who is not ready. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I agree with the comments below that NOTNEWBIE, which I suggested offhandedly, is not a good shortcut for the essay Wikipedia:Adminship is not for new users, and that TOONEW would be much better. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose After due consideration. NOTNOW was never supposed to be just about Newbies. NOTNOW was also never intended to be used as a personal oppose argument at RFA ("I can't support you yet because of xyz but I might support you in six months"). The purpose of NOTNOW, when I wrote it, was to provide more use to candidates whose RFA is clesarly going to fail than saying WP:SNOW.

Specifically, NOTNOW was designed to be "Your're not ready for RFA at the moment but at some unspecified time you probably will be - here's a link to an essay with some general advice". Prior to NOTNOW editors would cite WP:SNOW (effectively saying - admin? not a chance in hell mate). The purpose of NOTNOW was to find a better way to get over the message that the RFA was very likely to fail without the "in your face" SNOWball close.

I agree that NOTNOW is often wrongly linked, but that applies to a great many essays, policies and guidelines as we all know. That it is wrongly linked is not a reason to get rid of it. Editors linking to shortcuts because they sound right is a perennial problem but that doesn't mean we nuke the shortcuts.

I'm also very concerned that creating something like WP:NOTNEWBIE actually undermines the point of NOTNOW. That kind of short cut looks somewhat BITEy and discouraging.

The most effective thing is to challenge incorrect use of NOTNOW at RFA (including both in !votes and closing rationales), and to encourage use of additional links to information such as Wikipedia:Adminship is not for new users when commenting if appropriate. Pedro :  Chat  08:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I had resolved to give deference to Pedro's assertions related to this essay and the best practices for its use; as he envisioned it upon its creation. In giving deference, I extenuate with gladness that per Pedro aligns with the position I hoped would prevail; completely. I also think wp:notnewbie is unnecessarily callous and suggest creating TOONEW as a milder shortcut to Adminship is not for new users; for use when wp:snow closing RfA's transcluded by new users and allow wp:notnow to continue being appropriate for a range of wp:snow closures which would include users with moderate experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs) 04:10, 2 December 2013

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Followup

There was no consensus what changes, if any, to make in this essay. However, I'm tempted to go ahead and create a redirect page WP:TOONEW pointing to the existing WP:Adminship is not for new users - and people can use it (or not use it) as they please. Anybody object to my creating that link? --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Be bold and do it. Again, I would urge caution when using the short cut however. e.g.;

Oppose - I'm afraid two months of editing is insufficent for me to get an idea of your strengths and weaknesses - fine

Oppose - you're WP:TOONEW to get adminship. - not so fine

As with NOTNOW, it's the context that stops the bitieness, and the content of the essays that should give useful additional advice. Pedro :  Chat  08:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I created the shortcut per wp:bold; intending to adhere fully to your sound counsel. It is good seeing you Pedro; may your countenance be always an expression of joy—set upon the face of a man in superior health! Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Title "what not to do" is a double negative

The section "What not to do if your RfA was closed early" is a double negative. This turns the advice into the opposite of what is intended:

• "Don't quit Wikipedia" should not be done. So the user should quit Wikipedia?
• "Don't refuse help" should not be done (in fact this may be a triple negative). So the user should refuse help?

And so on. A small linguistic issue. Not too sure what other users think. I initially made a change then realised something would have to be done with the new title, as it parallels the content above, so I reverted myself. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right LT910001, and I've removed the double negatives. Thanks for pointing this out. Pedro :  Chat  08:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NOTNOTNOTNOW" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:NOTNOTNOTNOW and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 14 § Wikipedia:NOTNOTNOTNOW until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)