Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rickyc123

NOTNOW

@TonyBallioni: @Kostas20142: although there can be little doubt that keeping the RFA open would not be productive, the early close does actually go against the instructions at WP:CRAT#Promotions and RfX closures. In particular, In such cases the requesting user should always be asked to consider withdrawal first. Well the user has actually been asked, but had not been on-Wiki to respond yet. It's not clear if the "asking" is a fire-and-forget, or if we wait for a response. In any case do we need to consider modifying those instructions to clarify? I considered closing per NOTNOW, but didn't do so because of that instruction. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have closed as NOTNOW when the candidate has been opposed to it before (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SuperCarnivore591 for one example). In this case I suggested it because I'm a pretty strong believer in the idea that we shouldn't do anything that causes the increased embarrassment of a well-meaning candidate when it becomes clear that's all keeping the RfA up will do. If someone had objected before it was closed, I'd likely have struck my suggestion pending further discussion here, but I also don't see the need to reopen this now that it's been closed. It might be worth a wording update to the guideline, but I'd prefer others weigh in on that. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not our concern if the candidate isn't online. The instructions suggest transcluding at the beginning of an editing session so you are around to answer questions - another example of this candidate not preparing properly beforehand.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: I am aware of both. However I decided to apply WP:IAR. Keeping this request open until the candidate was back would result to a discouraging and embarrassing tally, and unnecessary scrutiny. And most certainly out goal is not to embarrass candidates or to discourage them from contributing to the encyclopedia. So, my closure might be against rules, but either ways I believe it was the best to do. --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not criticising you at all Kostas20142. Just making sure we dotted all the Is and crossed the Ts correctly. There's usually a higher bar for following policy and guideline when it comes to the RfA procedure, compared with other areas of the Wiki. Anyway, it's water under the bridge now. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]