Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Bureaucracy _ Erasure of old RFAs
Posted by: gomi
Just ran across http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Tiptoety&page=&year=2008&month=9, the wholesale erasure of lots of old RFAs. For something that is WP:NOT paper, this seems a little odd. What is going on here?
Posted by: Eva Destruction
QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 19th September 2008, 4:42pm) 
Just ran across http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Tiptoety&page=&year=2008&month=9, the wholesale erasure of lots of old RFAs. For something that is WP:NOT paper, this seems a little odd. What is going on here?
They appear to be RFAs that were created by someone else but declined by the nominee, or half-finished self-noms that haven't yet been transcluded. I've no idea why they're being bulk-deleted now.
(edited to add) It may be that they were turned up by Majorly whilst going through every RFA creating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly/RfA/Stats.
Posted by: Alex
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 19th September 2008, 4:53pm)
(edited to add) It may be that they were turned up by Majorly whilst going through every RFA creating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly/RfA/Stats.
My table only includes successful requests. I don't see the purpose in keep old RfAs like those.
Posted by: Eva Destruction
QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 19th September 2008, 5:27pm)
My table only includes successful requests. I don't see the purpose in keep old RfAs like those.
They'd potentially be useful were someone to say "oppose, total asshole" in an RFA and one wanted to point out their "nominate, this guy's great" a month previously – but aside from a few cases like that I agree with deleting them. They just make things confusing if the candidate actually does run for RFA, as there would be a RFA2 without an RFA1.
Posted by: Alex
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 19th September 2008, 6:09pm)
QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 19th September 2008, 5:27pm)
My table only includes successful requests. I don't see the purpose in keep old RfAs like those.
They'd potentially be useful were someone to say "oppose, total asshole" in an RFA and one wanted to point out their "nominate, this guy's great" a month previously – but aside from a few cases like that I agree with deleting them. They just make things confusing if the candidate actually does run for RFA, as there would be a RFA2 without an RFA1.
If there was an RfA 2, they shouldn't be deleted. There's RfAs of users that never accepted, malformed, indef blocked etc. RfAs that were actually serious should obviously be kept for the record.