The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Erasure of old RFAs, who are they trying to protect?
gomi
post Fri 19th September 2008, 3:42pm
Post #1


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565




Just ran across this, 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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Fri 19th September 2008, 3:53pm
Post #2


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 19th September 2008, 4:42pm) *

Just ran across this, 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 this table.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Fri 19th September 2008, 4:18pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex
post Fri 19th September 2008, 4:27pm
Post #3


Back from the dead
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined: Wed 24th Jan 2007, 4:39pm
Member No.: 867

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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 this table.


My table only includes successful requests. I don't see the purpose in keep old RfAs like those.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Fri 19th September 2008, 5:09pm
Post #4


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex
post Fri 19th September 2008, 5:43pm
Post #5


Back from the dead
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined: Wed 24th Jan 2007, 4:39pm
Member No.: 867

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 11 14, 6:52pm