Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nothing444 2




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep and undelete previous RFA. Deletion of RFAs is a bad practice. Nothing444 requested deletion of the prior RFA, deletion was denied, page was blanked, then unblanked, then deleted - consensus here is to restore.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Nothing444 2
We deleted his first as a disruptive nomination, why not the second? Nothing444 was banned, this RFA was disruptive, and there's no point in keeping it around except as one more reminder of how big a pain Nothing444 was. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see the benefit of deleting RFAs, and I don't think his first RFA should have been speedily deleted. The user wasn't banned at the time either of the RFAs were submitted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a good reason for deleting either RFA. RFAs are important records, even SNOW unsuccessfuls.  Without a very good reason to suppress the content, blanking offers sufficient denial.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then can we blank it? It seems silly to keep #2 but not #1 unless #1 were plastered with 80 zillion Goatses in its first edit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whats a Goatses?
 * If the editor is banned, was disruptive, and the nomination wasn't serious, then yes, as per WP:DENY, certainly, blank. Put the inocuous  over it, denying recognition, and assuming that the person has turned a leaf, is now a better person, and would prefer his disruptive past forgotten.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't really want to know what Goatse is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep When people nominate what amount to records and logs of administrative matters, I normally vote keep, assuming there is not an overriding reason to delete. I don't even see a strong reason to delete here, much less overriding.  Gigs (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to delete this unsuccessful RfA. Yes, the user is blocked - but this particular RfA isn't objectionable (if a silly thing for the editor to go for at that time). --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 22:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion of records should be quite rare. Collect (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I really don't think it should become common practice to delete WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW RfAs that end in non-bureaucrat closure, even when the user is eventually banned as Nothing444 eventually was. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep also it is possible to speedy restore the number 1 RFA Requests for adminship/Nothing444. There is nothing offensive in it that would require removal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Graeme here. Why was the first one deleted? Glass  Cobra  18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree.
 * "contribs) deleted 'Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nothing444' ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: User blocked & RfA would have been inappropriate"
 * was a misuse of G6. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it was a misuse of G6. What are the odds that Rodhullandemu agrees to reverse his deletion per this discussion? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone could give Rodhullandemu a heads up on this? If no one else will, I'll drop a note on their talk page saying they may want to read this discussion - but really I think someone else should do that (not looking at anyone, SmokeyJoe or A Stop at Willoughby!) --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 22:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Notified here. Sorry.  It was my intention to notify him him immediately on mentioning his name, but I suffered a real-world distraction.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry if that sounded bossy, but I thought he should know! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted mostly per WP:IAR on the basis of this diff, which only Admins will be able to see; for those not Admins, Nothing444 tagged it with db-g7 which I took to equate to a withdrawal. I can't really remember what I was thinking eighteen months ago, save perhaps that Nothing444 wanted to avoid being further embarrassed. That RfA was never transcluded IIRC, so one might also assume that Nothing444 was withdrawing his own self-nomination, and since he was since indef blocked, saw no reason to have it hanging around. But i am happy to undelete if anyone thinks there's really any benefit to be gained. I note Nothing444 didn't request unblocking, and remains blocked. In fact, he may even be back using another account and editing productively. Rodhull  andemu  22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, I'd think it should have been courtesy blanked. Unless there is some continuing concern (I think there is not), then I suggest we leave things be.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.