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 Delete - except OrenBochman. Since these are being delete on the premise they were created in error, if that's an error, and you want yours back, as me or anyone in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. That said, if you didn't already know that, put off your RfA, as it almost certainly won't be successful yet. Wily D 07:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Abandoned RFAs

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bubtubtag ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/panzer112 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/edwardmeese ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raabbustamante ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RomeAntic14 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OrenBochman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thehistorian10 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Green-Halcyon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

None of these RFAs were ever opened, and they're old enough that I don't think we can expect them ever to be opened. No point in keeping them around as they are, and after discussing it a little at WT:RFA, I'm more in favor of deleting them than moving them to userspace. Other unopened RFAs exist, but they're potentially new enough that they might get opened; I only nominated ones that were last edited in November 2012 or earlier. If we end up deleting these pages, I'd like to ask that this discussion be considered sufficient reason for G6 deleting any unopened RFA that's more than two months old, except in cases where people want to move them to userspace or open them. Nyttend ( talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete – These RfAs are probably never going to be used again, and most of them are WP:NOTNOW anyway. The Anonymouse ( talk |  contribs) 17:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete Per past precedent. MBisanz ^talk 17:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete and allow future G6 -- No unique names 18:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete and allow future G6 after reasonable amount of time has passed. Legoktm ( talk) 18:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete and concur with the others about future action. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C) 19:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete following a long-standing precedent. Mephistophelian / discuss / email 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC). reply

Following jc37 and Nyttend below, I would hope that administrators notify dormant candidates and major contributors as a kindness, and leave instructions on how to request the page's reinstatement irrespective of any inactivity. Mephistophelian / discuss / email 04:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC). reply

• Delete all, and we can speedy in future based on this discussion. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment Please don't speedy these pages; please let the discussion go until it's done or close it early per WP:SNOW, so that we can have more precedent than a speedy deletion would have. Nyttend ( talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support for abandoned RfAs in future. No need to contact the user; if they want to proceed with the RfA or want it moved to userspace then the RfA can easily be undeleted. James086 ^Talk 20:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Slow delete, per Nyttend, plus there is nothing hurting anything on any one page (I presume, I have not read'm all) so there is no hurry so it does not hurt to wait a while, we'll never know if someone sees something not obvious for most and adds to the discussion (yeah, unlikely here, but the general principle stands :-) - Nabla ( talk) 19:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment I think OrenBochman's RfA should be allowed to stay at least until he agrees to the deletion. Of the many RfA's he's the only one who's edited in the past few days and probably has a decent chance of succeeding. On the other hand he may have changed his mind about running so we should at least let him know what's going on. Delete all others. — Soap — 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Also noting that Thehistorian10 ( talk · contribs) has edits within the last week and should probably be given a chance too. — Soap — 16:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete as housekeeping - If the editors in question need them in the future, these can presumably be undeleted upon request. - jc37 17:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep I cannot speak for other RFA only my own but that should be enough to end this farce. Here are my learned responses to counter the above WP:Votes:

1. this xFD lacks sufficient WP:BEFORE. Besides irrelevant facts it only offers unverified speculations without the token effort required to contact me or even check my contributions to corroborate its theories as for instance:
   1. last month was my most active on Wikipedia.
   2. I have contributed a number of new articles in both this and the previous month.
   3. I am active in NPP, xFD, AFC, anti-vandalism, disambiguation and mentoring (a cursory check of the last 30 days!)
   4. I've recently created a new portal for the Yoga project as well as settled a couple of dispute there... though clearly none of these indicate that I might still be heading for an RFA ????
2. In violation of WP:NPOV I and the other RFAs creators have not been informed of this deletion discussion at its outset per norms at xFD. I doubt most of the voters would have supported a speculative MFD request if the RFA authors had been invited to participate however this discussion has been curried out surreptitiously and the I was only asked to comment once at an overwhelming vote of 10 to 1.... Since in my experience that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a Wikipidian to reverse a vote once cast this discussion has been conducted in violation of WP:NPOV which requires all point of view be respected in a dialogue whose goal to reach decision through WP:Consensus. If you disagree think how you would feel if your articles were suddenly deleted without you having been permitted to provide a timely defense?
3. The RFA rational is speculative and does not hold water as I for example fully intend to put my RFA through soon but the precise time will be determined by having a nominator and the confident I can ace the ordeal.
4. my commitment to the WMF project are under different roles sometimes as editor at other times as researcher and at others as a volunteer software developer. WP:AGF requires that I and others like me be given the benefit of the doubt before our work is deleted.
5. According to WP:V claims made by Wikipedia editors should be checked by others − particularly if the claims are as extraordinary — as they seem to be from my POV.
6. I have been told by my Mentors as well as Admins in previous discussions, e.g. the consensus arrived on my rfa pages not to speedy delete it - that it is common to keep the RFA running until such a time as a nomination can be secured and that one is not working against a ticking clock.
7. FYI There is no reasonable amount of time for writing up an RFA - increasing edit count requirements etc are on record in RFAs which provides a body of evidence that this is within the norm.
8. I find the request at the end of this mfD particularly alarming. Since when is a narrow forum of an mFD the place to reform the policy used for RFA? I don't like it is not sufficient grounds to ignore so many other WMF policies. Once WP editors own WP:Crystal Balls and can tell for certain when RFA have been abandoned then they can CSD them to their heart's content but doing so today is disruptive considering that
9. I've spent many hours researching and writing up my RFA on and off that page. It was created in the appropriate location per policy using an RFA creation wizard. Its existence at that location is expected by potential nominators so moving it to user-space or deleting it is counter productive to its purpose as would eliminating its edit history.
10. Pragmatically if RFD passes my RFA is deleted, I am expected to then recreate it to-restart the ticking clock for another two more months per above! So why not just keep it ?
11. In Response to User:Jc37 unless one is an admin it is always much harder to get stuff undeleted than to get it deleted. I have tried many times and have yet succeed even when the deletions were unambiguous mistakes - deleting Wikipedians don't like to reverse their decisions so one has to go looking for other admins etc...

P.S. I hope you will all support my RFA in the near future and show more tolerance for other RFA candidates! BO | Talk 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

You can't snow-keep something unless the discussion is snowballing in one direction, in this case it is certainly not snowballing toward keep.

1. We won't delete yours. I don't think anyone had the intention to delete them if you objected.
2. This isn't deletion because we think it's malicious. There was no assumption of bad faith.

1. WP:V applies to articles.
2. There is no time limit, but when it's been 6 months since you've edited it, it does appear that you've abandoned it. If you object then we won't delete it. What other WMF policies? WP:CRYSTAL has nothing to do with this.
3. No, as has always been the intention, if there is an objection to deletion it won't be deleted.
4. If it's a case like this then there should be no problem undeleting. Request it at WP:AN since it's uncontroversial and doesn't need to go through the process of WP:DRV. James086 ^Talk 19:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Oren. While I am not sure the harm of either delete or keep, I don't strongly disagree that getting someone to undelete is an additional step. That said, I still see this as housekeeping. To split the difference, I'd support a year wait since the last substantial edit (ignoring link-fixing bots and the like) before deletion per housekeeping. And for that matter, just requiring an MfD is fine too. Though of course one would presume that the potential candidate (and other substantive contributor(s) should be notified regardless. - jc37 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Slow Delete, ineligible for G6 and keep these for anyone who requests like OrenBochman. I agree that RFA is a major step not to be taken lightly or without serious consideration. Abandoned RFA should always be undeletable per a nominee's request. Royal broil 17:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Striking OrenBochman, since his obviously is not abandoned. In the future, we should G6 abandoned RFAs with a link to this discussion and a note that they should be undeleted upon request. Nyttend ( talk) 21:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for removing my RFA from the list.

I have striken Snow out per your suggestion.

I offer an apology if my comments have been disheartening, their goal is pedagogical per socratic method.

Comment: You have missed the main thrust of my argument which is that this mfD is a pandora's box because it fails to provide suitable criteria for what is an abandoned RFA and only offers criteria which are convenient but of no use in actually improving Wikipedia.

I have also demonstrated that with RFAs appearances can be deceiving, that your assumption is false, that your conclusions (deletion) cannot follow and I have also established a reasonable doubt regarding all the other RFA you have bundled together in this xFD. Accordingly the burden of proof is back with you if you still insist on perusing this course of mass deletion.

WP:V is a pillar of Wikipedia policy. Since xfd are a coordination space wherein articles etc may be deleted WP:V cannot be suspended to make shortcuts however convenient.

If you (pl) think deleting RFAs without notifying their authors at mfd is a good idea — I have a better one e.g. taking this to xDR and having a new discussion over there following the notification of all parties concerned since this is not a SD.

I do suggest a compromise where this mfD is withdrawn pending a best (per GF) effort attempt to contact each of these RFA owners directly and allow them the minimum 7 days to respond before deleting their RFA per the norm of WP:Prod and WP:xfD and per WP:Civility and per WP:Consensus and need I go on?

Secondly if you wish to make this type of piecemeal social engineering to the RFA explain how introducing a ticking clock and increasing editor workload to police this is such a good idea and please do so at WP:RFC where other RFA reforms are being discussed.

Thirdly avoid applying decision retroactively, apply these only to new RFA which have a notification and a countdown built into their RFA template.

I did not think you would like WP:Crystal being mentioned but it clearly states Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. This applies since you have speculated on the future of these RFAs and per WP:Crystal the only way to check these broad claims is to wait indefinitely which you have also lobbied to avoid. I find these speculations a distasteful waste of my time since they lack an actual truth value. Accordingly the readers of this AFD have been forced to cherry pick at what you actually meant is going on and what is recommend. I suggest in the future sticking to facts in xFD and saying what you mean rather than meaning what you wanted to say.

Finally I offer a minority opinion as a researcher and as a developer: the only reason I can see for deleting abandoned RFA is to save storage space - but WMF ops have plenty of storage. So we don't delete these so called abandoned RFA since in the process we lose a valuable ethnographic resource able to quantify selection pressures at WP:RFA which may be of historical use to the community e.g. in RFA reform at RFC. Instead why not follow the tradition of tagging such content as being kept per historical value and add them into a category named "drafts RFA by year" etc ;-) BO | Talk 02:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Your assertions are wild and often unrelated to the discussion at hand. For future reference if you wish to oppose a deletion, your argument will be given more weight if you understand the policies you cite. WP:V is not a pillar of Wikipedia, nor does it apply in this case. The second paragraph of WP:V says All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. - bold added by me. What is xDR? Deletion review? Why waste time waiting a week for edwardmeese to reply? You are the only person here opposed to deletion of these old RFAs and you are the creator of one so if we were to establish a process like PROD (which only applies to articles) for these it would add another layer of bureaucracy, extra work (which you seem opposed to lower in your post). If it takes you more than a year to fill out an RFA then I think it would be a pretty strong case to oppose the RFA anyway. People can learn a lot about Wikipedia in a year. However, if you spend a year carefully plotting your attainment of the sysop flag then it looks more like you want to collect badges than to actually help the encyclopedia. Why avoid it retroactively? Is edwardmeese going to want this RFA preserved for the world to see? There is a clear consensus here to delete so far. Again, WP:CRYSTAL applies to un-encyclopedic content about a future movie or similar. It does not apply here, just like WP:NOTHOW doesn't apply to these pages. Deletion doesn't save space on the WMF servers, that's why you can undelete things. These do not provide useful information about selection pressures because there are no people judging the candidate, displaying the selection pressures of RFA. James086 ^Talk 10:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

First off, "draft RFA by year" — as far as I'm aware, drafts like this aren't helpful for historical purposes, so we have no need to keep them on the grounds of {{ historical}}. Moreover, "ticking clock": I'm asking that we delete an RFA when it's been abandoned for at least two months — one-sixth of a year isn't particularly rushed. Almost everyone who goes through RFA will officially open it within a few days; in most cases, there's not much chance that someone will go ahead with a nomination several months after creating it. Finally, someone who wants to prepare for RFA a long time ahead of creating the RFA can also create it in userspace. Again, this isn't an attempt to get rid of anything that's still wanted by its creators; it seems reasonable to say that most people have forgotten about their RFA attempts after more than one-sixth of a year has passed, and an objection by the would-be admin candidate will always be enough to prevent deletion if we adopt my proposal. Nyttend ( talk) 20:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Not to interrupt, but 2 months is kinda quick for this sort of thing. I'd prefer a year personally. That aside, there's nothing stopping you starting an RfC on this : ) - jc37 23:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete all except "OrenBochman", though I predict a quick fail if that one ever goes live. Borderline competence issues can be seen in the rambling replies above, misapplication of policy/guideline, and so on. Tarc ( talk) 16:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment: This deletion discussion has snowballed early in the wrong direction - because the involved editors were not informed - as is customary in other deletion protocols. As I am the only one of the opinion that deleting a page should require contacting its authors I have spoken out, unfortunately, this vote has now denigrated to little more than personal attacks rooted in my RFA's duration, writing style and innuendo on my level of competency. As such any further discussing here is no longer possible for me. BO | Talk 11:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete as stale; and how about we come up with a policy that in future, untranscluded RfAs can be userfied by bureaucrats after a certain amount of time? That will avoid them hanging around for ages and triggering another discussion like this one. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Fine with me. How about after 1 year? - jc37 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Abandoned RFAs are almost definitively NOTNOWs, and thus quick housekeeping helps to spare the blushes of the editors in question. They certainly don't need to be retained for a whole year. Their deletion should probably be quietly brought up with the owners after a month or so at most. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 14:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Yes, I think a month sounds right. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  One month? What's the hurry? Out of the current discussion I think the most you may deduce as 'consensus' is to delete after six months because all the pages under discussion are about six to seven month old (except for Green-Halcyon's which is two). Agreed that we should learn with OrenBochman|OB's situation and, given the somewhat personal nature of these pages, we should ask users before doing it. - Nabla ( talk) 19:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  That these have been open for so long is because until now we've never had any real consensus on what to do with them. Moving forward, if we agree that inactive RFAs are typically a bad thing, we should have some protocol for dealing with them, ideally one which does so with the minimum of fuss and without drawing too much attention from the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• delete as housekeeping (can always undelete if necessary). Frietjes ( talk) 23:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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.