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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand

[edit]

RfA of a user who has been indefinitely partially blocked. The transclusion to WP:RFA was reverted by HJ Mitchell, stopping it from closing with a WP:SNOW oppose. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: Ah I was wondering why I got an RfA ping the other day even though there wasn't one open. Per ~~nom~~ below. Curbon7 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad MfD - Page serves as a record of the user's conduct and to delete it constitutes hiding evidence. Seek administrative closure of the RfA instead. MarshallKe (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid record. If the editor has the block lifted in one year and is nominated for admin again in three years, the record of this abortive RFA should be on the record. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He'll probably get a snow oppose again, and feel humiliated about it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely, as per Robert McClenon. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced that a quickly aborted RfA is an useful "record" in three years' time (or any time, really) and the block is already captured by the block log [and I think every RfA !voter checks these] so this page has no useful purpose. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason to delete offered. The user’s partial block is irrelevant. Is there some rule about who may create their RfA page? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a valid reason, read WP:RFA that says "RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per WP:NOTNOW can be tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#G6". I could have speedy deleted it, but I thought a discussion would be nice first. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA should NOT say this. This is standard G6 abuse, and CSD abuse in writing apparent CSD clauses in places other than CSD.

G6 should be reserved for pages without non-trivial history.

In this case, speedy deletion by obscure clause in the wrong location citing the oft abused catchall G6 amounts to bullying of the editor who wrote the page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with SmokeyJoe that we shouldn't have novel G6 conditions listed at random pages other than WP:G6, but given the existence of this text at WP:RFA it's clear that Ritchie333 was acting in good faith and not "bullying" anybody. — Bilorv (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure I didn’t allege bullying by Ritchie, and certainly did not intend to. Ritchie very much did the right thing by bringing to MfD for discussion, he correctly knew that it was not an unobjectionable deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support the user having the option to have it deleted, but I more support the user having the right to keep it, and that it should be kept by default. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: in general I very much respect HJ Mitchell's judgement, but I am not convinced that this RfA should even have been untranscluded—a user with years of experience and thousands of edits is not a NOTNOW. As far as I know, there are no rules against partially blocked (/TBAN/IBAN) users running for RfA. Letting it go to a SNOW close or nominator withdrawal would show the user why the RfA would not pass. — Bilorv (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be up to the candidate what they want to do with it. Not a completely frivolous or bad-faith application. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2021 (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.