Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Boothy443

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Boothy443

While I would normally be loathe to delete an RfA discussion, this strikes me as being little more than a thinly veiled attack page. Boothy drew the ire of many in the community for voting oppose in RfA's, then, while in the midst of an RfC against him he was (irony of ironies) nominated for an RfA which he never accepted or even acknowledged. I accept that the nomination was made in good faith, but at the very least it was poorly thought out, and naturally invited a stream of frustration-venting oppose votes, which was cut off by the early close of the RfA. It was inappropriate for the RfA itself to ever have been started with no input from Boothy, and those votes should never have been cast; whatever was said in this RfA should have been kept to the RfC. I have no objection if someone wants to preserve this discussion elsewhere, but it is a travesty to pretend that it is a record of anything resembling a legitimate RfA. BD2412 T 17:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I, too, am tempted to delete it to preserve people's dignity, but it probably is a good idea to keep a record of this kind of thing. The 'procedural' place to move it to would be Boothy's user space, which is flat out wrong in this case. Perhaps it should just get a big black banner noting that it was never accepted in the first place, so the voting never opened, so it doesn't "count"? Perhaps make it a sub-page of the RfC in question? That would preserve it in a better place. -- stillnotelf is invisible 17:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would certainly find that to be an acceptable solution - in fact, I would endorse both moving the page to the RfC and posting a notice that the nom was never accepted. BD2412 T 17:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Move to sub-page per myself (just to have it as a statement instead of a question) -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Move anywhere you like, but do Keep. Even though a trajesty of a sort, it needs to be kept somewhere as a record of what not to do. Xoloz 17:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. SushiGeek 21:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In your opinion, would it suffice if it were kept as a sub-page of the RfC? BD2412 T 03:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and don't move. I prefer that old process pages just be left alone. We preserve dozens of other RfAs that are just as illegitimate. I would not object to the page being blanked with a statement similar to the nomination above being substituted. That would clarify the RfA for those who stumble upon it, and yet leave it in the history for those who want to see it. Boothy has not attempted to hide all his conflicts in the past. And yes, Boothy is the recipient of my favorite 17 seconds block. ;) NoSeptember ^talk 08:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It doesn't strike me as that offensive, an with only 11 oppose votes, it hardly qualifies as piling on given the number of opposes (with few supports) that some legit RfA's get. Moving is OK also, but I think I prefer just slapping a banner on it. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:58, 7 April 2006 (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.