Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cisaa11
- 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: page was independently speedy-deleted by an administrator. Discussion is now moot. - non-admin closure. --Thebirdlover (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Nonsensical RfA by a self-nominated editor with just 20 edits. This page could potentially confuse automated tools, and there is no point in keeping it. (Though I do not know if there is a precedent for RfAs like this.) Janhrach (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- not nonsensical
- hope that helps
- tildetildetildetilde Cisaa11 (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also, the original nomination period for the RFA ended without any type of feedback or votes. It makes me think that the editor did not set up the page properly meaning there is nothing really you can gauge from it. The editor should also be cautioned in general that user rights are not a golden ticket and they should not request all of these rights that they have been trying to acquire like pending changes reviewer and account creator again until at least 6 months down the line (at least a year for administrator). In addition, they should only request them if they end up having a track record of actual constructive contributions to the project--writing a non-notable COI draft that was rejected does not count. --Thebirdlover (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I completely forgot to mention (in the context of confusing automatic tools) that this RfA is techically still open, even though it is expired. Janhrach (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)