User talk:SHB2000
Add topic
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} .
|
This page is for discussions related to the User:SHB2000 page. Please remember to:
|  |
Since my ill-considered RfA from 3 years ago, I have learned not to be power-hungry or to make adminship my primary goal on Wikimedia, and have acquired so many other good contributions, especially to ENWP, TAWY, and Meta, that my global edit count totals just over 3,000. So basically, that flunked RfA isn't necessary to keep on Meta anymore, is it? While I'm still definitely not ready for Meta sysop now, I've gained much more experience since my flunked request. So is it possible you could delete Meta:Requests for adminship/Faster than Thunder? P.S. It's scary for me to look at now that I've gained a lot more experience. Faster than Thunder (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Faster than Thunder: Hey, I definitely get where you're coming from (secondhand embarrassment from old mistakes is not something we want to see), but I don't think Meta admins are allowed to delete past RfAs – both as per WM:CSD and because RfA territory lies within bureaucrat territory. Pinging @M7, Sotiale, and Xaosflux: for their thoughts on this, but my instinct is it probably shouldn't be deleted for archival reasons. //shb (t • c) 08:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- (non-bureaucrats comment) RFA/B/CU/OS-(e)s are kept for archival and historical, so they cannot be deleted. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 08:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agree, this is a community discussion, it certainly doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Being able to point to an old request during a new request allows an applicant to be able to show that they have become more experienced. If the OP really wants to push this, they could engage the community via Meta:Requests for deletion - though I expect it would (a) fail, and (b) show a lack of experience. — xaosflux Talk 08:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Same as Xaosflux, RfA's are archived. I also notice that the closing bureaucrat @MF-Warburg has not been pinged, it seems to me that she should be informed about this request. --M/ (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Whoops, seems I've forgotten to include her – my apologies. //shb (t • c) 11:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- No worries, I have nothing to add - the request shouldn't be deleted. -- MF-W 12:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Whoops, seems I've forgotten to include her – my apologies. //shb (t • c) 11:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)