Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Requests for comment John Kenney


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was- kept

Requests for comment/John Kenney
This is an expired RfC page. It's continued existance is the result of a campaign by a certain group of users to harass me - see the RfC they have brought against me to see the pettyness of their complaints. CheeseDreams 19:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete CheeseDreams 19:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with deleting it. It should not continue to exist if people are going to continue to edit it. john k 19:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, but would favor deletion if there's process to bring it back for evidence. Cool Hand Luke  00:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Such as Requests for undeletion? CheeseDreams 20:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Wiping the records of such tawdry events doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Let's keep them for reference in case of future problems. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 02:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep: evidence - rernst 02:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Viriditas 03:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why would we erase this?  This VfD does not belong here. &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep if only as evidence to support your claim of being the subject of a campaign of harassment. The failure of the RfC to find certification within 48 hours speaks for itself. It would be very unusual to delete such a document.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) Revision: I think it should be policy that such pages are kept.  However the RfC page explicitly says: "If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."  Accordingly I think this should be honored and the pages should be deleted.  The policy should be changed, not capriciously because it suits some of us to record what we consider to be abuse of process, but after proper discussion.  If process applies to Cheesedreams, it should apply equally to us. STRONG DELETE --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Er...the whole point of the 48 hour limit is that these pages are to be deleted if they are not certified within 48 hours, so that frivolous complaints don't continue to get attention. I am perfectly fine with this page being preserved so as to remain as evidence should the CheeseDreams case go to arbitration, but I am not fine with this loophole being used so people can continue to beat up on me even though the RfC failed.  Which is why I suggested on the talk page that it and similar pages be protected.  Now, as I said, I don't particularly care whether it is preserved in this individual case, but you all seem to be saying that our normal practice of deleting these pages is wrong.  Which is a different matter entirely. john k 15:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I stand corrected. I don't agree with the policy of deleting complaint pages, but that is apparently Wikipedia policy, and you're both right. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP. It would be inappropriate to remove historical data like this. I will start keeping copies of such things on subpages of my user page and my personal wiki if these ever start being deleted. --Improv 22:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as evidence. Andre ( talk )A| 23:01, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP. -- 01:47, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Wikipedia decision making and related pages should never be deleted. I would also support removing the listings of other "Requests for comment" from VfD -- Chris 73 Talk 03:34, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, obvious indeed. Antandrus 03:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a helpful piece of evidence for the Arbitration Committee's case on CheeseDreams as it documents his/her abuse of RFC system. GeneralPatton 03:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep (strong), as evidence, in some ways like the recent Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talk:Ambition (card game). (But don't short-circuit this VfD just bcz it should not have been started. This VfD seems to be an attempt to abuse the process in order to hide evidence, and such cases may deserve some standing policies for cutting VfD short. But i strongly support our going through the charade of voting down the VfD down within the normal rules, since no one has cited such a standing policy.) --Jerzy(t) 05:46, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * Keep. JDG 06:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as evidence of CheeseDreams' warmongering. JFW | T@lk  08:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * KeepI have something I want to add to the talk page but didn't have time yesterday and day before. It seems that when users don't break the rules they get blocked for "infinite", but when Admins break the rules everything has to be done to cover it up. Par for the course with The Wikipedia.WikiUser 21:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This should really be a speedy delete, not a VfD. The RfC rules make it crystal clear that uncertified complaints are deleted after 48 hours. That's an important part of the whole process: users can try it to see if they have any support for their dispute without fearing that raising the issue will be held against them. It is disingenuous to ignore the promise of how that page will be used. It's even worse that the users who wish to keep the page wish to do so to try to demonstrate that CheeseDreams has abused the process. It is they who are abusing the process. I am no fan of CheeseDreams, but keeping this page is just not fair on her. jguk 20:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Question - There is a clear conflict here between the explicit policy to delete, and the apparent (near) concensus to keep. I'm not familiar with the case, so please forgive my ignorance when I ask the obvious: "what is the value in keeping this despite the standard?" -- ClockworkSoul 21:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nevermind - I made myself somewhat familiar with the case. On one hand, we have policy that specifies that such RfCs be deleted. On the other, there is some cause to keep these records (at the very minimum, as evidence in another case). Whatever your/our feelings about any user, whatever that user has done, it is wrong to ignore the policies that are in place so that we can maintain some level of order. Surely, nobody here would want any policies selectively applied to them? That being said: I propose that we temporarily delist these items from VfD, and open a vote to amend the current policy so that all such RfC's are archived regardless of their outcome. -- ClockworkSoul 22:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Delete uncertified RfCs, keep certified ones. Gamaliel 00:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. IMO VfD is not the place for this discussion, but best now to just let this vote proceed and (hopefully) fail. Andrewa 16:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This really should be archived and the 48-hour rule re Rfc pages should be revised. It is too important even if for no other reason than to show how things can get out of hand. Dieter Simon 20:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Prolonging this dispute is in violation of policy.  --[[User:Eequor| &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ]]] 20:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. While we have a policy that such pages should be deleted, we have no policy about whether they might not be undeleted if they might provide evidence (for or against someone). There is reason at present why they should exist. Jallan 00:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. follow policy.  see reasoning above. Wolfman 19:20, 12 Dec 2004 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.