Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Requests for comment Jwrosenzweig

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

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig

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 22:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. delete CheeseDreams 22:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Cheese Dreams went on a bit of a RfC fest and started rfcs against multiple wikipedians, all of which expired without certification. This one is being kept as evidence of cheese dreams's abuse of the rfc process. Keep for the time being. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. 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 ]] 02:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - rernst 02:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep --Viriditas 03:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Why would we erase this? This VfD does not belong here. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Same as the other. In any case I don't see how this can be a campaign against you since you're the one who brought the RfCs and both failed because of your failure to understand the RfC process. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:34, 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]] 11:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This page's existence, CD, is a result of your campaign to harass me. You will not delete it while it is being introduced as evidence in an arbitration case against you. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 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)
• STRONG KEEP. -- 01:46, 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)
• I'm sure you don't need another vote, but they don't get more obvious than this. Keep. It has nothing to do with harassment. CD opened the RfC herself. Antandrus 03:47, 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) 05:45, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
• Keep as evidence of CheeseDreams' warmongering. JFW | T@lk 08:16, 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)
• Keep. IMO VfD is not the place for this discussion, but best now to just let this vote proceed and (hopefully) fail. Andrewa 16:23, 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 19:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Prolonging this dispute is in violation of policy. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 20:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, for now. We are caught between what current policy says and something obviously not taken into account when it was written. If not a complete change of policy, there should be a rider allowing for temporary undeletion of anything bearing on an abritration case. Jallan 00:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. follow policy. see reasoning above. Wolfman 19:19, 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.