Some of the material on this pages was shifted here from Ta bu shi da yu's talk page shortly after this page was set up. Look at the date stamps to try and figure out what was what.

[...or apparently so, tho Jerzy(t), in temporary reorganization, may be mistaken about where the super-section should have ended.]

Please note that for historical reasons I'm adding some history that was lost, including my first message to this place. Ah, the memories! Actually, I don't recall any of this, as it was so many years ago. :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a messageboard for all administrators. Please feel free to !

What's the best way of doing this? I can't send another message to all admins, because that will be seen as spam. So how do we let older admins know about this board? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Post about it on other pages in the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces, and you can let some of your admin friends know on their talk pages, because if they're your friends they probably won't get mad. Feel free to tell me about it on my talk page! even though I already know, since I'm here.... Andre (talk) *** 05:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've done this... :P I've posted about this board on a few notices. We might want to let all new admins know about it. Sorry to all older admins who discover this later that you didn't get messaged by me as I'm not allowed to do this. Clearly. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You've advertised on the Village Pump. Anyone who might be interested has seen it.-gadfium (talk) 07:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. Had I not known about it already, I wouldn't know about it from the Village Pump because I don't check the Village Pump. I assume at least some others are the same. Andre (talk) *** 07:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rarely also check the VP because the page is just too large. I think other admins will feel the same way. Anyway, I've added to a few other places and told a few people who I don't think would mind if I messaged them. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having this board is a good idea. -- Infrogmation 08:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've shifted the following comments from my user talk page to this page as its more appropriate. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMO it was totally inappropriate to list these on VfD. I have removed them and placed them on /Old. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Has no one pointed out the language from the RfC page, about admin behavior (which i think is the case here)

If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.

Since the preceding 'graph with the same indentation says a subpage will be created in response to the listing, "it will be deleted" refers to the entry (listing) on the RfC page, not to the subpage. There is no policy for deleting the subpages.
--Jerzy(t) 03:08, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

I'd leave the listings until the 14th, and then delete the listings and probably keep the pages, since that's how it looks like the voting's going. - Hephaestos|§ 05:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I voted (keep, of course), & in the same edits voiced my opposition to cutting the VfD processes short (until a policy for short-circuiting such VfDs is formulated as general rather than ad hoc matter). Tnx for the heads-up (tho i'm curious how i got on your "mailing list" re this). --Jerzy(t) 06:08, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I have no problem with the removal in principle. RFCs should be deleted only when the RFC policy says they should be deleted, so my first impulse was to agree that you should remove them. However, I have noticed that you are involved in much controversy lately, so I agree with Luke in the above section that you should take a short break. I think that you removing the requests would only cause these problems to escalate. Anyway, it seems that people are voting to keep them, as the policy says they should, and Cheese Dreams should be warned not to do this sort of thing again. Academic Challenger 06:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The scale i'm willing to use in commenting doesn't include a "take a short break" choice, but only 3 choices:

• "OK to dial it up",
• "best to dial it back", and
• "you could dial it either up or down a tad without my thinking the change is likely to be a mistake."

IMO you are somewhere in that very wide range of "best to dial it back". --Jerzy(t) 07:20, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I don't use VfD enough to really have strong views about the comment pages. jimfbleak 06:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't think VfD should be used for anything other than main namespace.
2. Even if I'm wrong about (1), I think that RfC entries should be dealt with by policy, not individually. Either they should stay there forever, or there should be explicit policy regarding their deletion (for example, perhaps RfCs that are not properly endorsed should be deleted immediately.)
3. I would not recommend removing those entries from VfD.
4. I would not complain for a moment if someone did it.

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that the process should be the same as for a main-space page; clearly, in all of these cases the emerging consensus is to keep, but I could imagine a good reason to delete an RFC page. After all, if we decide RFC pages can never be deleted, then they become magnets for inappropriate material and someone will start one for that purpose. -- Jmabel | Talk *** 07:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey there, Ta bu! Thank you for inviting me into this forum.

Anyways, about the pages you referred me to, they were created by the same user, right? I dont know how legal it is at wiki to have more than one or two user pages for the same user, but the one page I did see seemed good to me.

All I can say is lets see what others think and we shall go on from there.

"Antonio The Zebra Martin", 01:27 DEC 11, 2004 (MST)

My view is that these are not appropriate to be listed on VfD and should be removed. I also feel the RFCs should be kept as a record. Filiocht *** 08:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for my input. Unfortunately though, I have no strong opinion either way. The case can be made for deleting them, but on the other hand I doubt they'll do much damage if they stay. Fredrik | talk 08:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be clear, by "them" I meant the VfD listings, not the RfC pages. Fredrik | talk 11:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, don't vfd them. CheeseDreams hasn't been the most well behaved, she might trust me to mediate with her though. Crucially, it is important that these sort of records are kept, even if they simply record, Qwzzy throwing their rattle out of their pram and accusing everyone else of doing something; (as long as there is no problem with libel!), the community here works by consensus not censorship. Dunc|☺ 10:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a rule, there should be no reason to delete proper requests for comments. Each of them is a valid piece of RFC process history. --Joy [shallot] 10:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. We shouldn't delete such pages as they are valid history of the process. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] *** 11:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I said on VfD that I thought it was very out of order to delete such pages, but someone pointed out that there is a notice on the RfC page explicitly saying that such pages will be deleted if they don't make certification in forty-eight hours: "If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."

It seems unfair to keep failed RfC that have been submitted under this understanding. In other words, I think the evil done by losing evidence of abuse of process is outweighed by the evil done by capriciously breaking our own policy retrospectively, and if that means some people get away with past abuses, so be it. However I think it should be policy in future that these procedural pages should never be deleted, and that people writing them should all be made aware that what they write on those pages is a matter of public record.

As for past pages that may be deleted because they precede the new policy, there is nothing to stop a user keeping a private record of an old RfC that he considers to be material evidence. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the point here is that they are not 'proper' requests. As such, and having failed approval, however, they are not a stain on their subjects at all. For this reason I do not see a point in deleting them either, as they do represent historical examples of the functioning process of rejecting bogus RFC submissions. Add to that, the submitter is the subject of an RFC of his own, to which these bogus submissions may or may not be relevant. So, no, I don't see a reason for deleting them. I would just archive them someplace under "rejected RFCs" or something. But fair enough, if this means breaking policy, delete them. I see that "private copies" may be kept, but these will be without edit history, and therefore not verifiable. dab (ᛏ) 11:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems to be that all RfC's have historical value, so why are they currently deleted? It seems to me that the 48-hour delete rule doesn't account for this value. Fortunately, WikiPolicy isn't dogma, nor is it carved in stone. I would happily back a proposal that the policy be ammended to say RfC's be archived for reference after 48-hours, and not simply deleted. -- ClockworkSoul 22:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I've just taken a look at the RFCs you want to delete. I'm sure someone will complain if they're scratched without going through VfD, but the header clearly says that they will be deleted if there's no support for them within 48 hours of creation, and that time limit's long gone now. I'd be minded to delete them, but this is one part of Wikipedia administration I've not got involved in before! -- Arwel 03:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've not heard of pages outside the main template being listed on vfd before, and I don't think it would be a healthy practice to allow for even the possibility of RFC discussions being deleted, outside of the normal 48-hour practice. The vfd page is intended for articles that don't meet Wikipedia's standards of acceptability or relevance, not for pages which document discussions among different contributors.

I suppose some exceptions to this general rule could appear in the future, but I would recommend that RFC pages *not* be eligible for vfd. CJCurrie 03:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If an RFC has not been doubly certified within 48 hours, it is considered an [[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion|SDC]]. Now please stop spamming this before you make someone even more annoyed than a few of us are now. :/ -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:44, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I've never seen these kinds of pages listed of VfD. It think it is a typical abuse of process and waste of time. In my view you should feel free to de-list them. Jayjg 03:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace pages have been listed (and even deleted) before. I certainly think we should let this run its course; to do otherwise might confirm CheeseDream's cabalist dillusions. For reference, CheeseDreams also has RfCs for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa knott and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eequor, both uncertified and deleted. I would like to see those undeleted too because I think they're even more odd than these three. Also, I agree with Angela. Cool Hand Luke 03:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I guess the preceding settles it.CSTAR 03:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like I'm the late one, but for what it's worth: I don't think they should be listed on VfD; I thought they were usually deleted unceremoniously after expiry. Someone did feel the need to affix this notice, however: "This RfC failed to meet the requirement for certification within the 48 hour deadline, but was not deleted in order that it may be used for reference in resolving certain disputes with the submitter." So it seems the pages are still of use. I don't see any harm in de-listing, but neither any harm in leaving them; though I suppose VfD is cluttered enough as it is. -- Hadal 03:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with listing them on VfD. First, the RfC page already has administrative oversight. If the Beaurocrats and admins who update that section of the Wiki aren't doing their jobs, then an RfC can be opened on them. In my opinion, they are doing their jobs, or at least always have. VfD is an attempted way around that process. I didn't vote on the VfD listings because I thought that their listing was much the same as the User Talk pages that had been listed in vengeance in the past: the point was not to achieve the deletion, but rather to complain loudly and provoke a paroxysm of discussion on the subject. Cheese Dreams is attempting to redress a grievance he has. Fair enough, but I hate VfD being used for it. To comment at all is to achieve the goal of the listing, IMO (not saying that anyone is a troll, but it's the "feeding the trolls" bit). Neither namespace nor administrative pages should be listed on VfD. VfD is for discovering the encyclopedic worthiness of a page, and an old RfC page simply doesn't fit any of the criteria. Personally, I think CheeseDreams should go to arbitration, if he feels persecuted by the persistence of the pages, but they're being preserved for pretty clear reasons. Geogre 04:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think the RFC pages should be listed on VfD. Especially if they are involved in a current RFC w/ CheeseDreams. --Flockmeal *** 04:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking at this from a policy point of view, I think there's no question about it, RfC listings should be kept, whether they make certification or not. However, the RfC page says different. At Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#General_user_conduct: "Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted." (emphasis mine).

Acordingly, I think we should discuss a policy change on the proposal that RfC pages and the like should never be deleted, and then and only then the text on RfC should be changed to align with the new policy. The evil done by losing pages is small, because anybody can download the entire history of an RfC prior to deletion. The evil that would be done by making policy on the hoof, however, is appreciable. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I'd advise against LISTING RFCs on VFD, I don't particularly see a need to remove them from VFD, even if they are trivially keepable. Strictly speaking it's probably against procedure. On the other hand, no one will complain about you removing them unless they have an axe to grind. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, RfCs do not belong on VfD. I can never recall them being there. People don't pay too much attention to RfCs once they expire. I would say it's alright to simply delete an RfC that was never certified, but one that has been certified should be kept for historical reasons. BTW, just for the record, I think you did the right thing by asking other admins their opinion on this matter. No one is forced to respond. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion pages, like RfC's should be archived, not deleted IMO. There's no need to delete them, but they may be needed as evidence at a later date. ed g2s • talk 04:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi TBSDY. I don't think RFCs should ever be deleted, though that doesn't seem to be in danger of happening for the ones currently listed on VfD. I don't really think RFCs should be listed on VfD to begin with; in fact, I can't imagine why pages outside of the main namespace should be there at all. However, I don't think you should remove the VfDs in this instance - an important precedent is being set here regarding the keepability of all RFCs. Andre (talk) *** 04:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ta bu shi da yu,

RfCs shouldn't be VfD'd, IMO. I had a look at the three pages you sent to me as links, and I don't think any of them merited the VfD. That's my two pennies. --DF08 05:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that RFC pages should not be on VfD. VfD is mostly (or should be, IMNSHO) for judging whether an article is enycyclopaedic or not. RFC pages should simply be handled by policy. My preference would be to archive both failed and approved ones, not discard them, but I don't care that much one way or the other about the failed ones. The approved ones we definitely shouuld keep. Noel (talk) 12:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also feel that RFC pages should not be deleted in a hurry, but it's not an opinion I feel strongly about, just a gut feeling. Deb 15:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think RFCs should be deleted, just unlisted; I was under the impression that that is what is supposed to happen. I'm quite neutral here as policy is clear on that the page should be deleted, but numerous RFCs have been left alone, which makes me wonder what's supposed to happen. I'm quite in favour of keeping RFC pages, though, since they can be retained as evidence, as is occurring with these pages. As for the subject at hand, I'd say let the VfD finish its course. Johnleemk | Talk 17:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't understand what this discussion is doing here. The RfC page is crystal clear. Failed RfC will be deleted. For some users to deliberately flaunt this in order to try to claim CheeseDreams was abusing process is ridiculous. Those who are flaunting this policy are abusing process and trying to disrupt Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to boot. Also, a lot of this discussion should be on the RfC talk page - not here. Wikipedia policy is made by all. It should just be made and then flaunted by admins as and when they see fit. jguk 19:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP policy is made by those who are interested enough at the time, and most of us prioritize, not because we don't care but because there's no point in being here if we all spend all our time debating policy. That is a sufficient to guarantee that any policy that doesn't leave room for exigencies is simply a mistake (or a temporary victory of control freaks). In fact, think about a really rigid policy structure: military regulations. Contrary to most people's fantasies, what the regs mean is that you won't get in trouble for following them -- i.e., not that when you follow them, you end up in the slammer, but that you need a good explanation of the exigent circumstances that, predictably, sometims make ignoring them necessary. --Jerzy(t) 19:59, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I think you should probably look at the VfD discussion. Although there is a consensus to keep, I'm not the only person who has expressed strong unease at the selective application of policy. If we're going to keep all RfCs (and I think we should) we should not do so by making an exception of our pre-existing policy, which would be an vindictive action that would be unfair to one (admittedly unpopular) person. We should discuss it and change policy on the basis of consensus, and then and only then should we begin to archive failed RfCs (which I think we should have been doing all along). Hope this makes sense. In my mind it's a matter of being seen to archive RfCs because in principle it's the right thing to do, not just because on this situation it suits us to ignore policy because we want to "get" someone. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know little about the process on RfC. Why would a page which needs comment be deleted? Hyacinth 22:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a policy maven. This is just my opinion.

a) The RFC pages shouldn't be removed. Generally speaking, anything that's a record of past controversies is important. I sympathize with Cheesedreams, but I'm afraid that if one is working in controversial areas, getting flamed goes with the territory. In reality, the likelihood is that nobody other than the people involved in the controversy know or care about the existence of these pages will ever read them.

b) The VfD listings shouldn't be removed, either. I am very much opposed to removing items from VfD on the grounds that they "shouldn't have been listed." Once they've been listed, let the discussion proceed openly and let the string of "keeps" tell the story. A strong remark that the discussion does not need to continue would be fine. Also, personal attention to moving the article to /Old immediately when the five days are up would be fine, too. If a custom of removing items from VfD becomes prevalent, we will soon need to develop all sorts of metapolicy, pages for voting on whether items should be relisted on VfD, etc. etc.

Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Putting them back again? Naaaah... that would be silly. if you've already moved them to /old just chalk it up as a fait accompli. They were there for, what, three-four days anyway? Particularly if they're there on /old, since voting is allowed to continue while they're on /old. If I were nitpicking I'd say that I'd avoid final action on them until five days have elapsed from initial listing. But that's bound to happen anyway. The articles should be kept, there's obvious consensus on that point, so there's no point in fussing over it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Ta bu shi da yu, I'm generally of the opinion that RFC, VFD and any other "meta" pages should never be removed (licensing and legal issues aside). They should stick around as a kind of Wikipedia public record. That being said, if CheeseDreams is worried because people continue to edit these pages, I belive that they should be protected. In fact, I kind of think all rfc and vfd pages should be protected once the vote is over. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) *** 15:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I generally agree with DropDeadGorgias that most meta pages should be held around for the sake of historical record and for establishing/referring to precedents. I tend to think they shouldn't be protected either, unless they're particularly prone to vandalism (mainly because page protection might imply a lack of trust when I think we should assume good faith). Best, David Iberri | Talk *** 18:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I don't think RfC pages should have wound up on VfD in the first place. Aren't they supposed to be archived indefinitely? Anyway, I'd say remove them from VfD for sure, they don't belong there.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) *** 19:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with (most of) the above comments: pages dealing with the workings of wikipedia should never be deleted. Take them off VfD - DavidWBrooks 19:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• VfD should really be for articles; it's busy enough just doing that. The articles should never have been listed, but now that they have been, I have no strong opinion on whether they should be removed early. I wouldn't object to some RfCs being deleted; historical record is important, but so is letting bygones be bygones. However, I don't think that VfD should be the place to make such a decision. Isomorphic 20:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello, not knowing at all the bottom line of the dispute, I will only say this : generally, I do not support deletion of pages. It may result in loss of historical important comment. If a page is not very relevant, or slightly hurting, best is just to blank it. Generally, do what you feel can not hurt someone badly. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Yes, I agree these shouldn't have been listed, Ta bu shi da yu, but you shouldn't remove them either. Let them die like other frivolous VfDs. One perception CheeseDreams has is that adimns are ganging up on her. Let's give this one its time. I'm adding them back. (Incidentally, it's only been 48 hours). Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that if the consensus is that the case was solved, then the pages can just be deleted (or archived) by an admin. Otherwise, they should be kept there. In any case, I feel that they should not be on VfD. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that VfD should be used for anything other than article pages. They are our product, and deserve a method optimised for keeping the article namespace tidy. Andrewa 01:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't use VfD enough to have strong feelings about the comment pages. dino 23:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that several RFCs were listed in CAT:CSD, namely Wikipedia:Requests for comment/jguk and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa knott. While I understand that the RFC did not receive the required number of certifications within the time period, I cannot find the policy that states that these become speedy deletion candidates. In fact, I had a recent discussion with User:Ta bu shi da yu when several other users had a consensus that RFCs should almost never be deleted. I thought I'd bring this to the AN to see what everyone else thought. If there is a formal policy in place, let me know. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) *** 18:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was a recent extensive discussion, at Wikipedia:Administrator's_noticeboard/RfC-VfD. Noel (talk) 19:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not too difficult to find the policy - it's the first thing on each RfC page on a sysop/user (and also noted clearly on the main RfC page):) . It says:

"In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop/user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: XXX (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: XXX (UTC)." jguk 20:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems like this topic is currently in dispute at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Deleting uncertified RFCs. However, because this is a delicate issue and I understand that the current policy is to delete these pages, I will go ahead and delete your RFC page; I will ask Theresa on her page if she wishes her RFC page to be deleted (she may not as it is currently part of the RFC/RFA discussion involving User:CheeseDreams). Obviously, any changes made to wikipedia policy would only affect RFCs in the future, and not the ones on CSD right now. Cheers, DropDeadGorgias (talk) *** 22:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)