User:SPUI/RickK

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop 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: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Please note : This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:


 * protecting and unprotecting pages
 * deleting and undeleting pages
 * blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Requests for comment/Example user.


 * (RickK | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

RickK appears to deliberately ignore deletion (and undeletion) policy. He has speedied an article as a "recreation of previously-VFD'ed article", long after the VFD emerged with no consensus (and the article was no longer a recreation of the previously VFDed article (How to Heal Traumas). He then argued on the VFU debate that it was a recreation of the original article, rather than a reasonable cleanup. The article is now surviving VFD by far.

Now he did it again, this time for Falling Up (band). On VFU he simply states that "VfU is not to be used to try to get VfD votes redone." But the VFU is being used to undo the recent speedy, not the VFD, which was on a different article (and was speedily undeleted when the deleter, BanyanTree, realized he had deleted it in error).

RickK then proceeded to speedy the article yet again.

Given that RickK has continued to do this after being informed why it is against policy, it is likely that he will do it again. --SPUI (talk) 23:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now RickK "refuses to participate" in this RFC. What exactly does this mean? ArbCom time? --SPUI (talk) 04:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.

Powers misused

 * Deletion (Waking the Tiger and Falling Up (band)):
 * See below for votes that run counter to deletion policy.

Applicable policies

 * Deletion policy, Criteria for speedy deletion and Undeletion policy
 * RickK deleted Waking the Tiger, about a week after the VFD got its last comment (which itself was more than five days after it was opened). If RickK was to speedy it at the beginning, that would jive with policy. But by the time he speedied it, a reasonable number of changes and cleanup had been done, making the speedy deletion against policy. On the post-VFU VFD, no one votes to delete (this may not in itself mean anything, except that it means that the "average VFD voter" thought higher enough of this than the previous incarnation to change their vote).
 * shows all of RickK's comments on Waking the Tiger. His disregard for deletion policy continues, in arguing that it was a copy of the old content.
 * is his vote on the undeletion of Falling Up (band). He again either doesn't see or deliberately ignores the claim that the new page was different from the deleted page. If he has in fact checked and they are the same, he should say so rather than disregarding policy.
 * RickK then deleted it himself, when the admin that had originally speedied it realized his mistake.
 * his readdition of Falling Up (band) to VFU, after speedying it himself, as well as additional comments on the VFU.
 * Just remembered another example from a few months ago - California English. I may dig up the details.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Various comments on VFU for Waking the Tiger.
 * Commented on VFU for Falling Up (band); subsequent realization by the deleter that it was an accidental delete makes it clear that RickK did not attempt to compare the articles.
 * A request for a clarification of the vote on Falling Up RickK continued to edit after the comment was made, but did not respond.
 * And more comments on the VFU.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * SPUI (talk) 22:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) RickK is a master troll.
 * --Jondel 00:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )
 * Death to deletionism. LevelCheck 00:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Moved from the above section by SPUI, as I have not seen any evidence of LevelCheck trying to resolve one of these or a related dispute with RickK.)
 * I find Levelcheck's reasoning rather spurious (not to mention factionalizing), and feel obliged to point out that there's currently a RFC against him because he's alleged to disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Radiant_* 08:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * RickK seems to ignore policy and act rashly and harshly far too often. Everyking 01:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. ugen 64 04:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * RickK IMHO tends to powertrip. He needs to cool off his shooting iron and relax about fighting the inclusion of schools. Klonimus 01:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (Note: I dislike SPUI) Nevertheless, RickK blocked me unfairly for "Breaking the 3rr" (see here: ), meanwhile I didn't break it; I merely said I didn't care about the 3rr in that case.--198 02:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response
I refuse to dignify this nonsense with a response. RickK 04:05, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

All right, there are several people below who have requested that I make a response. Despite my known feelings about the entire comment/arbitration/mediation process, I will do so.

Waking the Tiger began life as How to heal traumas. The VfD vote for How to heal traumas was 10 votes for deletion and only two for keeping, but, before the article could be deleted, User:Jondel, in clear violation of policy, MOVEd the article to Waking the Tiger and stripped off the VfD header before an admin had a chance to follow up on the VfD process and delete the page. I deleted Waking the Tiger on the grounds that it was a violation of VfD and not even a recreation of a deleted article, but a continuation of the should-have-been-deleted article. It got listed on VfU, and although I still believe that Jondel was completely in the wrong for what he did, because VfU consensus was to undelete the article, I let it go.

Falling Up (band) was listed for deletion on April 3 by User:JamesBurns. There were three delete votes and zero keep votes. Note that I did not vote on the issue. Every one of the delete votes said that they were voting delete because the band is not notable. User:ABCD closed the VfD vote and deleted the article on April 6 April 9. The article's content, at the time of the deletion, was:

Falling Up is a christian rock band.

Members

* Tom * Jessy * Jeremy * Joe * Josh * Mike

Discography

* Crashings

links

* Official Website.

On April 21, User:Cookiemobsta recreated the article, with the content:

Falling Up is a Christian band consisting of Thomas Charles Cox (guitar), Joseph A. Kisselburgh (guitar), Mike, Josh Shroy (drums), Jessy Ribordy (vocals) and Jeremy Miller (bass guitar). They were named after the first song they wrote, which refers to how imperfect people are, but how sufficient the grace of God is to compensate for that imperfection. In harmony with their name, their music is heavy on themes about grace. They debuted in February 24, 2004 with an 11-song album titled "Crashings." Aaron Sprinkle (who also produced Kutless and Anberlin) produced this album, which combines rock, metal, strings and R+B. The music is similar to Kutless', and the members of the two bands were childhood friends in their hometown of Albany, Oregon. It was the members of Kutless who passed Falling Up's demo album on to BEC Recordings owner, Brandon Ebel which lead to Falling Up signing on to BEC alongside Kutless in the summer of 2003.

Discography

* Crashings (2004) o 1. Bittersweet o 2. Symmetry o 3. Broken Heart o 4. Escalates o 5. New Hope Generation o 6. The Gathering o 7. Jacksonfive o 8. Divinity o 9. Places o 10. Falling in Love o 11. Ambience o 12. Arafax Deep

External Links

* Official band site * Lyrics

User:JamesBurns put a speedy delete tag on the article as a recreation of the previously-deleted article ("Recreated article in violation of Wikipedia deletion policy"), and User:BanyanTree deleted it. Cookiemobsta immediately listed it on VfU. User:SPUI claimed that it was not a recreation, and a new VfD needs to be created for it because it is a new article. I objected on the grounds that it was a recreation, and VfU is not the place to bring requests for new VfD votes on articles which have been deleted following the VfD process. SPUI again claimed that the articles were different, and, on the same day, BanyanTree undeleted the article and deleted the VfU listing. I objected, since the proper 5 day VfU period had not passed, and I re-deleted the article, and restored the VfU listing. I am not trying to hide anything about the deletion, I merely wanted proper procedure to be followed, which was not done in this case.

Please note that in the meantime, JamesBurns re-listed Falling Up (band) for VfD as still not notable, and has voted keep deleted on the VfU, as the article is still about the same non-notable band.

RickK 22:59, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC

Note:User:Dante Aligheri undeleted the thing again today, and I have once again deleted it until such time as the VfU process has run its course. If at the end of the VfU process, the vote is to undelete, I will step aside, but not until then. What if I decided to just start deleting things on VfD before the vote time had expired? There would be mobs with pitchforks demanding my head. Well, let's follow proper procedure everywhere, all right? RickK 23:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Other people's comments are inappropriate here. This is my response. You should make your own sections. RickK 06:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1)    [ +t, +c ] 23:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm all for following the proper procedure Rick. It was my attempt to correct your error in procedure that necessitated my undeleting the article. It is your repeatedly inappropriate deletions that are the problem. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:04, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is completely not a recreation. Thanks for pasting it here for all to see. --SPUI (talk) 23:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Additionally the statement Every one of the delete votes said that they were voting delete because the band is not notable. is not true. The votes stated that the article didn't establish notability.  Just to be sure, I checked with Radiant and he stated that's exactly what he meant (his response was posted on the VFU page).  CryptoDerk 23:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no way that's the same content. The deletion policy specifically allows for cases of re-creation, suggesting that repeated re-creation makes something of a case for keeping an article, so there is obviously no prohibition on re-creating an article as such.Grace Note 03:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Amen. A re-creation shouldn't be interpreted as  trying to make an end run around the VfD process by changing the name(RickK's responce from Vfd of WTT). There IS no policy specifically prohibiting recreations. It really should be no big deal. You can't stop ideas( of articles) from reincarnating. --Jondel 03:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There most assuredly is. See Criteria for speedy deletion, General criterion 4: Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy..  RickK 19:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

Wikipedia would more or less stop running without RickK.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Snowspinner 04:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) "or less", but I don't want to make another outside view. RickK's crazy, but in a good way. AngryParsley 05:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm signing here to register my protest against the "death to deletionism" comment. RfC should not be a place for petty wiki-politicking. Mackensen (talk) 05:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Rick and myself have had differences in the past but at all times he has remained civil and courteous to me. He is probably one of the best editors on Wikipedia. Megan1967 07:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Note: I agree with both this and #3 below. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 10:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Wikipedia is not a dumpster. Viajero 11:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) I've seen him get perhaps a little overzealous sometimes, but that's because, for the whole time I've been a part of Wikipedia, I've known him to be thoroughly dedicated to standards and principles that make Wikipedia stronger.  He cares about it.  And like me, he probably spends far too much time on here.  Postdlf 23:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) To rehash a classic phrase that used to be on WP:WIN, Wikipedia is not a theater of war.   [ +t, +c ] 23:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) SlimVirgin (talk)  00:09, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Calton | Talk 00:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) Technically, this place would muddle through somehow, but I support the sentiment nonetheless.
 * 12) Wikipedia would still go on, of course, but it's a much better place with RickK. Deathphoenix 02:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view #2
Since this is primarily a procedural hassle going on, I suggest that RickK back off and let some other admin deal with the issue. There are several things going on here. First of all, there's the sad fact that an article can be deleted via VfD with as few as 2 votes to kill and one to keep. The original editors, perhaps not having visited Wikipedia in the week after their article got zapped, return and discover it's missing, well, ok, they enter it again. Bang, it gets zapped. What the hell? Editor requests undeletion, person who did the second deletion says "OK!". Now RickK sees a breach in policy, and deletes it again, because it wasn't on VfU long enough. Cooler -- or at least other -- heads need to look into this.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) android&harr;talk 04:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC). (Can I endorse both outside views?)
 * 3) Sjakkalle 06:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Endorsement stricken to endorse Outside view #4 instead. Sjakkalle 08:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view #3
This is a tempest in a teapot. In the case of Waking the Tiger, the content from the deleted article at the old name and the article at the current name  are very similar, and included much of the same material. I can't blame RickK for regarding the one as the recreation of the other and frankly, I can see myself acting in much the same manner. It is a bizarre state of affairs when content judged delete-worthy (to be deleted, NOT moved) can reside in much the same form at another article. This reflects the vagarities of the deletion process, I guess. In all, this isn't worth the attention it's getting, and I'd suggest both sides just cool off.

Outside comment: The article was a re-creation, if the edit summary is to be believed ("Removed redirect, added and copied contents from How to heal traumas"). --Calton | Talk 00:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Mackensen (talk) 05:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Antandrus 05:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC); tempted to endorse a couple of these outside views though.
 * 3) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) --nixie 05:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Radiant_* 08:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC). Also, this RFC does remind me a bit of pots and kettles, because the 'falling up' article was 'speedily undeleted' instead of listed on VfU for a couple weeks. 'Speedy' criteria are very strict, and for good reason.
 * 6) Note: I agree with both this and #1 above. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 10:51, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Quite. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 11:51, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) 99.8% of RickK's judgements are sound, VfU is there to deal with the rest, and the number of RickK goofs is so small that taking care of them is not much of a burden to the community. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) In essence, RickK is being accused of making a judgement call on an at best marginal issue that some agree with, and some don't. There will always be marginal calls to be made, and whoever makes them is always going to be unpopular with one group or another.  If the consequence of making such a call is (as it too often is) a chorus of shrill bleating, people will stop making judgements all together. Secondly, RickK is accused of holding opinions others do not share, about what should or should not be included in wikipedia. Well boo hoo.  This petty little RFC is beneath contempt. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 10:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with this. Excuse me while I go vandalise until I get banned. Thank you for showing me the light, Jesus. --SPUI (talk) 10:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment:

Please notice that for example, 1), There are now really different, for instance there is no mention of 'Medusa ' in the Waking the Tiger'. Comparisons should be done at the conntents at the start of the deletion voting process and 2) there is no prohibition of recreating articles. There shouldn't be. You can't stop ideas from reincarnating in a different article.--Jondel 06:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view #4
I think that RickK is generally a good administrator, but sometimes he is a bit quick on the trigger. I feel that he acted in good faith in this situation, and I would need more information (specifically, whether and to what extent the content created was identical to that deleted on the VFD) to judge whether the specific action taken was correct or not. One of the problems is that we do not have a specific definition of what constitutes "reposting of deleted content". In one case ("Falling Up (band)") the content was apparently substantially different than that originally deleted, and was re-deleted because RickK believed that the VFD vote was based on other factors. I'm not sure if this is a good idea. Do we want specific article titles to be forever taboo because they were deleted at one time? Also, I do not feel that RickK's statement ("I refuse to dignify this nonsense with a response") is particularly helpful to the process. Whether the originators of the RFC deserve a response, the rest of the community does. (RickK has indeed responded.) RickK is an administrator, and administrators need to be willing to explain their use of administrative powers. This is part of their responsibility to the Wikipedia community.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Firebug 06:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Firebug, but I would have worded his statement stronger in one regard: this "refusal to participate" in an RFC is not admin-like behavior. If RickK cannot handle his temper in a minor matter like this, it reflects poorly on him. I also wish to emphasize Dpbsmith's point about tact, below--again, admins are supposed to set a standard of behavior, and being friendly and understanding is part of that. Meelar (talk) 08:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) I'm glad RickK responded to this. As above, I don't feel that this is a major dispute--I just hope that RickK will be willing to respond in the future. And I want to thank him for the immense amount of work he does in maintainence--it's incredibly valuable. Meelar (talk) 23:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with those who say that this RfC is not needed. But I also agree with that "I refuse to dignify this nonsense with a response" was not needed. If something is nonsense, say why it's nonsense, just asserting it is a cop-out. Sjakkalle 08:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * RickK has responded, and done a reasonably good job of it. I think the best course is to let the VfU run its course and stop RfCing each other! Sjakkalle 06:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, until the next time RickK pulls his bullshit. Great idea. --SPUI (talk) 06:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I will not respond any further on this topic. The personal attacks have gone beyond appropriate.  SPUI has gone over the edge.  RickK 06:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * SPUI, might I suggest you pay a visit to Civility? &mdash; oo64eva (AJ) (U @ 07:09, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been there, but I've snapped. Too bad, since this was going so well. --SPUI (talk) 07:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't agree with this RfC. It's more or less a bitch session for people who don't like RickK, usually because of philosophical differences on Wikipedia policy. However, I also don't agree with his decision not to respond. If someone filed an RfC against me, I'd respond ASAP, unless I had good, solid evidence it was filed in bad faith. Why? Because that's what I'd expect if I were in a position where I'd have to file an RfC on someone.   [ +t, +c ] 11:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * RickK has now responded as requested. Thanks, RickK, that's all we were asking for.   [ +t, +c ] 23:19, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) (But I also agree with most of 3 above) Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I admire RickK's tireless work but agree that an admin's actions should not be closed to scrutiny and that they should account for them more readily than an ordinary user. adamsan  18:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Now that RickK has responded I look forward to seeing successful resolution of this matter. adamsan  18:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed with most if not all of this analysis. --SPUI (talk) 21:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. You agree to this view that I acted in good faith, and yet you're the one who brought the RfC?  RickK 23:07, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * A few points here:
 * I said "most if not all"; that's the one thing I'm not sure about.
 * "Good faith" actions can still be cause for an RFC if they disrupt Wikipedia. --SPUI (talk) 23:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I think this is largely right. I think the view that WP wouldn't work without Rick is ridiculous. It would work about as well or as badly as it already does. I think Rick generally acts in good faith, although he is not right anything like 99% of the time. He is wrong, in particular, when he is aggressive and hasty. I also think that rather than getting behind him when he is aggressive or hasty, and suggesting that others should clean up his mess, he should be counselled to be a tad more cautious in his approach. Having said that, I don't think this RfC is particularly constructive in doing that. Grace Note 23:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I have no problem with RickK as an admin. I think this experience will make him an even better admin. Also remember that the more an admin deals with vfd/speedy/vfu, the more likely they are to come out with a few more bruises than admins who spend less time dealing with that. It’s not the most glamorous job an admin could spend time on and I’m grateful RickK takes the time to do it.&mdash; oo64eva (AJ) (U @  23:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view #5
RickK could be called a bulk admin, he makes a large number of judgement calls every day. I've heard people typify him as "having a ratio of 990:1000 good calls".

I haven't checked if he actually makes 1000 calls per day :-P, but I'll take peoples' word for it. ;)

Anyway, being human, he's bound make the occaisional dubious call.

Generally it might be wiser wrt folks like RickK to just fix his occaisional oopses, rather than complaining about them. If wikipedia can even revert actual vandalism within 5 minutes, then it can certainly fix the occaisional mistake by a busy admin! ;-)

If RickK sees folks tidying up the occaisional loose thread, then I'd suggest he should just leave them to it (insofar he hasn't been doing that already).

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Kim Bruning 13:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) My thoughts exactly. RickK takes on many admin tasks on Wikipedia, so although his mistakes may seem like more than others, his correct judgement calls far outweigh this. Deathphoenix 15:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Dpbsmith (talk) 15:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC). (Although I sometimes think a tiny bit of tact might not impair his efficiency).
 * 4) Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) RickK appears to have assumed that JamesBurns' characterization of the article as a recreation was accurate... and why would he not? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:32, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't admins look into the history of a deleted page without an undelete? Deletion is such a powerful thing that verification should be done (as with checking history to make sure the current content wasn't the result of vandalism). --SPUI (talk) 23:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is true, it is possible to "double check", so to speak. However, given the volume of deletes that some admins do, it's really understandable that they will (on occasion) take someone else's word for it. I think your beef here is as much with James as with Rick. Now, it does seem that RickK, is asserting that he agrees with James, so this may all be a moot point. Note that I'm not positive that RickK didn't check the article before he deleted it, but my understanding based on the related posts is that he deleted it "blindly", taking James at his word... which, as I said, I support as a general procedure. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with this as well. Instead of lamenting one or two bad calls (which, let's face it, we're all guilty of) we should praise the enormous number of good calls from RickK, every single day. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 23:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) silsor 06:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Bishonen | talk 16:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) People think RickK made a boo-boo, RickK disagrees. No big deal here&mdash;we could ask RickK to be more open to people even if he considers them to be wrong, but that would sort of defeat the purpose of having a RickK. Fix problem. Move along. JRM · Talk 01:25, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * 5) It is indeed no big deal. I agree with JRM's statement and view 5. I think RickK is good admnistrator. Iwould like very much that RickK be more open and responsive with users, even if wrong(the users). Time to move a long. I'm one of the RFC initiators but signing here. I guess I just needed to blow some steam. I couldn't help but insist on putting Waking the Tiger on wikipedia because the book might even save lives, at least it is encyclopedic and noteworthy.--Jondel 01:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Wgfinley 02:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Radiant_* 08:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view #6
RickK has trolled me; I have lost. I will have a nice day.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) SPUI (talk) 02:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move to close
I believe the above indicates that the issues raised by SPUI against RickK have been sufficiently addressed. Therefore, I move to close it. Radiant_* 08:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not at all what it means at all. However, as the process is irreparably flawed, there's no point in keeping this charade open. --SPUI (talk) 09:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You requested comments, you got comments. If anything's irreparably flawed, it's not the RfC. As Mark Twain said, it will always be true that "nothing needs reforming so much as other people's habits". One thing at a time, S. JRM · Talk 10:47, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Close. The faster we can end this RfC and move on, the better. Sjakkalle 09:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Close. I concur. There are sufficient comments and endorsements for all parties involved to have an idea of the consensus in this matter. --Deathphoenix 13:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.