Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RickK

About Outside view #1
"Wikipedia would more or less stop running without RickK."

Maybe this is true, maybe this is false. I think that RickK has done a lot of excellent work in keeping vandalism at bay and the integrity of Wikipedia secure. However, I would argue that this is completely beside the point.

How is this view related to the question of whether or not RickK broke policy when deleting Waking the Tiger and Falling Up (band)? If a person makes a lot of good work, that does not make it acceptable for them to consistently make bad decisions. (Note that I am not of the opinion that RickK has made consistently bad decisions, the vast majority of his decisions are good ones.) It is playing ignorance to say "X is a good user, so we will ignore everything which is in the RfC".

I feel that one should read the summary and basis for the RfC, and argue against the things layed out in the RfC if one disagrees with it. "Wikipedia would more or less stop running without RickK" does not address the issues layed out.

My main objection to the RfC is that the issue is a small one, and that SPUI and Jondel could, and should, have done more to discuss the problem with RickK on his talkpage, and try to reach an agreement, before filing this RfC. I also take issue with Point 3 in the "Applicable policies" (shouldn't that have been titled "Evidence of disputed behavior"?) section, since I feel that RickK has the right to vote and argue as he pleases on VfU and VfD, no matter how much I disagree with him.

Any thoughts? Sjakkalle 11:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe there have been several cases related to votes clearly against policy, like Anthony DiPierro and GRider. --SPUI (talk) 16:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a difference between WP:POINT and what you're challenging RickK here on. I agree with Sjakkalle; the complaints about his votes here are unfounded. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The statement that "Wikipedia would more or less stop running without RickK" is demonstrably overstated, because he got disgusted and took a break for a couple of months, I think it was around the end of last year&mdash;and Wikipedia did not stop running. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I would vote that RickK is a great administrator but he does not see things from other peoples point of view and is too trigger-happy .I've made an apology, but this was not acknowledged at all and this embarrasses me. He is totally denying Applicable policies 1 and 2 with his last statement because VfU consensus was to undelete the article, I let it go. I feel he also twisted my own statements to paint an ugly picture of me. --Jondel 06:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment on outside view 5
"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! ;-)"


 * BanyanTree tried to fix his own mistake in deleting Falling Up, and the article was redeleted by RickK. RickK doesn't see his actions as mistakes and will unfix whatever is fixed. --SPUI (talk) 21:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Error of Fact in Responce
I deleted Falling Up (band) on 9 April, not 6 April (therefore the VfD did expire). – ABCD 00:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoops, you're right, sorry, I got the time line messed up. RickK 05:17, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Account of BanyanTree

 * This is my first visit to RfC but, as I am not voting or endorsing, I assume that this is the proper place to post. Hopefully, my own account will fill in some gaps.

In the course of cleaning out CAT:CSD, I came across Falling Up (band), with a speedy tag on it explaining that it was a recreation of previously deleted material. I recall that I briefly scanned the deleted article and noted the list of band member names (which also existed in the new article, albeit not in bulleted form), decided that it was a recreation with formatting tweaks, deleted it, and continued on with other articles in CSD.

I did not realize that it was on WP:VFU until SPUI informed me on my talk page. After reading the votes and comments to date on the article I took a longer comparative look at the articles. I quickly concluded that the new version was substantially expanded, and that I would never have speedied it if I had done a thorough comparison in the first place.

This being my first appearance on VFU, I went through Undeletion policy to see if I could make good what I felt was a blatant mistake on my part. Noting the normal five day period for voting, I also noted the Exceptions section, which stated: "If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately." I thought then, and think now, that my original deletion was not in accordance with deletion policy because the new article was not a recreation of deleted content.

I promptly undeleted the article and removed the speedy tag. I then apologized on the vote page to Cookiemobsta for my improper deletion, put the discussion into the undeleted archive and removed the discussion from the voting page under the edit summary "archiving undeleted Falling Up (band)". I have had no further involvement with the article or the discussion surrounding it since archiving the VfU discussion until now, though a couple of users have left messages about it on my talk page.

Having had the opportunity to look through the relevant policies and give it some thought, it would have been far better if I had stated my rationale for undeletion explicitly, rather than assuming that it would be understood in my apology to Cookiemobsta. I also failed to place the article up for VfD, as is required under both normal undeletions and Exceptions, to which I can only plead unfamiliarity with undeletion procedure and haste to fix a mistake.

&mdash;  BanyanTree 04:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JondelsResponce2Rickks
Rickk, I believe that you are a good adminstrator and hope that you continue your good work. I see youre name on the same side in various voting processes. In my many years at wiki, this is my first RFC. (I should have filed one with Neto)

don't you think it is a little harsh that you interpret my recreation as as trying to make an end run around the VfD process by changing the name ??
 * First of all, there is no official policy prohibiting the recreation of Vfd'ed articles.


 * About :>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,

My responce: I did 4 things. I followed options suggested by the other 2 Keep voters. I informed administrators before acting at the talk page. When you reacted I apologized. I reverted. What else would you have wanted me to do?


 * Concerning the Recreation issue.

Place look at the dates of creation. Waking the Tiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waking_the_Tiger&action=history April 28, 2004 yes last year)existed a long time already. For reference I created How to heal Traumas the day before(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_Heal_Traumas&action=history April 27, 2004). How can it be a recreation since it existed before as redirect?

Please notice the comments like presuming eventual move to Waking the Tiger.


 * "">because VfU consensus was to undelete the article, I let it go.

You did NOT let it go. Come on. Do you understand Applicable policies 1 and 2?

Youre not being honest here. Why did you put it on a Vfd for the second time in the first place? Why did you unilaterally http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=RickK&page=Waking+The+Tiger delete] it despite a keep result of the the VFU?


 * What bothers me RickK is that you twisted and used my very words to misrepresent me. This inconsistent with what I beleive a good administrator should be:

start quote from VfU:

The diff doesn't work. But please note that even Jondel him/herself, in the edit summary, said Removed redirect, added and copied contents from How to heal traumas. So Jondel acknoweldged that the information in the article was copied from the VfD'd article. This was a violation of consensus, a violation of the VfD process, and not acting in good faith because Jondel has claimed all along that the information was different when even his/her own edit summary says otherwise. RickK 06:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW did you notice there are no delete votes? How hard will it be to prove articles are noteworthy here at wikipedia?--Jondel 05:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's inappropriate for other people to make comments inside my response
How can other Users possibly know what they are endorsing or not endorsing, if arguments against me are included in my response section? RickK 06:15, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * But you're allowed to comment in other peoples' responses? Oh come on. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * RickK, are you evading the issue? I 've readily admitted my mistakes I believe like the stripping of headers. You can't expect users to be very strict adherents to all these rules. You've displayed good administratorship but you are acting like a troll now .--Jondel 06:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, stop calling RickK a troll! It is precisely that type of exchange that got us into this mess. Sjakkalle 06:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was RickK acting like a troll that got us into this. Good call. --SPUI (talk) 06:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * SPUI, please don't try and drag me into a conflict with RickK. On the VfU on Waking the Tiger you wrote "stop trolling". That kind of exchange destroys the environment here. You got my undelete vote on Waking the Tiger, you got my undelete vote on Falling Up, Waking the Tiger is kept, Falling Up will probably be undeleted, and you got me to crticize RickK for not responding yesterday (which he now has done). There is no need to go further. Sjakkalle 06:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The environment is already destroyed. This is just damage control to keep it from happening again. --SPUI (talk) 06:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And may I add that using the term "bullshit" about RickK is not particularily helpful either? Sjakkalle 06:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. "I've readily admitted my mistakes, but they should be allowed to stand."  RickK 06:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want me to erase the troll statement I will. Erasing is very cheap.--Jondel 06:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Other than Jondel's line, they were all at the end of your response. I am restoring them once again, this time BELOW the endorsement area. --SPUI (talk) 06:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly acceptable. RickK 06:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, but moving them was below you? --SPUI (talk) 06:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not calling RickK a troll. I am not saying he is one. I don't believe RickK behaves like a troll on a regular basis. Once in a while we all behave like trolls.(Unless youre God, Buddha, whatever). We all know there are more horrible trolls there. However if you/anyone can behave like a troll, so can I(but even then I will not behave like one on a regular basis whether the other guys is actually is a troll or not ). --Jondel 06:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move this page?
I vote to move this to Requests for comment/SPUI. I've since realized that RickK is completely in the right on all things, and I am an idiot. Come and vandalise my userpage en masse. It'll be fun. --SPUI (talk) 10:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Be careful not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Deathphoenix 13:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to take things so seriously. You can interpret POINT however you feel like, anyway. It's silliness. Since your comment could potentially cause SPUI distress, I say you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Everyking 13:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it is not silliness, nor am I being silly. SPUI is not Wikipedia. Causing SPUI distress (which is not my intention) will not directly disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Moving an RfC to make a point (which he didn't do, hence my statement "Be careful not to ...", instead of "Don't ...") is directly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The action that SPUI is proposing is a classic case of WP:POINT. --Deathphoenix 15:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think was I was basically getting at is that people endlessly repeating "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" is irritating, at least to me. Everyking 15:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I see your point (no pun intended). In my case, above, it was meant as a little reminder or warning. Yeah, I agree that WP:POINT (and any warning, for that matter) shouldn't be thrown around frivolously, but a lot of people seem to be disrupting for just that purpose lately. I didn't want another one to happen, that's all. --Deathphoenix 17:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Meh, if there were any permanent effects of my temporary insanity, I apologize. Though mainly it's probably given more supporters to RickK's side, whether or not his actions were proper. Get a few people together and they can usually work something out. Get a whole bunch of people together and it becomes a popularity contest. --SPUI (talk) 01:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Motion 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)

Close. There are certainly issues remaining to be resolved (most notably the question of whether the Speedy Delete of Falling Up (band) is in line with existing policy), but that can be accomplished at other locations. If there are still issues between SPUI (or others) and RickK, Arbitration is the next step. Either way, it doesn't seem as if there is any further purpose to this RfC. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Close. This doesn't need to go on any longer. [ +t,  +c  ] 20:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that is a rather obvious concurrence. RFC closed and unlisted now. Radiant_* 21:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

There is no accepted procedure to "close" any RFC. In due time, one of the admins monitoring the page will either delete uncertified RFC's or move them to Archive when they become inactive for a couple weeks. Please leave things as they are. --Netoholic @ 22:25, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * Since there is no procedure, consensus may decide. As has happened. Despite your claim, there don't seem to be any admins around that delete uncertified RFCs, or move any of them to archive. Radiant_* 07:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * How about a little more time? If other RFCs don't close fast, then I don't want this to close too soon. Also I feel SPUI really should be consulted. --Jondel 07:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You gave "consensus" less than 24 hours to develop, which is hardly fair. Had you not been so impatient to see your result, I would have been happy to point out what the common procedures are - specifically that user RFC's are never "closed", but they are archived, which is something anyone can do after discussions have ceased for a while, perhaps two weeks. -- Netoholic @ 15:04, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * Okay, I admit that was a bit hasty. But there was a flood of people agreeing with it. And for the record, SPUI was aware of it and agreed it should be closed (even if for a different reason; see his comments above). I have been unable to find a policy for how RfCs are closed, nor evidence of people archiving RfCs (indeed, there's a backlog of at least a month, especially in the 'articles' part, and most of them have died down for lack of discussion). I think that's a Bad Thing.
 * You may want to look at the old RfCs that Ungtss and JoshuaSchroeder filed against one another; both lingered for weeks with nobody adding to them, and Ungtss repeatedly requested that they be closed. Since nobody did, I eventually unlisted them, being unaware of any archive. IIRC neither was endorsed by the necessary two users, so they should in fact have been deleted after 48 hours, per the policy on top of RfC. Unless that part is just a guideline. Anyway my point is this policy could use some clearing up by knowledgeable people, which I am presently not.
 * Also, more recently, there was the RfC against Kappa, which was not received very well and not endorsed by anyone. As above I figured it should have been deleted after 48 hours. I added a 'CSD' tag but that didn't help so I eventually removed it from the list.
 * Finally - what if someone files an RfC in bad faith, plainly as a personal attack (and I'm not saying anybody has, but hypothetically speaking). Does that mean it should also linger forever? If not, who deals with it, and how?
 * Yours, Radiant_* 15:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather than delisting uncertified RFCs, if an admin's deletion is long overdue, why not strike them out ? If you de-list them, noone will find them in order to make the deletion happen.  You could also post on an admin's talk page.  User:Michael Snow used to often do the maintenance on this page.  Adding the  tag wouldn't help, since uncertified RFC's are not strictly "speedy deletion candidates".  Lastly, if someone files an obviously bad faith RFC, then it is unlikely to have a second signer.  That is why we have that rule.  It happens sometimes, but those RFCs are deleted. -- Netoholic @ 17:58, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)