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 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: 22:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC).
Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:
For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.
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)
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.
(provide diffs and links)
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
I refuse to dignify this nonsense with a response.
Rick
K 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.
Rick K 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? Rick K 23:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Other people's comments are inappropriate here. This is my response. You should make your own sections. Rick K 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 ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
This is a tempest in a teapot. In the case of Waking the Tiger, the content from the deleted article at the old name [10] and the article at the current name [11] 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 ~~~~):
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)
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 ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
RickK has trolled me; I have lost. I will have a nice day.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
I believe the above indicates that the issues raised by SPUI against RickK have been sufficiently addressed. Therefore, I move to close it. R adiant _* 08:36, Apr 27, 2005 (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. -- Death phoenix 13:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
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 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: 22:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC).
Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:
For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.
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)
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.
(provide diffs and links)
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
I refuse to dignify this nonsense with a response.
Rick
K 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.
Rick K 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? Rick K 23:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Other people's comments are inappropriate here. This is my response. You should make your own sections. Rick K 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 ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
This is a tempest in a teapot. In the case of Waking the Tiger, the content from the deleted article at the old name [10] and the article at the current name [11] 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 ~~~~):
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)
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 ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
RickK has trolled me; I have lost. I will have a nice day.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
I believe the above indicates that the issues raised by SPUI against RickK have been sufficiently addressed. Therefore, I move to close it. R adiant _* 08:36, Apr 27, 2005 (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. -- Death phoenix 13:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.