Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RickK

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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—and Wikipedia did not stop running. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Outside view #1 

message: "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)
thread_title: Comment on outside view 5

message: :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 Wikipedia: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.  
— BanyanTree 04:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Account of BanyanTree 

message: 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)
*First of all, there is no official policy prohibiting the recreation of Vfd'ed articles . 
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  ??
* 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)
thread_title: JondelsResponce2Rickks

message: I vote to move this to Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Move this page?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Motion to close