User:Kappa/Records

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 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: 04:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Kappa | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

Makes many odd votes on VfD, often in contradiction to common precedents.

Description

Countless times, this user has made almost surreal votes on VfD, often citing 'cruft' or misquoting wikipedia policy to justify 'keep' votes.

Motion to close

Since nobody certified this RfC within the required 48 hours, I've put on a 'speedy deletion' tag. However, it appears there is some controversy about deleting old RfCs (see the RfC talk page). Anyway, I move to close this discussion as there is nothing else that needs to be said.

• Radiant_* 13:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

1. [1] "No reason Wikipedia shouldn't document existing wild speculation".
2. [2] Cites Jimbo's mission statement as a reason to keep, essentially, everything.
3. [3] Argues against wikipedia policy as his vote.
4. [4] One of many cases of siting 'fancruft' as a reason to keep.
5. [5] Gibberish 'cruft' vote.
6. [6] Kappa defines 'cruft'.
7. [7] Essentially mocking another user's keep vote.
8. [8] Lists an article on VfD, while arguing it should be kept.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [9] and [10] by Radiant! I strongly object to this being included here, as it is evidence of Kappa and myself trying to resolve a (minor) dispute and succeeding. Radiant_* 18:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
2. [11] by InShaneee

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. RickK 05:49, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) Highly disruptive on the VfD pages.

Other users who do not endorse this summary

1. I do not endorse this. As far as I'm concerned, Kappa and I hold widely divergent opinions on a number of subjects, but are nevertheless very much able of working together. I believe he is one of the more rational people on VfD, as opposed to those who vote blindly on principle. Radiant_* 18:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
2. While I frequently disagree with Kappa, he seems to be using good faith in all of his votes. Most of the examples given are instances that don't seem to abuse any rules. Dave the Red (talk) 21:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
3. Kappa is well within his rights to be liberal with keep votes and maintain an inclusionist stance, and Kappa is very liberal, even more liberal than I am. All his votes have been in good faith, and taking formal action against people because they interpret the "not encyclopedic"-rule of deletion policy different from oneself is very bad. Sjakkalle 09:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) Another comment: After Radiant! struck out evidence which he thought to be misplaced ("Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"), we are left with only one piece. That was posted on Kappa's talkpage at 04:26. This Request for Comment was started at 04:29. Three minutes is hardly an attempt to solve a dispute. Sjakkalle 11:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. I disagree with the descriptions provided above of "Evidence of disputed behavior". I don't have much time, so I'll bring up just two. "7. Essentially mocking another user's keep vote". This does not look like mockery to me. (I suppose it might be read as sarcastic; well, a huge number of comments might be read as sarcastic.) "5. Gibberish 'cruft' vote" is not gibberish at all: Kappa is saying that either keeping or merging is appropriate; "wasteland" makes perfect sense in context. In common with some people who've already posted here, I often disagree with Kappa (a very recent example is a minor argument between us within Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vortex Rikers). I tend to disagree with Kappa's PoV but am untroubled by his or her way of expressing it, let alone his or her conduct. -- Hoary 11:25, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
5. This RfC itself is close to committing something like the offence of which Kappa is confused. I admit to sometimes having been irritated by his VfD votes and arguments, but that's a frivolous reason for calling an RfC. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Kappa's votes have been in good faith, and taking formal action against people because they interpret the "not encyclopedic"-rule of deletion policy different from oneself is very bad, and yet very common. Klonimus 05:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Recent actions and users have unfortunately led to a ratcheting up of tensions, factionalism and animosity on VfD votes. I have a great deal of sympathy for RickK's frustration with the "mindless keep" brigade that, one sometimes gets the impression, is dominating VfD. In other instances of course, I'm sure that inclusionists become angry at what they see as a preponderance of deletions. We should still be assuming good faith and allowing for legitimate differences of opinion on VfD votes. I think Kappa may have at times (even subconciously) cast a vote in a discussion influenced by who else is voting, but I feel, unfortunately, that this probably the behaviour of others of us at times as well. Ultimately, a given article gets kept or deleted, but life goes on. Slac speak up! 07:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Keep cruft. Everyking 13:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. I certainly don't always agree with Kappa's opinions and votes, but it's never once struck me that any VfD votes were made in anything except good faith and I fully support his right to continue as he's doing. I sometimes find myself thinking how fortunate we are to have passionate VfD voters in the first place. - Lucky 6.9 05:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I'd like to respond to these diffs.

1. "No reason Wikipedia shouldn't document existing wild speculation" - there is speculation about UFOs, or who shot JFK, there was speculation that the world would end in 2000, if it's in the media it's verifiable and of interest to people.

2. My interpretation of the "sum of all human knowledge" quote in the press release is approximately that we should keep everything that is verifiable and interesting/useful to significant numbers of people, and yes that's quite a lot of stuff. Things that are factual but "what wikipedia is not" should be found a place somewhere else in the wikifamily.

3. OK "all the most useful information" is an exaggeration, but "a great part" of what I regard as the most useful information, things like what attractions are near a street, or when a school was built, as regarded by some other people as trivia. So if everything regarded as "trivia" is deleted, wikipedia will lose a great part of its value to me (and many others, I imagine).

4. "Merge or keep fancruft" LOL. I use the word "fancruft" for various reasons, including the fact that my vocabulary has been assimilated with other Vfders'. I guess it's confusing to newbies, maybe I'll try something else. Note that merging or keeping fancraft is semi policy WP:FICT.

5. "wastelandcruft" hmmm. Everyone makes new -cruft expressions, why pick on mine?

6. The word "fancruft" is pejorative, and Vfd often people appear to use it to express their dislike of such things, and they very often use it without bothering to explain why it's "cruft" and not "craft".

7. Does sound a bit mocking, unforunately, but "bigshot" is the key word. Big fish, small pond = notable, IMO.

8. Someone tried to speedy-delete that article, and I was just trying to stop that. I believe at least some part of it survived, so my action was justified.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Kappa 20:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Sjakkalle 09:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) Endorsement stricken, Kappa didn't go far enough in defending himself. Sjakkalle 11:57, 11 Apr 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.

Korath's summary

While I disagree with Kappa's comments quite frequently, they're all absolutely in good faith, and I find him to be the one of the very least annoying of the extreme inclusionist faction. There's always evidence that he's looked at the pages under consideration, he doesn't copy and paste the same text into multiple votes (let alone use a template for them!), and I cannot recall even one instance where he's used inflammatory language, even unintentionally. More than I can say for myself. In regards to some of the specific diffs above:

• "Argues against wikipedia policy as his vote." - Please show me which policy he is arguing against.
• "One of many cases of siting 'fancruft' as a reason to keep." and "Gibberish 'cruft' vote." - I also do this, per WP:FICT, as distilled from Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters.
• "Kappa defines 'cruft'." - While this doesn't match the 'official', NPOV'd definitions in Wikipedia:Fancruft and WP:GVFD, it's actually pretty accurate in broad terms.
• "Essentially mocking another user's keep vote." - I don't see this as mocking at all; the disagreement with Carnildo wasn't whether the person was a bigshot or not, but whether that made him notable enough for an article.
• "Lists an article on VfD, while arguing it should be kept." - Standard practice when converting an errant {{delete}} tag, or when completing a nomination left unfinished by a less experienced Wikipedian. While the proper place was probably WP:VFU instead of WP:VFD, since the article was already 'deleted' and only still accessible because of the block compression bug, I don't think there was any precedent to fall back for contesting a {{pendingdeletion}} tag then, and there's still very little now.

I urge others to look at the current revisions of the VFDs the diffs are from, so that Kappa's comments are seen in context. —Korath (Talk) 06:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Korath (Talk) 06:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
2. Dbiv 13:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Like Korath and others herein, I often disagree with Kappa's votes and sometimes disagree with how Kappa expresses reasoning, but I haven't seen any evidence of clearly bad-faith postings nor of attempts to be disruptive. Most of us have occasionally used overgeneralization or VFD jargon or brusque language to the extent that Kappa has, or more. Barno 17:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. I too have often disagreed with Kappa, but have found no evidence of bad-faith posting or disruptive behavior. The RfC is pretty much baseless and a waste of energy that could be used editing encyclopedia articles. Kevin Rector 19:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
5. As above. --Carnildo 23:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. If we're trying to string up Kappa for "bizarre" votes, I can think of at least two other voters who should be RFC'd too. In short, this RFC shouldn't be here. Mike H 06:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
7. I really don't see anything wrong with those edits. Often people are less than polite on VfD, and this is far from being the worst offence. Burgundavia 13:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
8. This RFC feels like a personal attack arising from philosophical differences. The evidence cited does not appear to support the accusations with which it is associated. --Theo (Talk) 13:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And now that Uncle G has just pointed it out, I should clarify that I do not endorse the specific suggestion that Kappa is a member of "the extreme inclusionist faction." --Theo  (Talk) 19:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uncle G's summary

My perspective differs from Korath's, and I'm leery of endorsing a summary that (even with quite clearly the best of intentions) terms Kappa a member of "the extreme inclusionist faction" when I've witnessed delete votes from xem. I strongly agree with Korath, however, that Kappa is one of those laudable voters who reads and discusses the article, and who doesn't indulge in keyboard-macro or copy&paste voting. Indeed, looking at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maha Jana High School for example: Whilst the vote may be the same, it is Kappa clearly addressing the actual article at hand in the rationale and taking note of the discussion as it progresses that differentiates xem from what might be termed the "extreme inclusionist faction", copying and pasting votes en bloc to keep an article about a non-existent school. As to the specific points:

1. "No reason Wikipedia shouldn't document existing wild speculation" — Kappa's clarification above seems to address this.
2. Cites Jimbo's mission statement as a reason to keep, essentially, everything — Whilst Kappa's rationale may have sparked the long discussion off, I see no evidence that Kappa should be singled out from the other participants in this discussion, or indeed that an RFC about a user is the proper venue for addressing this particular (long standing) disagreement about articles.
3. Argues against wikipedia policy as his vote — It is not clear to me what policy is being referred to here. Moreover, given that Kappa's statement drew no discussion directly, I don't see this as evidence that someone "tried to resolve a dispute with this user", let alone failed at doing so.
4. One of many cases of siting 'fancruft' as a reason to keep — I read it as Kappa saying that fancruft should be merged or kept. A lot hangs on the absence of punctuation between the word "keep" and the word "fancruft", and the presence of punctuation at the end of the sentence. ☺
5. Gibberish 'cruft' vote — This isn't gibberish to me. Kappa appears to me to be saying that "cruft" from The Waste Lands should be merged.
6. Kappa defines 'cruft' — I disagree with that particular definition of "cruft", partly because I had encountered the term even before I first came to Wikipedia, and partly because my own observations here do not concur. But I wouldn't take it any further than saying that xe and I disagree. Highlighting the irony of xyr definition, given the uses of the term in the preceding two points of evidence, appears to have been the actual intention of these three points. But on the other hand, Kappa's uses could also be seen as attempting to use "-cruft" non-pejoratively.
7. Essentially mocking another user's keep vote — It doesn't strike me to be mockery, merely to be emphasizing that for the very reasons that Carnildo votes delete (N.B.) Kappa votes keep. Carnildo's very own endorsement of Korath's summary is a strong indication that Carnildo didn't see it that way, either.
8. Lists an article on VfD, while arguing it should be kept — I'm with Korath here, although I note that this is techically an ambiguous case. Whilst the article may have been virtually deleted, what had actually happened was that it had simply been blanked (and not, as I recall, protected, as would have been usual procedure), since it wasn't possible to delete it. Whilst its virtual status may have mandated WP:VFU its actual status didn't rule out WP:VFD. We've had to perform stranger contortions. And the transwikification of approximately 1100 articles to Wiktionary, clearing a backlog that stretched back as far as 2003 in some cases, has brought up its fair share of unusual situations to deal with. (A lot of the really difficult ones have been left until last, note, too.)

So whilst I disagree with Kappa on some things (as exemplified), I don't see anything here that substantiates the accusation that there's a pattern of "odd" votes, flying in the face of "common precedent". Uncle G 19:33, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Defining Cruft

Hello. One of the things that was mentioned against this user was that he defined "cruft" when I asked what it was. I was a newbie at the time (on VfD pages) when I asked it, and I personally think that he was either trying to be funny or sarcastic. However, I had my question answered by other users. I can see why some might take offense to it, since it basically saying that he is mocking the votes and opinions who want possibly cruft related items out of Wikipedia. That is almost like if another user starts mocking people who always vote non-notable. However, I do not wish to take sides in this debate, only just to let you know what happened. Zscout370 14:10, 18 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.