Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This RfC is now closed based on overwhelming community consensus to do so. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. If you believe Kelly Martin has done something warranting comment, please begin the process from the beginning.

Shortcut: WP:RFC/KM

• (Kelly Martin | talk | contributions)

---

The original RfC.

Contents 1 Header 2 The actions in question 2.1 Specific actions 2.2 Comments by Jimbo (made prior to the deletions) 3 Concerns and defense 3.1 Concerns against Kelly Martin's actions 3.1.1 Concerns dealing specifically with userboxes 3.1.2 Other concerns 3.2 Defense of Kelly Martin's actions 3.2.1 from Kelly Martin's original response to the RfC 3.2.2 Further response from Kelly Martin 3.2.3 Other defenses for Kelly Martin's actions 3.2.3.1 Administrator discretion 3.2.3.2 Consensus and community 3.2.3.3 Deletion process 3.2.3.4 Process and policy 3.3 Neutral comments on Kelly Martin's actions 3.4 Other concerns 4 Moving toward addressing these concerns 4.1 Philwelch's analysis 4.2 Comment by Drini 4.3 Zocky's analysis 4.4 Comment by Tony Sidaway 4.5 Various other comments 4.6 On Civility 4.7 On Policy As A Whole 4.8 Comment by Steve Block 4.9 Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to Make a Point 4.10 Comment by Kaldari 4.11 Comment by MegamanZero 4.12 Comment by -Ril- 4.13 Comment by Werdna648 4.14 A Question from Soltak 4.15 Comment by Elvarg 4.16 Comment by Hayter 4.17 Comment by User:DESiegel 4.18 Opinion of Bggoldie 4.19 Comment by Sandpiper 4.20 Comment by Jamyskis 4.21 Comments by Nickptar 4.22 Comments by Wiki_brah 4.23 Comments by Dschor 4.24 Statement by Kelly Martin 4.25 Text in full of comment by Kelly Martin

[edit] Header

This is a re-write of the original RfC.

Please read WP:NOT, WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA and WP:RPA before proceeding. Discussion on user box policy should be directed to Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes, which is not to say that they may not also be relevant here.

The original RfC is still available for comment, but has been moved. This is an attempt at a refactoring of sorts. It is a controlled attempt at trying to glean out the genuine complaints and concerns of those involved while filtering out vitriol and incivility. To this end, it is formatted differently from a regular RfC. For one thing, endorsements or "me-too" signatures are discouraged, as are outside views. It follows a deliberate process:

1. Describing the actions taken by Kelly Martin.
2. Describing the concerns people have with these actions, and the defense offered for them.
3. Deciding if anything should be done to address these concerns, and if so, what.

Parts 1 and 2 are underway, and feel free to add to them. Do not begin on part 3, although feel free to provide an analysis of the situation in the third section. This is an exploratory process, not a confrontational one. We understand that large numbers of people have an opinion about this issue, and if you want to add a signature that says "me too", you can go to the previous RfC. If you want to solve this problem, please give this a try.

Also, any blatant incivility will be deleted.

[edit] The actions in question

Statements in this section should be NPOV, or at least stipulated to by everyone involved in this dispute.

On January 1, 2006, Kelly Martin began a wide-scale deletion of many of Wikipedia's userboxes. Many users assert these deletions occurred out of process.

Martin later explained her reasons for deleting the infoboxes:

The templates I deleted were those that:

1. contained a non-free or unsourced image (thereby violating the fair use policy);

2. expressed a political, ideological, or religious opinion (thereby tending to categorize Wikipedians by affiliations not related to Wikipedia, which Jimbo himself has expressed disapproval recently on wikien-l); or

3. in my opinion, expressed incivil or offensive content.

The templates I deleted (I've only made it through the C's so far, which is why some people feel I am being arbitrary, when it's just that I took a break after finishing the C's; don't worry, I'll get to the rest soon enough) were deleted systematically for being content inappropriate for a user page per the user page policy. There is no reason for Wikipedia to support templates that facilitate editors adding content to their user pages which is inappropriate for placement on a user page.

Kelly Martin (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Prior to these deletions, Martin deleted a small number of userbox templates frivolously created by a single user. Kelly Martin's talk page quotes her as saying, of such items as Template:User Coca-Cola, Template:User Pepsi-Cola, Template:User GoaPsyTrance, and others, "Those templates are crap and should be deleted. No point in wasting TfD's time with them." [1]

[edit] Specific actions

• Deletion (log and log):

Kelly has deleted far too many pages to list here; however, some examples are provided. See the deletion log (above) for a full list.

1. Template:User AI (Amnesty International)
2. Template:User Chinese Traditional Religion (Taoism or Buddhism)
3. Template:User Christian
4. Template:User Anti-euro
5. Template:User GoaPsyTrance (Goa and psytrance, two very closely-related genres of trance music)
6. Template:User Communist
7. Template:User Capitalist

[edit] Comments by Jimbo (made prior to the deletions)

From the mailing list:

Regarding at least the political templates, I would like to raise gently, a different issue. I have concern about people massing together in groups based on political affiliations at Wikipedia.

For me, when I enter Wikipedia, I try to leave my personal politics at the door. I try to leave my personal opinions about religion, etc. at the door. Here, I am a Wikipedian. And this inspires in me a feeling of serious quiet thoughtful reflection. A mood of kindness and love. A mood of helpfulness and productivity. Neutrality and _getting it right_ in the company of others who are doing the same, this is what I'm here for

[edit] Concerns and defense

[edit] Concerns against Kelly Martin's actions

This section is intended for listing the specific concerns with the actions of Kelly Martin in this dispute. Use this section to list concerns only. Do not suggest remedies as of yet—it is premature to do so and adds nothing to the conversation.

[edit] Concerns dealing specifically with userboxes

• Deleting templates because they contained copyvio images was excessive—the images could have been removed instead.
• Deleting popular templates without discussion is disruptive. It is one thing to delete something that would never survive AfD/TfD/etc., it is quite another thing to delete something that large numbers of Wikipedia users like.
• Userboxes declaring a political viewpoint or affiliation have legitimate uses. We all have points of view, and only by declaring them openly can we collaborate towards NPOV.
• Pages using the templates were not dealt with correctly - leaving some users with red links.

[edit] Other concerns

• Kelly Martin is an admin who has held positions of trust and authority on Wikipedia for a long time. There is some concern that unilaterally using her admin powers in this fashion is authoritarian and insufficiently respectful of the views of others. Whether or not Kelly is right about userboxes, other users disagree with her and deserve to be heard out before admin action is taken.
• Wikipedia has specific procedures for deletions, and admins are normally expected to adhere to those procedures. Summarily ignoring procedure in such matters damages the transparancy and trust that is essential to Wikipedia's continuted success.
• Many supporters of this action have no previous knowledge of her actions or position within Wikipedia. Such knowledge is entirely immaterial to the issue here. A complaint has been lodged that an administrator has exceeded the prerogatives of the post and used powers available to an administrator contrary to stated policies of wikipedia. It must be made entirely clear to all administrators that such action can only be taken in extraordinary circumstances, and this is certainly not such a case.
• Kelly went into the whole affair with the intent of deleting a large number of userboxes. The fact that they were in use and that a Wikiproject existed should have been enough evidence that this would be a controversial action.
• Kelly re-stated her intentions to continue deleting further boxes despite objections already having been made that there were no valid grounds for a number of the deletions. She claimed to be "enforcing existing policy", which is clearly false. [2] [3]
• Blocking users without proper cause. (this should be considered within the scope of this RFC)
• Allegations of copyright violation have become a weapon in content and policy disputes. While not unique to Wikipedia, the use of copyright claims to reach other ends is destructive.

[edit] Defense of Kelly Martin's actions

[edit] from Kelly Martin's original response to the RfC

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not LiveJournal. The purpose of user pages is to facilitate writing an encyclopedia. If you want to make cute webpages, get a webhosting account.

Kelly Martin (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further response from Kelly Martin

From a comment by Kaldari [4] I believe this is germane to the issue being discussed, so let this quote stand. Click link for full context. --Peripatetic 20:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do hold those whose purpose for being on Wikipedia is other than to write an encyclopedia with contempt. Such people do not belong here; they should be asked to leave, and if they do not leave they should be forced to leave. Wikipedia is not a social experiment; it is an encyclopedia. I do not believe my actions will have a serious impact on that portion of our community that actually writes the encyclopedia; my actions did not target them.

I will not apologize for my actions; they were motivated by my belief in what is best for Wikipedia. Nor will I apologize for the response to those actions because it was not I who responded. Nor will I apologize to my response to the response, as I have done nothing for which an apology is appropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other defenses for Kelly Martin's actions

[edit] Administrator discretion

• Administrators should be permitted to use their own judgement in carrying out administrative activities as opposed to being forced to conform exactly to policy, since WP:IAR is quite well entrenched in Wikipedia culture.
• The actions that Kelly performed were easily reversible by another administrator (and indeed were in most cases). Users have been claimed by some to have thus taken this out of proportion in comparison to its real value. Consequently, the damage done may have been more by lack of willingness for sudden change, and a desire to seek retribution, as opposed to Kelly's initial actions.

[edit] Consensus and community

• These templates have the potential to be divisive.
• Consensus building for userspace items seems to involve less consultation, and thus it could be argued that only de facto consensus existed for the templates in the first place.
• Userboxes cause issues relating to bloc voting and other POV-related editing problems. There have been at least three such incidents in the past three weeks, concerning three separate users.
• We are here to build an encyclopaedia, and thus it is unreasonable to spend large amounts of time both creating these userboxes and debating their removal when editors consider they should be deleted as opposed to writing articles in that time. (The same, incidentally, applies to the RfC)
• Further to the above, there is a danger of being wrapped up in process rather than working on product (that is, spending more time following process than working towards this project's goals).
• Userboxes have been alleged by some editors to contribute nothing to our project's actual goals other than to satisfy the aesthetic desires of its participants.

[edit] Deletion process

• Deletion issues are a long-standing, contentious issue on Wikipedia (usually reappearing once every three months at least) and this issue may be, in part, an expression of this contention.
• The existing deletion processes are considered by some to be cumbersome, unwieldy, and bureaucratic; they consume a great deal of editor time and effort, and in some cases do not even garner consensus either towards deletion or being kept. As a consequence, they discourage editors from seeking consensus, and since administrators have the ability to not use them it would appear an acceptable use of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in some circumstances to override these measures.
• The deletion process is considered by some to be cumbersome, unwieldy and bureaucratic, consuming a great deal of editor time and effort. This is regrettable, but it is seen as a necessary penalty to allow consensus to be formed where there is likely to be disagreement about a decision to delete. Deletions without consensus inevitably lead to conflict.
• Deletion processes may need to be streamlined so that administrators can reasonably be expected to nominate these items for deletion.

[edit] Process and policy

• Ignore all rules
• While Wikipedia has rules, the rules there to facilitate the writing of a high quality encyclopaedia. If it should happen that obeying the rules does not facilitate the writing of a high quality encyclopaedia, then users of whatever level are allowed to use their judgment and act in the best interests of the project
• WP:NOT a democracy; however, this does not mean carte blanche to override consensus.
• These userboxes are not part of the encyclopaedia (see Wikipedia:Avoid self references) and it is thus not necessarily a worthwile use of editor time to place these through the usual deletion processes.
• Some of the templates contained images that are clear violations of copyright.
• No-one has a duty to uphold process where that process conflicts with our core goals.

[edit] Neutral comments on Kelly Martin's actions

• I strongly believe in the above statement, "While Wikipedia has rules, the rules there to facilitate the writing of a high quality encyclopaedia. If it should happen that obeying the rules does not facilitate the writing of a high quality encyclopaedia, then users of whatever level are allowed to use their judgment and act in the best interests of the project." However, if invoking the ignore all rules rule in what you believe is the service of the encyclopedia results in vehement and impassioned opposition, it is likely that the ill will, conflict and discord generated outweighs the possible benefits of the action. WP:IAR must be invoked with boldness and caution. FCYTravis 02:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other concerns

As someone who believes he is one of those trying to write an encyclopedia, I'm rather annoyed at all this stuff. The basic fact of the matter is that it's difficult for me to avoid all this, simply because a lot of talk pages of contributors, even the different AFD forums, have been taken up by actions resulting from Kelly Martin's actions. Regardless of the merits of her actions, about which I could care less at this point (although I think having too many userboxes is just plain silly), she has caused a disruption and it has derailed a lot of the kind of editing she is a proponent of.

In closing, let me comment that it's been upsetting to see all this kind of unilateral action by admins. There was one event a while ago that almost made me leave. One admin, against the wishes of all the main contributors to an article, took the side of a vandal, and caused much disruption. Later, I learn that he was desysopped because of other similar actions. Small comfort that is, given all of our time he wasted. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving toward addressing these concerns

Instead of voting on motions to close and stuff like that, I think we need to spend some time analyzing everyone's concerns instead. Only after we finish doing that will we have a clear idea of where to proceed from here. This section is thus for anyone who wants to to present their analysis of the above concerns and what they want of others.

[edit] Philwelch's analysis

We must separate two distinct questions from one another here and address them separately:

• Do userboxes—and certain types thereof—have a place on Wikipedia?
• Is it acceptable for admins to undertake admin action unilaterally knowing that such action will be contested by others?

The first question is under discussion at Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. I, for one, would like to ignore that question on this RfC.

The second question is far more important to address. The underlying tension of this RfC isn't about userboxes, it's about authority vs. consensus. Casting it as process vs. result is a bit of a misread in my analysis. It's one thing to delete crappy pages that slip between the cracks of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, but would never survive AfD. It's another thing to delete things that good-faith contributors actually want to keep, things that you know will cause a ruckus if you delete them. The first is an example of ignoring process but respecting the views of others; the second is an example of ignoring the views of others.

Kelly Martin may be right in saying that userboxes have no place in building an encyclopedia. But I speak for many users in saying that she is mistaken in imposing that opinion on others without discussion or consensus. It frightens us that Kelly Martin chooses to enforce her own opinion instead of seeking and enforcing a community consensus, and we believe that unilateral exercise of authority has no place on Wikipedia. I am an admin, but I don't want Wikipedia to be a place where admins do what they want with no regard for anyone who disagrees.

I don't want to make it seem like I'm denigrating Kelly Martin's dedication to this project. I'm sure she did what she did out of good faith. All I want is for everyone to understand our concerns—to understand not only that people are frightened and upset, but also why we're frightened and upset.

— Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 04:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Drini

The first point raised it's outside of the scope of this RFC. This is about Kelly Martin's actions, not about the worth of the userboxes. The big mess in the previous RFC was caused because lot of people were discussing about the value of userboxes instead the actions of KM. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you can separate the two issues, given that the principal defence of Kelly Martin's actions is that the userboxes were harmful to the project and that Kelly has agreed that the deletion was out of (normal) process. In order to resolve the RfC, there has to be some implicit finding on the issue of the merits of userboxes, even if it is not a definitive policy. David | Talk 11:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if the finding were "No admin should ever act outside of process", or "All admins should do whatever they feel betters Wikipedia", or anything in between, userboxes wouldn't come into it at all. Any suitably inflexible finding on personal admin discretion could resolve the RFC without addressing userboxes. (Well, speaking as though there are actually explicit findings in RFCs, or that they necessarily get resolved.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zocky's analysis

This RFC was about a specific incident, which has now been addressed - the templates were restored and the original RFC established that there is no consensus for deleting them in such way. With that, this RFC has run its course. Editors who think that any further sanctions are required should pursue that with a request for arbitration.

Other concerns which people are trying to address on this page go beyond Kelly Martin and thus beyond the scope of this page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin. The question of userboxes is being constructively discussed at Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. Questions of authority and consensus should be discussed in suitable places, like the Village pump or centralized discussions and properly linked from places like Wikipedia:Current surveys.

Zocky 05:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Tony Sidaway

RfCs of this nature tend to be about important issues. I was once the subject of an RfC that was about deletion policy. This one is about the use we make of the tools. Kelly deleted some templates where there had been severe resistance to enforcing our copyright policy, and also some that were clearly only there to enable political factions and the like to unite. She was unquestionably right.

The tools: categories and templates in this case, are here for the purpose of craating an encyclopedia. Where they are used to create a kind of homepage on Wikipedia, they may be tolerated, but only on the presumption that they will never be abused. Use of userspace must never be permitted to compromise the content of the encyclopedia. The community is useful to the encyclopedia and exists only as long as it continues to act in the interests of the encyclopedia. The interests of the encyclopedia trump those of the community every single time. Members of the community must live with that, or leave.

This is about userboxes. No other issue seems to command such fanatical zeal amongst so many people. Recently the arbitration committee affirmed the following:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

7) "Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." [5] The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although Wikipedia has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.

Those who want this to be about punishing someone for annoying lots of people over something as trivial as userboxes would do well to take notice of that. Livejournal, Blogspot, Myspace and the like exist in large part to foster community. Wikipedia does not. The encyclopedia comes first. Always. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various other comments

No. It's clear some users endorse the fact of gaining their userboxes back, no matter how disruptive they are, but 90% of everyone else agrees its the fact they thought Kelly's actions were un-civil proceeding the situation. I will go as so far to say most users here even endorse the "killing" of those boxes. But the manner that it was carried out is clearly the situation at hand here, and its an incorrect overview and an oversimplification to think otherwise. Just see here and read the user's statements- they clearly don't really care about the boxes. Its the behavior and the actions of Ms. Kelly which upstarted the community. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The average participant in this RfC is upset about the loss of their userboxes. It is highly important to understand that not everyone here is of the persuasion that the end product (encyclopedia) is more important than the process (community). Said average user merely seeks the return of their userboxes, and action against who deleted them. That nonwithstanding, Kelly Martin is still in the wrong, and needs to answer for her actions. It is recklessly irresponsible of the Wikimedia board to allow her to continue in her position as a Sysop, ArbCom member, and user granted CheckUser privledges. Hexagonal 04:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sidaway, your logic is severely flawed. It seems ironic to me that you note that userboxes were discussed here "rather too little." Could that possibly be because that is NOT the issue here? You state that since Kelly's actions are regarding userboxes, that's the focus of this RfC. That's an obvious non sequitur. It's analogous to saying that problems with an admin using his or her powers to indefinitely block vandals without warning is an issue of vandalism, rather than an issue of abuse.

In response to your response to Nandesuka, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, it's MORE. If it were a simple democracy, we'd just vote on whether or not userboxes are beneficial and that'd be the end of it. Wikipedia is based on consensus which is a far more stringent guideline than democracy because it requires agreement of ALL users, not just the majority. Therefore, it's nonsensical to posit that a minority is any more representative of consensus than it would be of a democracy. If anything, it's just the opposite.

As per MegamanZero's very astute comments above, this RfC is NOT about userboxes merely because Kelly Martin's initial actions were regarding them. Nor is this RfC about userboxes merely because your actions to delete them have garnered opposition (another non sequitur). The two are totally separate issues which is apparent just by a cursory examination of the discussions here and at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions. The discussion there is about userboxes. The discussion here is about civility, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, abusing one's admin powers, neglecting consensus, and lack of personal accountability.

Finally, quite frankly, I find your implication that the many experienced editors here who have brought up legitimate complaints and concerns are part of a lynchmob or a populist crusade to be very insulting and extraordinarily condescending. Both your comments and actions (especially your attempt at removing userboxes right in the middle of this mess) seem to have consistently only fanned the flames of this controversy, which leads me to wonder if my concerns regarding disrupting Wikipedia to make a point apply to you also.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 20:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Concerning "crusades" and "personal vendettas", Mr. Sidaway, that's wholefully incorrect. All I see are good-faith wikipedians discussing their views on the situation in a civil manner. Regarding that, its clear that the Rfc's and other comments by the community state that there is indeed something very wrong about the matter. And what I find extremley odd is that Ms. Kelly has just removed herself completely from discusssion, clearly showing her stand on the subject. Citing Phil Welch after a comment from another user inquiring why her actions were unacceptable: Did not know, or did not care..? That's the community's concensus in a clear statement, and she is simply sitting on her laurels. Indeed, when a person or persons have a problem with me, I don't hide in the safety of my talkpage. Absolutely, I don't around and wring my hands, I speak up, weather in defense or not. I ask her to please do so. After all, I see it like this; despite her righteous actions, the manner was unacceptable. A example would be my mom choking on a morsel of food. Do I a) do the correct thing, and perfrom the hemlich manuever, or b) not care overall about her well-being and punch her in the stomach to forcibly eject her food...? Choice b is Ms. Kelly's actions in a clear statement.-MegamanZero|Talk 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to note that Tony's belief that userboxes "must be a primary focus" of this RFC contradicts the plain reading of the majority of opinions here. It seems clear to me that the concerns are a mixture of incivility, disruption, misapplication of WP:IAR, misuse of administrator powers (including blocking without proper cause), and public expressions of contempt for the opinions of her fellow editors. To be perfectly clear, I am not making those charges myself, but simply summarizing the "Concerns against Kelly Martin's actions," above. Looking at the various analyses in this very section, we see a number of respected editors, some of whom explicitly disclaim any interest in the issue of userboxes qua userboxes, bringing up these same substantial and troubling issues. Tony is free to believe that this is all about userboxes, of course, but he is wrong. The funny thing about consensus is that one party doesn't get to dictate it. The community has overwhelmingly said that the issue of userboxes qua userboxes was left behind ages ago. We should listen to what they are saying, instead of pretending they are talking about something that is easier to dismiss. Nandesuka 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said. If Ms. Kelly had been a little more civil in discussion regarding the deletions, this wouldn't even have become an issue to begin with. -MegamanZero|Talk 00:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also say that Tony is completely wrong in this particular, esp. regarding the arbcom. Wait till after the elections. I expect these populist riffraff Kelly and others disdain will throw the bums out. Jimbo endorses limited populism, thats why this is a wiki-pedia, and not a nupedia. Wiki-elitists have no place here. This RfC has nothing to do w userboxes, and everything to do with haughty disrespect, and ivory tower decision making. Sam Spade 12:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Civility

While some matters are debatable, and ought to be exposed to Consensus, Civility and Copyvio are not. There is simply no questioning the fact that significant minorities have been demonized, oppressed, or marginalized by the particular religious and political groups identified. The question is not whether the templates would have survived an RfD, but rather whether the community can accept as reasonable Kelly Martins conclusion that the promotion of religion and politics on Wikipedia is Incivil. Whether or not I agree, I clearly understand her point and find it more than reasonable. Move on. Benjamin Gatti 05:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it has been established that a userbox stating that I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is promoting that belief system to anyone else, or that FSMism has demonised, oppressed, or marginalised anyone, or that my holding that belief is incivil. But, again, I don't think this RfC is about the boxes themselves, it's about whether deleting large numbers of things without first seeking consensus is a good idea or not. (Phil: if you move the comment this responds to over to the talk page, it's late, my brain is mush and I can't quite tell if they should go there or not, please move mine too, (and you can delete this parenthetical) thanks!) ++Lar: t/c 06:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no prospect of moving on- I mean the analysis of Benjamin Gatti is spot on, and the oppression is near total. I believe a cursory knowledge of Google results over the past year show a withering in rankings for all historical questioning of anyway one religion. Apologia is pretty much in charge of the first so many pages, so you'd learn little. The central Renato Boccardo (qv) effort is working very well, and will be in charge here without anyone even figuring it. This box removal is like the first scout putting their nose over the hill, and it is not at all sure there are any troops in reserve. A scout here or there can be picked off. In the real world abuse enquiries/lawsuits, it's been called document war- retain or hide or destroy docs, and deny and prevaricate and counter with propaganda. Oh yes-it happens here. EffK 09:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Policy As A Whole

This rfc has progressed past userboxes, it's even bigger than Kelly Martin now. What this is about is leaders of our community feeling that they are justified in doing whatever they wish regardless of any policy if they have a whim, as seen here,here, and of course, with Kelly's original actions. What we need is a defined, clear and open process in regards towards building policies so everyone, even Jimbo can follow them. If we don't have this, mark my words -- we will be in this same position again, regardless of who we're talking about or what they've done. Please, take this incident as an impetus to reform how we govern ourselves before self-governance is impossible. karmafist 13:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The community needs assurance that situations like this be handled more effectively in the future. -MegamanZero|Talk 00:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Steve Block

Regarding the notion that "unilateral exercise of authority has no place on Wikipedia", I'd have to say that that is exactly what wikipedia is built on, the unilateral exercise of authority being the ability for anyone to edit. With regards deleting things that good-faith contributors actually want to keep, again, this is something that happens everyday in articles, since we assume every edit is in good faith we are constantly performing such actions. Kelly Martin's actions are not unrepairable, and should be seen in the context of Wikipedia as a whole. Whilst I agree that Kelly Martin should be censured, I believe this RFC is enough censure. I am unclear as to how Kelly Martin has disregarded the people with whom she disagrees. She has simply disregarded their opinions.

I believe, when assesing this matter, we have to consider that there are ways and means of doing things. Some people will see a problem and try and fix it. Others will see a problem and seek opinion on how to fix it. We should not prefer one option over the other, and in fact, Wikipedia sanctions both approaches, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be Bold. In instances when people get it wrong, we simply revert and discuss. It appears Kelly has, through her actions, brought a problem or two to light.

Finally, if people are frightened and upset at the removal of user boxes, I would have to wonder at their reactions when edits are removed from article space. We don't own these user pages, we're in a wiki, anyone can edit anything, let's remember that fact, address the problems raised here and move on. Kelly Martin has surely been made aware of the fact that she operated without community consensus, and that she has, in so doing, brought the disapproval of members of the community. Steve block talk 14:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why did she do it? -MegamanZero|Talk 00:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe, ultimately, because she could. What I was attempting to say was that her actions weren't utterly wrong, and they weren't utterly right, but that they exist in a grey area. I would, however agree, that it calls into question Kelly's position on the ArbCom commitee, and given the precedent set by Sarge Baldy, I wouldn't object if Kelly's adminship was somehow listed for reaffirmation. Steve block talk 09:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Be bold redirects to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages and with good reason. WP:BOLD is not an exhortation to be bold with administrative action—it does not mean "be bold in blocking", "be bold in protecting" or "be bold in deleting". --66.101.59.18 11:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. However, the point is still that there is no policy that covers these precise actions, and that the individual approach and the consensual approach are both allowable when acting within Wikipedia. Note also that one can point to deletion policy, which asks that if we are in doubt, do not delete. However, Kelly Martin must have been in no doubt, because she did delete. I suppose the problem may well be that Kelly, by her actions and statements, conveys the impression that she feels she is not beholden to community conventions such as they exist and apply. Steve block talk 12:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to Make a Point

In the actions and subsequent comments that Kelly Martin has made, I see a very dangerous double-standard that I feel needs to be addressed. I write these comments here, to bring to light a consequentialist viewpoint on what has transpired. For the record, I use none of the userboxes that Kelly Martin deleted (or if I did, I didn't notice their disappearance), nor do I really care about the templates themselves. I believe that, in this issue, userboxes or a policy regarding userboxes, or even a policy regarding making policies are actually not germane to the true nature of the problem, but rather a distraction from a key guideline (vital to and already accepted at Wikipedia) that's been neglected in discussion (as far as I can tell).

It's my belief that Kelly Martin's reasons for her actions do not hold up to analysis (this is relevant to the argument as a whole).

Firstly, she cites civility as being a major basis for the deletes. I find this sadly ironic given her comments in defense of her actions. Her statement regarding holding certain Wikipedians in contempt is an indirect, thinly-veiled, yet biting attack at those who disagree with her, primarily by labelling them as editors who are not here to write an encyclopedia, a gross assumption. Logically, taking her statements that her actions were not directed at those who are here to write an encyclopedia, one can only assume that those her actions were directed at were those who are not here for that purpose, thereby belittling the hard work of many contributors simply because they strongly disagree with her. A quick look at the edits of many of those present in this RfC shows that her comment is not only in poor taste, but patently false.

Secondly, Kelly Martin cites a comment made by Jimbo regarding leaving one's personal politics at the door when entering Wikipedia as being the source from which she derives a non-consensus based policy. Jimbo's comment is about promoting community and "kindness and love." Has these actions promoted such a goal? I submit that quite probably these actions have caused more division and strife than any one of those templates have. If such is the case, what was really gained? It was obvious that rampant deletion of the userboxes would cause a great deal of dissension, so I assume, seeing as she is an intelligent and experienced user, that she did it knowingly. From her comments, it not only appears that that is the case, but that she seems to have fully intended to incite controversy in her statement:

Screw process. Those templates are crap and should be deleted.

Even if, by some chance, she did not realize the impact her actions would have, such a claim now is irrelevant as the consequences have already been made manifest. Yet, she insists she will continue to pursue her policy, regardless of objections made by a significant number of agitated users. More than that, she takes ZERO responsibility for the consequences saying, "it was not [her] who responded." To me, this is a tragic dereliction of the responsibility that I believe is inherent in a position of trust such as an administrator. As someone placed in this trust, she IS absolutely accountable for predicting the responses of other people, in the interests of Wikipedia as a whole. Consensus, one of the most basic principles that Wikipedia thrives on, necessitates the accounting of other people's responses; disregarding that is not consensus, it's partisanship. I can only conclude that either Kelly Martin's claim that she acted on the spirit of Jimbo's comments is false or that she misunderstood its true meaning.

What does this mean? It means that Kelly Martin did not really delete the templates for the sake of civility or community (even if she does not or did not realize this herself at the time). In actuality, this entire situation seems like a classic example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Kelly Martin is clearly against the use of the templates she deleted and feels that they violate policy. She may be right. That is irrelevant, however, as her actions have clearly had a negative impact on the community as a whole. That is selfish, and, as I said above, not a reflection of consensus, but of partisanship. That in itself isn't a good thing. What troubles me the most, however, is her subsequent refusal to accept responsibility for these consequences.

That must be addressed. How, and to what extent, I will not venture to say, at least for now, but I can say with much certainty, that how it is addressed is very critical to how we treat such breaches of guideline in the future.

Sincerely, -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the better statements I've seen on this matter, and pretty well reflects many of my own feelings. Unfortunate that it arrived so late in the process. CarbonCopy (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I've had some computer trouble so I was a latecomer to this whole drama. However, I was really surprised that by the time I came to the issue, as far as I could tell, no one had made the argument above (the one that I, of course, feel is the most important). So I decided better late than never. Thanks for the comment.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 16:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The quotation you cite from Kelly Martin is taken out of context. It did not represent her motives/purposes in general, but referred to a small subset of the overall group of userboxes. That subset was created frivolously and clearly violated Wikipedia policies concerning image use and promotion of commercial products/services. There has been very little particular dispute, so far as I can see, that the speedy deletion of those templates was appropriate. It is extremely disturbing that botn forms of the RFC concerning Martin have centered on misquotation or misrepresentation of her comments on the matter. Monicasdude 15:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

---

When I read the quotation, I read it in context. Personally, I feel that the attitude towards that subset was reflective of her general motives. People can read the quote for themselves here. Her comments in response to the original RfC and in defense of her actions have all been fairly consistent. I think claiming that the RfCs center around misquotation or misrepresentation is in itself misleading. I have yet to read any comment by Kelly Martin acknowledging that her actions were harmful to the community or that she should be held accountable for them and THAT is what my argument above is referring to.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Checking over the edit history of User talk:Kelly Martin, it seems to me that what happened was that Kelly deleted Peter Zed's userbox templates for violating copyright policy using fair use images. It is, I think, generally accepted that whatever one thinks of userboxes, they should not have fair use images in them. When some users raised concerns, she referred also to Jimbo's generalised statement that Wikipedians should leave their POV behind when editing. One editor then referred to a political statement template as an example which might be subject to deletion, if this policy was strictly kept. The mass deletions of userboxes expressing points of view started the next day. There is probably a fairly obvious conclusion to be drawn from this, but I think the important thing is that the quote "screw process" should always be specifically applied to the PeterZed created templates. David | Talk 15:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Kaldari

First, a few caveats: I have no interest in userboxes whatsoever, nor do I care if Kelly Martin or anyone else deletes them. I have never interacted with Kelly prior to this RfC. I have no vendetta against her. Nor do I have a vendetta against admins in general as I myself am an admin. I have only one concern to address here and that is Kelly Martin's attitude as an admin.

I have always been told that being an admin means "getting a mop and a bucket". It is a position of service, not of power. If Kelly Martin is unwilling to approach adminship with humility, she should not be an admin. It's as simple as that. Frankly, I find her disregard for process, concensus, and even basic fairness to be frightning, especially given the fact that she is an admin. She has shown both contempt for her peers and an unwillingness to seriously consider criticism during the process of this RfC. She has demonstrated an attitute of smug dismissal to those with legitimate concerns about her abuse of admin powers. Such an attitude is simply unacceptable. If Kelly is unwilling to even pay lip service to the ideas of consensus, process, responsibility, and accountability how can people not expect an upheaval against her. At the very least, Kelly needs to acknowledge that the concerns raised against her are serious and worth her consideration. That's all I have to say. Kaldari 19:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well put. --Peripatetic 19:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The service is to Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Administrators are not mere functionaries to a community. Rather, the community must serve the encyclopedia and the administrators must ensure that they do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Who writes the encyclopedia..? Just curious. -MegamanZero|Talk 00:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway does, of course :p WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by MegamanZero

I've looked over this situation as carefully as possible, and like Jimbo, have given it quite a bit of thought. Concerning Ms. Martin's actions over the template removal, I believe the reason was indeed justifiable (a few exceptions), but it was handled quite incorrectly... Seeing her comments above, such "peeing over playgrounds, screwing process, etc., I have to honestly cite, those were comments and behavior that I would never expect from an admin, and certainly not one that takes such an active role in arbcom. Futhurmore, actions such as ignoring the need for consideration and not:

• A) talking to people,
• B) Blowing off other's thoughts and views on the subject, and
• C) Refusing to follow any procedure or concensus, is completely unjustified and unacceptable. Not telling fellow wikipedians anything and simply taking action is uncalled for. I see it as very un-wiki... Not one to favor citing points over and over, I thought the comment I posted on Mr. Sidaway's page pretty much hits the nail on the head:

Your edvidence and concensus regarding this situation is throughly noted, Mr. Sidaway, and it is indeed, a breaching of what wikipedia is about. It seems people have lost the true view on wikipedia: which is to construct great articles, making proper thesis, construct conjecture, and evaluate data and sources; which leads up to the main purpose: making a informative and expansive encyclopedia avalible to all on the internet. Everything else (customizing, POV, chatting, userboxes, etc.) are secondary to this goal and should be treated as such. However, deleting and removing anything without discussion or at least making a comment regarding why is not okay. Please, everyone, discuss, and don't just delete, revert, edit war, etc. like the wind.

Especially consider the last two lines, and relize how inconsiderate and insignificant people feel when such discussion is left out and ignored. It creates problems, that could have been avoided, had a litle understanding been reached beforehand. That said, I believe Ms. Martin is a fine woman, and I think she has only made a mistake (that has been fixed anyway). All I ask of her (and espescially everyone else) is to think about others before you make big actions and discuss it beforehand. It prevents negativity, and helps people understand each other better. Regards, -MegamanZero|Talk 14:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by -Ril-

Whatever Kelly Martin did (and I am aware of what it was), she has totally lost the support of the community. According to Jimbo Wales, Adminship is "no big deal", so nor should losing it be. Until Miss/Mrs/Ms. Martin is capable of once again being respected in the community, she should not have admin capabilities, as she clearly isn't trusted with them any more. Likewise this total lack of respect will just lead people to say "YOU ARE NOT AN ARBITRATOR. YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY" and totally ignore any rulings where she holds the deciding vote, so she may as well be stripped of the post de-facto.

These discussions of considering "well, maybe the template should have gone", maybe she was a "bit" naughty, etc. smack of attempts to find a way for her to totally retain her powers, regardless of the communities will. It is unprecedented for the community to sign an RFC en-masse like this, which just goes to show how strong the depth of feeling is. Jimbo Wales should be ordered to remove her from her post, regardless of his personal opinion, for the sake of preserving whatever respect the community retains for his judgement. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, and I'm very disturbed that Kelly's been deeply involved in the MSK dispute at the same time. I would ask Kelly to voluntarily step down as an admin and ArbCom member. Indeed, this should be no big deal. —James S. 09:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. Ian¹³_ID:540053 14:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Werdna648

I agree with most of the above comments. Whether or not Kelly's actions were in-process, such a drastic and wide-reaching deletion is not to be taken lightly, and certainly unilaterally. Kelly should have known, as an Administrator, that her actions would have incited significant controversey and backlash. My opinion on userboxes aside, a large part of the community enjoys using them, and does use them, and it is obvious that these people would be upset if their userboxes were instantly deleted with no explanation or attempt at consensus or discussion regarding the change. There are many administrators, and she is not the only one. She has no right to direct the way the encyclopaedia operates, regardless of whether or not she has the technical ability to do so. Administrators are trusted editors who have additional janitorial powers, not individual dictators who are permitted to enforce their own autocratic opinion on Wikipedia. It is not up to Kelly to decide what is divisive, uncivil, et cetera. It is up to community consensus to determine this. Her attitude towards the criticism of her actions is also somewhat disturbing, as she does not seem to be open to any discussion of the appropriateness of her actions. She seems to be brandishing a couple of generalised quotes and interpreting them as gospel, and using them as justification for her actions, while ignoring commonly used policy such as Wikipedia:Consensus. This double standard is worrying, and I believe at least an apology is merited, if not further consequences. [A bit more than my 2 cents]. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And your comment is greatly noted. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Question from Soltak

My apologies for inserting this here, but I wasn't able to format it correctly below

If I may, moving away from the issue of the behavior of Kelly Martin for a moment, I have a question regarding userboxes themselves, one that I don't think has been satisfactorily answered. How are userboxes of any kind helpful or relevant to the writing of an encyclopedia? From something as general as gender to something as specific as which Star Wars bounty hunter one would shoot first, what difference does it make? Soltak | Talk 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your question would probably be better posed on Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes. Kaldari 19:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Elvarg

This is seriously silly.

I read through all this heated debate and still didn't quite figure what's so serious with some userboxes. They won't suddently cripple Wikipedia's bandwidth to a halt. They won't turn Wikipedia into a chatroom. They won't do X where X = <insert Wikipedia holocaust and doom for all humanity>. All they do is add a bit of live to the Wikipedian users, at worst a harmless piece of trivia or a quick laugh, and at best a quite useful tool when talking to other people.

Not to mention the fact that identifying user's opinions can be VERY useful when dealing with NPOV issues and trying to work out differences. In order to maintain strict NPOV on articles, we have to allow some leniency on personal user pages.

All I percieve this initiative as, is some overzealous wikilawyer (or even wikipolitician) interpreting the rules by the letter rather than their spirit, and intervening in other people's personal pages (yes they don't belong to Wikipedian's legally, but it is customary and in good manners to treat such pages as a personal space of a Wikipedian); ultimately accomplishing no valid intent, while certainly ruining many people's day.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm moving the source of all the so-called "offensive" userboxes which have been tagged to be hosted on my own userpage, and since they do not violate any copyright law or Wikipedia policy, nobody BETTER touch them there. I advice everyone to do that as a temporary solution to the problem.

As some comic relief, I propose the adoption of a new userbox:

Elvarg 10:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on moving the userbox code offsite so that we'll have an archive if this somehow goes through even after the massive community opposition. I don't think we'll need it, though. Rogue 9 00:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Hayter

It is of course inevitable that actions such as Ms Martin's will result in a backlash from a large number of people, and a degree of that will be mindless, insolent and fuelled in part by those who seek nothing other than a "bloodbath." But that should not divert attention away from the civil complaints brought forth by experienced and respected editors who see a problem with her actions. A quick glance at my userpage will reveal that I find userboxes to be a fun and fairly useful way of representing myself in a short space of time. But if the on-going search for a consensus results in a ban on userboxes and they are removed, I will not be upset as I have my own website to present my views with. I am here to contribute to the Encyclopaedia, not advertise myself to the world. Because of this, I feel I can speak with a high degree of neutrality on the issue here (Ms Martin's action) as I care little about having brightly coloured boxes on my userpage.

Ms Martin's actions are now the brightly lit icon of the inevitable result of such a collaborative project as Wikipedia; a minority in power who feel they know best, to the extent where others views become secondary simply because of the source. As mentioned in an erudite fashion by others above, the issue here is not whether userboxes are a positive or negative thing, but the blatant, abusive and unapologetic manner in which Ms. Martin both conducted the deletes and acted subsequently.

Unlike many I would assume, I have looked at the boxes deleted by Ms Martin and read her given reasons. In many cases she is correct in her assertion that the userboxes used images which were unavailable for that purpose, but if this were her only issue, I assume in good faith that she would have simply removed the image tags as I have seen done by other Admins on other templates. Her actions in deleting a large number of userboxes is a sign of her bias against them. I have no doubt that she acted in what she felt were the best interests for Wikipedia and when considering the issue, I am sure most would be able to see her point, but the fact that many would disagree with her is exactly why Wikipedia has set up processes for this sort of thing.

I do not know Ms Martin nor have I reviewed her contributions to Wikipedia past her reversions, and I assume that since she was given Adminship in the first place, she has demonstrated a willingness to contribute, but to first learn of her actions over the new Year and then read her response to valid criticisms of said actions which have consistently shown a disregard for the community...

Ms Martin is correct is her assertion that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia first and the community should come second. However without the community there would be no encyclopaedia and despite the cliché, if we begin to ignore the community as Ms Martin has done, Wikipedia will fail. The 'elite' minority may well know best, but they cannot write everything themselves and quite frankly, if this sort of behaviour is typical, I do not want them as Admins. Wikipedia is admittedly not for free speech but it is for freedom of information, and such a goal cannot be obtained when those with the ability seek to silence opposing views. This was an attack on those who disagree with Ms Martin on a particular subject, whom she has seen fit to describe as people not here for the good of Wikipedia. Given her actions, one must question exactly what definition of "good" she was working from. - Hayter 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by User:DESiegel

I want to register my strong disagreement with User:Tony Sidaway above. This RfC should not and IMO does not focus on the issue of userboxes and whehter or not they should exist, or what limits on them should be enforced and how. That discussion is taking place elsewhere. This RfC is about the actions that Kelly Martin took in deleting so many userboxes without discussion, and admittly out of process. This is about whether it is acceptable for an admin to delete unilaterally and without discusion large numbers of pages that legit contributors had created and other legit users were using. This is about whehter it is permissable for admins to ignore existing deletion processes, and to delete without any explicit warrent in policy, particuarly in a case where it is known (or any reasoanble person should know) that controversy and disruption will result.

I have seen the ability of admins to act outside of explicit policy and process described as "just getting on with doing what everyone agrees ought to be done". In this case it is clear that far from everyone agreed that these deletions should be made at all, and many people who might support the deltions in an open discussion strongly disapprove of the unilateral and anti-process and extra-policy manner in which they were done. We have deletion processes. We have a process for changing and creating policy. Userboxes are not like WoW vandalism that must be dealt with instantly lest the servers grind to a halt. They are, at best, a longer-term problem that could have been dealt with by a more reasoned and sensitive approach to the matter. Indeed they are now beeing addressed in just that manner.

Tony says that " She was unquestionably right." Obviously this is not true -- a good many question whether these boxes should be deleted at all, and many more question whether they should ahve been deelted out of process. What Tony means, i suspect, is that he agrees with the action so strongly that he cannot see how any opposed view can be rational. That very inability to see the rationality of strongly opposed views is much of the problem with this sort of unilateral administrative action.

It has been said by some who support her actions that the project is about writing an encyclopdia, not about a community. This may be true, but IMO the existance and cooperation of the community is absolutely essential to the writing of the encyclopedia. Destroy the community, and no one will write any more. Damage the community's trust in our processes, and in our tranparancy, and many will cease to volunteer their contributiuons. I am sorry that the arbcom has declined to act in this matter--I think that was a major mistake. The propriety or otherwise of actions such as this ought to be reviewed. If, as many obviously think (and as I think too), this kind of use of admin powers is contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia, the arbcom ought to publicly say so, whether it imposes any sanctions or not.

I add that I fully support the views of User:Hinotori, User:Kaldari, User:MegamanZero, and User:Hayter above; and to some extent those of User:-Ril-. It troubles me greatly that Kelly Martin has not, as far as I am aware, expressed that her actions may even have been unwise much less wrong, and at one point implied an intent to continue with such actions. I have not seen her disavow such intentions. I doubt that under those conditions she continues to have the wide trust of the community to exercise admin and arbcom poswers and responsibilities. DES ^(talk) 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion of Bggoldie

As it goes to 1., 2., and not yet 3., I would like to coin my concerns. Some of you might discount my opinion as the number of my edits in English Wiki is quite low. However I tend to be more active on Bulgarian one (as it is much smaller), and my interests there sometimes are consequences of what happens here. English Wiki is the biggest in number of articles and much more mature than smaller ones. Therefore not only articles but also some policies are either translated or directly quoted from en:! I cannot speak for all other language-wikis but am sure the policy here can easily cross many borders.

From the top of my hill the action of Kelly is having several aspects:

• wide spread of userboxes have gone too far;
  • some userboxes might be considered in violation of NPOV;
  • way too many are capable to divide the community;
  • short advert in a user box may or may not be backed by actual editor behavior;
• a wikipedian have taken unilateral action;
  • it is an administrator, and not unskilled editor who did it;
  • from quotes (in or out of context) Kelly is somewhat reluctant to adhere to the process;
• debate went in developing a policy for something quite narrow (userboxes only), and may end up with a quick proposal reacting to an action.

I cannot separate Kelly's action from userboxes problem as the latter is complex, and the single dimension of the former is making the things worse.

More detail:

My opinion is that beyond very basic wiki-/encyclopaedia-related userboxes all the rest is going to divide the community. Even this my opinion might contribute a spark to the controversy what should, and what should not be included in Wikipedia user pages.

- If one is going to delete anti-<something> template, the NPOV of Wikipedia will nearly demand that pro-<same thing> template is also blown away. Similarly any pro-<something> template may provoke both agitation and anti-one creation.

- Both pro- and anti- templates can divide the community in subcommunities along religious, regional, sport, fan, taste borders (and many more can be named). The usage of categories and what-links-here from templates can streamline this division, which in turn can become a risk to Wikipedia itself.

- One of the principles of Wikipedia (as far as I understood it) is that the reader ought to be left to form an opinion himself/herself. If one puts a set of userboxes in personal space he/she actually discourages people to evaluate the actual contributions and can predispose others' opinions.

- User space is somewhat sacred but Wikipedia core principles must be much more. My POV states that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is not a web-hosting site. Way too many people do have personal web pages, and a link to it would be acceptable for me. OTOH personal data (sex, age, beliefs, taste, all sorts of leniency, good or bad sense of humour) has nothing to help writing THE GrEaT or not-so-great article. I saw one wikipedian writing about leaving them at the door, and being here just wikipedian.

For me there is no excuse in Kelly's action. I can understand some of the reasons behind it, I can even share some, but all this does not excuse the behavior. I can also understand the irritation of those affected by the action. The deletion process is a cornerstone to the operation of Wiki, and any systematic attempt to avoid it can turn the whole project into anarchy.

- If a wikipedian can be considered lacking practice, we may excuse an action (errare humanum est). Having in mind that one of the basic prerequsites of being administrator is to know the way Wikipedia is operating, an administrator cannot be considered unskilled and/or prone to errors. My POV is that being administrator is a trade-off between having little more power and being much more responsible/accountable for one's actions (WARNING: My opinion might be biased! Last month I was engaged in a useless discussion with a steward who de-sysopped an admin without leaving any traceable info behind, and being unable to remember any details of the case).

- The quote in this RfC was traced back to Kelly's talk. While I do share her opinion that what is on IRC channel is not governed by wiki-principles, I cannot accept her statement made in any wiki-space ("motivated by my belief" - just part of the text is quoted to identify the sentence while my remark is against the whole sentence). Both within or out of context it is uncivic for me. I can only reiterate that there is a very important process, and one's belief cannot be a driving force behind any POV-pushing. Finally just visiting her ArbComm candidate Q&A, I was surprised to read about calling this RfC a lynch mob.

I cannot hold Kelly responsible for the outcome of the debate as such, and for the policy it may produce. However just estimating the average number of uses for a template, multiplied by number of templates she managed to delete, ought to be an easy math and an experienced wikipedian would have known the order of magnitude of the effect. As I consider Kelly an experienced one, I am really wondering why she went down that particular road. My concerns are that right now the debate might be biased against Kelly-like actions instead of being more relaxed. -- Goldie (tell me) 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am not (and probably will never be) affected by any userbox deletion, so pretend to be somewhat neutral to Kelly. However later I saw on her page accusations of being linked to another editor with whom I was engaged in editorial disrespect. One may need to decide whether my opinion is biased. -- Goldie (tell me)

[edit] Comment by Sandpiper

First, I would commend Phil Welch, who I understand was responsible for cutting the original RfC and trying to bring some order to this debate by creating this page. I was doubtful of his efforts, but I think this page is now a sensible commentary of the position and feelings of many. I thank him for that.

This situation was referred to arbcom, and has now been rejected there. Raul654 was the first arbitrator to reject it, citing grounds that a debate about deleting userboxes was absurd. He has now expanded on this, arguing that 'arbitration is not likely to be fruitfull in this case'. He may have a point, not least because kelly is herself an arbitrator, and I can not imagine any arbitrator would be comfortable about rendering a judgement on one of their number. But also, there is the issue that whatever the outcome there would simply be more to argue about. One or other side or the argument would be likely to be dissatisfied, and whichever quite large block of editors that is, would then be agrieved by arbcom too. Kelly's disgrace would be transferred to them also.

I myself added my name to the recommendation for arbcom to take this case. Now, interestingly, I am concerned in another case which arbcom has accepted. In that situation I have chosen not to comment on the referral, for either side. The parties bringing that case have what I would regard as strong grounds for bringing it. Yet I also feel the accused has merit on his side too, for without his admittedly highly combative editing, progress in some articles would not have come about.

In this case I felt that referral was appropriate. This is a case of principle, rather than substance. The deletions made by Kelly have apparently been undone, and perhaps despite her unrepentant stance on this matter, she may not feel inclined to repeat this. The wider issue is whether admins should act in this way. It has been made clear by a number of people that admins do have discretion to break rules, and that this is in part encouraged. They are, however, expected to exercise judgement when doing so. A referral to arbcom would have to include a definitive judgement on whether, or to what extent they felt she had acted wisely. As Raul perhaps recognised, unless the judgement was itself exemplary, there would then follow more argument whether it was correct. But I would judge this is not a matter which should be dismissed. It should be clearly decided whether Kelly acted well or badly, because this will guide the actions of others in the future. There does need to be as clear a view on this matter as can be found. Sandpiper 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Jamyskis

I originally had this under Number 2, but reading some of the comments under 3, I thought it prudent to move my thoughts there.

Views differ on what Wikipedia should be, and in what direction it should be allowed to take. In the case of this situation, some prominent Wikipedians, including Jimmy Wales himself, have declared themselves to be against the use of Wikipedia to express political, religious or other personal beliefs. It would appear Kelly Martin belongs to this group.

I, personally, think that these methods of expression, including the userboxes, should be permitted. I rarely see examples of division based on userboxes that are found on their user pages, together with the subsequent categories that belong to it. I know there are a few individuals that use the categories for rather nefarious purposes. However, these userboxes, as well as the ability to express POV on a user page do no harm, do not detract from the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia itself, take up few resources, and are a little compensation for the thousands of volunteers who spend their time editing, correcting and adding this encyclopedia (IMHO).

But then, as with anything here, opinions vary. And here decision making on Wikipedia falls down badly.

WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor an anarchy. I think this leaves Wikipedia in a bit of a limbo as all we have left is the need to build "consensus" - which is rarely achievable on difficult topics such as userboxes. Those who advocate unilateralism such as these are often quick to point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy while forgetting what the rest of the article says. Those who oppose it are equally quick to point out the mention that Wikipedia is not an anarchy. To top it off, you have those on both sides that seem to quote ignore all rules whenever it suits them. It's turned Wikipedia into an anarchy acting like a democracy, while claiming to be neither, and this confuses a lot of users and contributors.

Yes, Kelly Martin's behavior was inacceptable. Common sense would have dictated that she wait until a clear consensus was formed before going about her own will and wiping out all the userboxes, especially given the huge support for keeping them as evidenced in the recent discussion about this. But then, was there a clear path she was supposed to follow? Was it really to be expected that users would be unianimously in favor of keeping or deleting these userboxes? She followed her conscience as per ignore all rules in order to create a better encyclopedia according to her opinion.

Her actions are symptomatic of a larger problem. It's like a head of state being elected and saying that he or she should keep to the constitution but can go ahead when they want and break it if they feel that their actions would be making a better country. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to add: I'm not declaring my support for Ms. Martin here. As I say, she acted inacceptably and irresponsably, unbefitting of an admin entrusted to use the powers at her disposal. I personally don't think, given her actions and her responses to the complaints, that she is fit for adminship. I just ask that people look at this as a symptom of a bigger problem. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 14:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your opinions here are very well thought-out, and I agree for the most part with them. However, one thing I'd like to state is that this argument that some defenders are using about Wikipedia not being a democracy is completely, totally, and utterly bogus. Yes, Wikipedia isn't a democracy; it's MORE THAN THAT. Consensus is HARDER to achieve than majority opinion, because consensus implies agreement among all editors, not just a select few. Regardless of whether anyone feels that is impossible or not, that's what we're striving for. An elite few taking action into their own hands when an overwhelming majority of editors feel differently is NOT consensus, indeed it's FARTHER from consensus than it is from a democracy, and it flies in opposition to everything "wiki" stands for.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 14:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki means "quick" in its original language. A wiki in english is a piece of software allowing for a certain kind of editing. I don't know where you get the idea that the software "stands for" impractical attempts to get ten thousand people to all agree on everything -- that would be more "paralysis" than "quick". Democracy and our rough approximations of consensus are just tools to the end of writing an encyclopedia, and when they get in the way of core policy or they stop working, or especially when we start to violate laws, we do the sensible thing. --Improv 18:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're defining "wiki" in the original language for me as that obviously has very little relevance to the comments here. In referring to "wiki" I was referring to the notion of collaborative editing and the general philosophy and policy of Wikipedia as in the Wiki way. I'm well aware of the background of the terminology. But that doesn't really matter since I think you were only trying to be facetious (and maybe even condescending).

Also, your assumption that I expect to get "ten thousand people to all agree on everything" is not only unfair, but patently false. I acknowledge that consensus is impossible in many cases, and that's why I only state that consensus is what Wikipedia is striving for. Democracy, or, at the least, a solid majority is often the closest thing we can get to attaining it, making such approximations more than "just tools," but rather necessary means to an end. Just because perfect consensus on an issue is impossible doesn't mean we should go the opposite direction and allow a few users to dictate the way the rest of Wikipedia functions (even in the face of overwhelming opposition). That's not democracy, but it certainly shouldn't be Wikipedia either.

As for doing the "sensible" thing, the key question that I believe you're neglecting is who defines what "sensible" is? You? No matter how you rephrase it, the issue will always come back down to whether Wikipedia's policies and the execution of those policies should be defined by the community or by the elite. If you believe "sensiblity" is something that can only be defined by an elite few, then I think that is illustrative of the very problem I'm describing. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Nickptar

Past high-profile abuses of policy (interestingly, almost always deletion policy) by administrators really bother me. They are, in fact, the major factor in my perceived decline in the social quality of Wikipedia that led me to drop out some time ago. And then I return to this. Crikey. Hence the following argument:

• Is what Kelly Martin did a breach of policy? Yes. Even though it was done in the service of NPOV and copyright policies, it still violated deletion policy, at the very least.
• Kelly must have realized her actions would be controversial. Therefore, ignoring for the moment whether or not the ends justified the means here, is there any reason at all Kelly couldn't have requested comment before pursuing unilateral deletion? No.
• Why does policy exist at all? Because Wikipedia is not an anarchy.
• Why does policy exist if major breaches of it are to be tolerated? Is it only there to control those plebeians who don't see the Truth that the enlightened administrators do? Surely not, and I don't believe anyone actually sees it that way. Policy is meant to regulate administrative actions as well.
• Could it be said that the ends justify the means to deal with something as damaging as POV userboxes? No, because that they are damaging is only Kelly's view. (It is also apparently a minority view, but that's irrelevant; even if it were a majority view, Kelly couldn't have known, as she didn't request comment before acting.)
• In other words, a justification of Kelly's actions is effectively saying "Users should be free to massively breach policy, on their own conscience, without consulting the community in advance." Call this proposition P.
• If P is true, then P must be true for all users (or at least all administrators), unless we are to give the most well-known, respected admins special privileges, which is quite clearly not a good idea.
• If P is universally true, then Wikipedia is an anarchy. But Wikipedia is not an anarchy. Therefore P is false. Reductio ad absurdum, QED.
• If you don't agree, consider why the CSDs are so narrowly defined. Why, for instance, does a criterion for speedy deletion covering non-patent nonsense not exist? Because this is such a subjective area that it is agreed admins cannot be trusted to decide unilaterally without community consensus. (I'm sure somebody will now decide such a CSD would be a great idea.)
• If you still don't agree, consider what would happen if I, right now, banned everyone supporting Kelly Martin as detrimental to the project. I do believe that support of disruptive activity is detrimental, but I'm sure nobody on either side (with a few fringe exceptions) wants me to do that. I have little doubt that I would be crucified for acting unilaterally on my conscience like that, and rightly so! Why, then, should Kelly not be reprimanded?

Sure, admins need some leeway in acting outside of policy. But there is no reason not to consult the community before taking unilateral action. In fact, it's disrespectful and detrimental not to do so.

~~ N (t/c) 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Wiki_brah

Yeah man I have benn watchinng these contreversies over Kelly Matrin for a long time and I tihnk that I have had p[roblems with her in the past with her high-handed and insluting attitude toward editors and other admints, and at the time I requessted that she be removed from the Committee for Aribters. Now I see she has once again crossed the boundarries of good taste and will not apologize so I think the only think left to do is make sure we all vote against her in the elections that start on Monday the way I see it if she gets more negative votes than positive ones in the Committee Arbitration elecctions then she will not be in the pool of candidates that Mr. Walles will choose from after we vote is that right? In any case, I'm voting to re elect Raul for sure, and my friend Redwolf but certainly voting against User:Kelly_Martin, User:Fred_Bauder and User:Theresa_knott (who is just about as bad as Kelly M. thank you!Wiki_brah 05:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Raul is in the same clique, note how he rejected the arbitration case about Kelly like the whole ArbCom. None of the incumbents should be reelected. And another thing we can do is to oppose the RfAs of all non-admins who endorsed Kelly. Varizer 21:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This ain't about revenge, dammit. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 21:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about revenge? This is about ensuring that this doesn't happen again. If another user with Kelly's attitude doesn't become an admin, he can't make unilateral deletions or blocks. If those people get removed from the ArbCom, they can not again prevent such a case from being heard. Nothing of this would be necessary, of course, if Kelly simply pledged not to do things like that again. But the opposite is the case, she and her clique are insulting the community. To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht, I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler if the ArbCom dissolved the community and elected another? Varizer 21:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Dschor

Kelly Martin appears to have initiated a huge waste of time. By acting unilaterally to delete a large amount of content being used in user space without regard for process, consensus, or even requesting comment, Kelly demanded this RfC. I did not see the need for this new page until recently. I think the previous RfC still stands as a testament to the initial bad feelings caused by her actions, but what concerns me more is the ongoing behavior I have witnessed. Not only has Kelly failed to acknowledge that her actions were foolish, she has continued in poor form, altering the user pages of wikipedians who deign to disagree with her. I think she has made it quite clear that she really does not want to be an administrator. This entire process is a test to see if Wikipedians are actually clueless enough to leave her serving as an Admin on ArbComm. I hope that we are not. --Dschor 06:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Kelly Martin

I've made a statement related to this matter which may be read at the top of my Candidate's questions page for the ArbCom elections. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text in full of comment by Kelly Martin

As Kelly feels it is inappropriate to enter into discussion within a RfC (see her comment below), I have posted her comments here in full, in a similar manner to which other relevant parts of this debate have been inserted by others. Sandpiper 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The following is a statement I wish to make with respect to the "userbox incident":

I have had basically no opportunity to actually discuss the situation with anyone other than a few friends. Discussion on an RfC is expressly prohibited (although people violate this rule all the time); by adhering to this rule I have apparently offended a number of people who think I should have instead "discussed" the matter on the RfC. In addition, very few people have contacted me via my talk page, email, or IRC in an attempt to discuss the situation.

I expected some upset feelings, but not the uproar that resulted. I believe that policy supported my actions in the same way policy supported my actions when I started deleting orphaned unlicensed images back in September. That bold move on my part got some complaints, but not many, and led in some small part to my original appointment to the ArbCom. I believed that bold action was required in this situation and that policy was clear. In particular the decision to delete inappropriate userboxes was spurred in large part by recidivists in the userbox community who insist that they have the right to disregard Wikipedia policy (and, incidentially, the law) regarding the use of unlicensed images, a battle I have been fighting for months with some people. (Ironically, some of these people were the ones leading the mob against me on the RfC.) Having a discussion on whether to enforce existing policy seems ridiculous to me. What happened here, as opposed to what happened in September, is that enough people went "OMIGOD MY USERBOX IS GONE" and wanted blood so badly that they were unwilling to listen to reason to form a mob. I failed to anticipate the mob, as I did not realize the extent to which the userbox addiction had spread through the community. (They are not particularily popular with the editors I spend most of my time around.)

I have refrained from posting an "open apology" in large part because I have no desire to appear to be conceding on the underlying issue regarding userboxes, especially those which are used to attack either other editors or to attack specific points of view, and of course those which infringe copyrights, and there were so many people in that feeding frenzy on my RfC that were rabidly defending their rights to say whatever they want however they want that I was that I feared a capitulation would be taken as justification for their clearly inappropriate point of view. Enough time has passed that an apology for not involving more of the community in a discussion beforehand would not be out of line; enough community support for a more moderate position exists to keep the radicals on this point under control. I still believe that the userboxes I deleted should have been deleted and should again be deleted, but I am not going to press the issue at this point as there is a robust and relatively civil debate on the topic now that will, hopefully sometime in our lives, lead to a conclusion. I had also misjudged the degree to which the community has become committed to process, probably because I don't have much to do with deletion anymore (an area where process has become arguably too important). For those two misjudgments, I am willing to apologize.

In any case, I don't think this really pertains at all to my capabilities as an Arbitrator, especially when I have a history as an Arbitrator to look at. I would encourage voters to look at my history as an Arbitrator and judge my competency on that basis, instead of relying on what is really an unrelated incident to form an opinion of the merits of my candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

For my own part, I tediously repeat that I have never used a user box, yet I have been upset by this and just a little resent the notion of being branded as part of a 'baying mob'. There seems to be a world of difference between deleting orphaned items and ones which are in use, deleting an entire item simply because it contains an image which should be deleted is excessive, that showing good judgement in breaking rules might be grounds for selection as an arbiter but showing bad judgement is hardly such. I have posted elsewhere already that I have absolutely no problem with Kelly persuing the abolition of user boxes (though I do not support this), but describing any group of users as a frenzied rabid mob wanting blood does not seem very civil. I shall end by posting another quotation from Kelly. Sandpiper 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please take that overly wide brush out of my hand, Sandpiper. Not everyone commenting on my original RfC was part of the mob; clearly there were rational objections to my actions but I felt unable to respond to them because of the presence of the "baying mob". It is hard to discuss with the logical voice calling out of the crowd when those around him are calling for blood (and I think it clear that there were those who were calling for blood: witness the people demanding my immediate desysopping within hours of the onset of the incident). RfC is an ineffective mechanism for discussion, especially when tempers are hot (as they were those first few days) and I think I was wise to limit my participation. Now that tempers are wound down (somewhat), discussion is a possibility. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Civility is very important to retaining editors. Editors who cannot interact with one another in a civil manner may need to be asked to leave the project regardless of the value of their contributions, if in their actions they tend to push away other qualified editors. Wikipedia is an collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia, and people who cannot collaborate effectively with others, or at least not interfere with the attempts of others to collaborate, need to find another hobby.

I'm puzzled by the contention that policy would have prohibited such a statement earlier in the process. I can't find any such policy - which may be my bad searching - and if there is, it should be changed! Not only is it common practice, but the standard template used contains a section described as "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." (emphasis added) I'm glad to finally see a response, it at least allows some understanding of the original motivations - which I think were sincere even if I don't agree with the underlying analysis. I do wish there was not this continuing characterization of opponents as a "mob" since almost all of the actual bans and at least a comparable amount of the incivility was dished out by the other (pro deletion) side. It's the handling of the controversy and aspects of the underlying philosophy that bother me more than the actual deletions (some of which I would have readily supported given prior notice and discussion.) CarbonCopy (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I verified that discussion on RfCs is prohibited by policy by inquiry with James F., a fellow arbitrator, before posting my comments. Direct debate betwen participants is forbidden by policy. (This is why we have "outside views", purportedly; no discussion is to take place except by adding or amending an outside view.) This rule is intended to keep RfCs from becoming overly hotheaded, but is routinely broken. The observer will note that in my first RfC, the discussion became rather hot and incivil, and this rule was broken quite heavily. RfC practice has deviated quite far from the original design (including adding the terribly inappropriate "Users who do not endorse this summary" sections, which are very much inappropriate and very prone to inflame tempers), and the general lack of respect for civil discourse displayed by so many of the participants (but obviously not all) in that RfC was a major reason why I refused to participate in it to any significant extent. Perhaps RfCs need to have a neutral "moderator" designated early on to keep people under control so that shitflinging contests (which is what that RfC became) will not break out so readily.

Speaking as an Arbitrator, I find RfCs relatively worthless as a preliminary step to Arbitration. At most I would look at the initial complaint and the response. The outside views rarely contributed much understanding ("more heat than light", as the saying goes). I think it is perhaps time that we, as a community, reconsider whether RfCs, as they are presently constructed, are a useful tool for dispute management, and either restate the policies or abandon them entirely. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)