Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The previous version of this page.

Contents

[edit] Civility discussion

You removed the proposal so no one knows what you're talking about, but thats just fine. I will be helping removing incivility on sight, for the record.--Tznkai 20:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't want to clutter this page or section. In fact, we should move these remarks to the talk page. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the proposal as I recall it (finding it in the history failed me but it probably is findable) was that any incivil remarks be stricken and the user be given 24 hours to refactor the remark, rather than being removed outright. Hope that helps. Also I did move some remarks from there to here just now, hopefully that was helpful too. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on new RfC

I see that we've gone ahead and archived the RfC to start a new one. I'm going to post the opposition I had to doing that - which I posted about to the page about 30 min before it was archived - to say my peace and leave it at that. It happened and I'll go with it.

I must oppose your request for three reasons.
  • First, one of the primary parties in starting this RfC, Firebug, has quit Wikipedia, and will be unable to comment in the next one, sweeping his view under the table.
  • Second, WP:RFC states that a notice directing people to the RfC is to be placed on the appropriate talk page. In this ase, without a talk page in question, "promoting" the RfC on the Userboxes project page may not have been incorrect. I do not disagree with the incivility you state, however.
  • Third, WP:RFC states that "A user-conduct RfC informs the community of a dispute between editors and invites comments from the community.". This RfC has done nothing if not that. It may not have been civil, but it is most certainly complete. If, as many have argued, this is a debate about following process, we should follow proper process for it.
Just an opinion. --CastAStone 19:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

--CastAStone 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The extraordinary case of the Vanishing Request for comment

Well, an interesting occurrence. This used to be a RFC for censure of actions by Kelly Martin. It had collected approximately 150 signatures against Kelly, at a rough count 4:1 against Kelly's actions deleting user boxes out of process. Someone had posted that this was a record number of votes against anything. Having come to this consensus, the slate has been cleared, and we are instructed not to reinstate our votes. Am I dreaming, or is this also out of process deletion? I reverted to the deleted page (in this context, archiving is NOT a justifiable action), on the basis that the arbitrary replacement constituted vandalism. This was rapidly re-reverted. Now, do others have views on this? Sandpiper 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

See mine above--CastAStone 21:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you misunderstand the way that dispute resolution works at Wikipedia. We're not interested in lynching people; we're interested in working out an amicable solution. Philwelch, who has been one of Kelly's main critics here, has had the good faith and judgement to end this mess and to refactor it in such a way that something useful might come out of it, and for that, I really do commend him. Ambi 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to delete or get rid of the initial RFC, I'm trying to distill from it the basic arguments and concerns of those involved. If the original RFC was a raging wildfire, this is a combustion engine trying to take that fire and direct its power to useful ends. As a critic of Kelly's actions and the first one to ask for her resignation from Arbcom, even I recognize that the original RfC was doing more harm than good. If you agree with me and want Kelly Martin to be held accountable for the mistakes she's made, then trust me when I say that the way to get there isn't mob rule, it's calm and rational discussion. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

<Edit conflict>

The original RfC is here and is clearly labeled as being both here and available for continued comment. As the new page states, it is possible for people to continue the old RfC if they wish that (POV: incivil, nasty and destructive) process to continue.
The new page, however, aims to get a resolution based on consensus, where we can find a way forward, draw up new rules and decide together as a community what we want to happen and why.
That process does not include "censure", punishment or revenge as part of the process itself. Perhaps the consensus will decide to do any one or more of those things at the end. Until then, the important thing is that we all, as a community, stop baying for blood or turning our backs on a serious issue and instead find a consensus based on the Wiki attitudes of friendliness, openness and cooperation. The new RfC is designed to facilitate that,
It would be best, based on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA if nothing else, if people stopped using such emotive terms as "censure" and "vandalism" - especially in non-editable edit summaries.
This is an opportunity for everyone to take a deep breath, examine the issues clearly and without bias, and decide a way forward. BTW, as someone who feels that Kelly made a serious mistake and said so, I don't see 4:1 as a consensus on this matter, as people were voting on different things for different reasons.
Hope this explains things to you, Sandpiper. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. In return, I should perhaps suggest leaving a talk comment as explanation before making major edits, rather than only after someone objects. My comments in the edit summary were entirely deliberate with the full intention that they should make a clear objection to an arbitrary, unexplained deletion of the existing vote and RfC. I notice they have nonetheless been deleted. Sandpiper 22:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
No, just lost in the move, I'd imagine. Please assume good faith, and please restore those comments if they are important to you. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I have no magic powers to edit wiki histories and it would be churlish to revert back to the original page again, at least so long as it is clearly explained here what is happening and why. Sandpiper 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. funnily enough I always do assume good faith, though perhaps i come across as being rather dry. It surprises me how many paople in the previous debate seemed to be getting excited about what I would have considered reasonable objections. Perhaps others are assuming malign interpretation where none exists. Sandpiper 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As to the issue of 'censure'. I think it fair comment that no one brings a RfC if they are happy with the actions of an editor. The intention is, as you say, to obtain a consensus view of something which has occurred. It is not the intention that nothing will happen as a result, rather to gain support for a particular line of action. The bringer of the action presumably believes that others will support his objections, and the result will be some form of action against the individual named. The bringer may be entirely wrong, and the majority will support the named individual. But it is expected that a view will be formed. It is expected that this will involve 'censure'...or something rather stronger. I await to see where you plan to go with this, but I fail to see how there can be a resolution of the matter without someone being found to be in the wrong, and a sanction being applied. This matter has already spawned a referral to Requests for arbitration. Now, how exactly will a satisfactory conclusion be achieved here, and how will consensus be expressed without allowing editors to list their views? Consensus is not formed by an overwhelming majority, but it is not formed by ignoring one either. Sandpiper 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Two questions:

  • What is the point of calling something a "Request for comment" and they saying, essentially, "Please do not comment"?
  • Who selected the priveleged few who are allowed to comment on the page?

--Tabor 22:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends what people mean by "comment" :) If people mean "attack", "be rude", "demand revenge", "demand retribution", "assume bad faith" and so forth, then, yes, such comments should not be made. Such comments should never be made. The process isn't "Requests for Attacks". However, if people want to genuinely comment in order to find a consensus for a way forward that will grow and nurture the Wikipedia and its processes, then that's easy to do and shouldn't pose a problem for anyone.
As for "the selected few", these are self-selecting. They are the ones who can comment and seek a way forward without attacking, being rude, demanding revenge, demanding retribution, assuming bad faith and so forth. Those that cannot do this are invited not to comment. For the 99.99999% of Wikipedians who can do this, their constructive comments are more than welcome.
And, before anyone makes a value judgment on whose side I am on (if anyone's), I'd just like to say (a) don't; and (b) the above applies to all sides, deleters and undeleters, admin-gods and humble-editors, boxfans and boxhaters. There's no distinction when it comes to people not being nice. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. I had taken "Do not add outside views" to mean that comments were not welcome. --Tabor 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This was never an RfC "for censure". As the name indicates, this was an RfC "for comment". The community cannot "censure", they can only discuss actions. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
see my comment below. Censure means to show disaproval of, which is exactly what a RfC can do. perhaps the only thing it can do, apart from the reverse, to show approval for. The intro stated that 150 people censured the action, while 50 approved it. Sandpiper 00:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
"Disagree with" is not the same as "censure". Please don't try to speak for all of the people who added their names to the RfC. I doubt all of them would say they were calling for her censure. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please

In the interests of keeping the edit history easier to view/manage, please move this page (talk page and the original page) into the /Archive space, then edit the new RFC into the old space. I'm tempted to do it myself, but an admin would have an easier time (since /Archive already exists it would need to be deleted first). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I should have done a page move. OK, here we go... — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Phil. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Some of the page history that refers to *this* page is in the archive page history, but I don't think anything can be done in that case. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

ah, that would perhaps explain what was about to become my next comment, what the devil happened to the edit history and my previous edits. Unfortunately you took with it the initial history of the new page. Could we have it back?Sandpiper 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
We can do a page history split and a page history merge, but that would need a pause on editing, since it depends on both pages being deleted and undeleted a number of times. Better leave that to the end (or to a faster admin - I'm too slow). --cesarb 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just thought of a way of doing it with the minimum amount of "downtime", so let me try... --cesarb 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Remind me next time to use a warning template, I'm still too slow (and the procedure is still way to convoluted). --cesarb 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm, the main page also needs it... Will do it soon. --cesarb 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
All done. --cesarb 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threshold

There's no votes to endorse this RfC, so currently it will fold in a day or two. Just thought I'd point that out. Harro5 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, the previous endorsements still stand. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
If it is being argued that this is a valid continuation of the debate, which has merely been archived, then it would seem logical that the original vote to endorse remains. It also invites determined individuals to continue adding their names to the archived votes. (a slightly odd concept, but sensible until something further is resolved here) Sandpiper 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone seems to have deleted the Archive now. →AzaToth 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
See above section, there's currently a revision split/merge in progress to rejoin the edits made to each RFC back together. I suspect it's not finished yet. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for the confusion, but it's kind of hard to keep a {{inuse}} tag when you are deleting the page. It's finished now. --cesarb 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wholesale confusion

The move of this page is guaranteed to cause massive confusion. I, for one, support the original statement, and cannot fathom why this page would be altered. The actions of this editor (and others) have disrupted the wikipedia community, and while the motivations may not have been unkind, the result has been unhelpful to the wiki. I believe that this administrator should accept that the unilateral deletion of content in the user space should not be engaged in lightly - and therefore that an apology is appropriate. Hundreds of hours of time have been spent managing the fallout of this series of events, when there was a much less troublesome option (TfD) available to resolve any problems. This demonstrates one of the problems with the wiki - editors must edit responsibly, or the entire project may devolve into uselessness. --Dschor 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the move will keep the edit histories sane. Otherwise, the "new" RFC was tantamount to blanking the page and starting over. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Sidaway?

Now that he's done the exact same thing as Ms Martin, is Wikipedia really just a farce? A grand con-scheme to fool us idiots into pouring hours into this project only for a few select people to exile the rest and claim all the credit for themselves? 'Cos from what it looks like to me, Mr Sidaway sure wants as many editors gone as possible. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am already confused - where is the original RfC, and why was it moved? Who is responsible for disrupting the RfC process, and how does this help to resolve the underlying problem? --Dschor 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section 3

The article asks people not to work on section 3, possible results of this RfC. One reader has already suggested that the intent of this action is to impose a sanction on Kelly above and beyong the normal result of a RfC. An interesting interpretation, I myself saw it rather the other way.. as an attempt to postpone to death the logical conclusion of the debate.

However, my own view (having no previous views on Kelly) is that this is a case of zeal in attempting to tidy up wiki. Kelly is entirely entitled to her views on user boxes, or anything else on wiki, and fully entitled to further her own views of how wiki should run. However, no administrator is entitled to act against policy without very good reason. Administrators, even more than editors must recognise this, and the higher up the ladder they go the more it must apply. What is therefore needed is reinstatement of all out of process deletions, and a firm policy statement that no administrator should act in his way. Qui custodet ipsos custodes? The debate suggested that others may have joined in with these deletions, and perhaps those should be quietly reinstated too.It should be recognised that policy is not immutable and may always be overruled by consensus, but this is not such a case. While an apology might be pushing the matter, since I do not see how someone can exactly apologise for views they hold in good faith, a promise not to continue such actions would be helpfull. Sandpiper 23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, an RfC does not censure people. Never has, never will. I think this whole saga highlights the urgent need for some form of newbie FAQ to explain dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Ambi 23:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
yes, it does. Did you never feel 'censured' because 100 people told you that you were wrong? My dictionary says 'severe disaproval', which seems to be exactly what we have here. The latin root is censere, to consider. Exactly what we have here, and why I chose to use the word. Sandpiper 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Working on results here is premature. We can't resolve everyone's concerns until we understand them all. We're at the "understanding concerns" stage. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strong objection to the reformatting

I have no particular view on this RfC, but I strongly object to the archiving and reformatting. When things are contentious it is not a good idea to swiftly change the rules. I'm sure the intention is good - but the result looks like censorship by a cabal.

  • General introduction is replaced by Phil Welch's personal instructions to participants
  • 'Filtering out' of undesirable remarks has taken place
  • No endorsements are allowed
  • Outside views are not to be permitted
  • Anything deemed incivility will be deleted on sight (by whom?)

I'm sure this is well intentioned - but it is not well-thought through. This is the first RfC, when comments have been unwelcome--Doc ask? 23:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I second the above. The thing should be left to run its course. Generating comments on an issue is what RFCs are there for. Zocky 23:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The ongoing original process was achieving absolutely nothing apart from further bad feeling on all sides. Philwelch has, to his credit (particularly considering he was one of those bringing the original RfC), acted to try and channel this into some form of productive attempt at resolving this dispute. Remember the purpose of an RfC: dispute resolution. Ambi 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not calling Phil's motives into question (sorry if it sounded like that), but I don't think changing the rules mid-process will resolve disputes. Bad air is best circulated. I'mm all for trying to develope a better process for the future. --Doc ask? 00:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Bad air is best cleared out of the room. That's what I did. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Ambi 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
One definition of arbitrary power is where rules are drawn up ex post facto --Doc ask? 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It's just that the process wasn't working, so it makes sense to try something new. Where is the exercise of power? Ambi 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
A small group changing the rules - and saying what type of speech is, and is not, permitted is most definately an exercise of power. --Doc ask? 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
And possibly common sense. [[Sam Korn]] 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You can say what you want in your own userspace or on your own wiki. You can even go back to the old RfC and say it. But on this RfC, you have to remain civil and productive. That's the only way to get anything done. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how the process was not working, except in so far as a growing majority had expressed their views against Kelly, with no obvious consequences for anyone. However, if we now take that vote as concluded, perhaps we can see what happens this way? Sandpiper 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
We were shouting past each other and not communicating. It's established that a large number of people oppose what Kelly did. I oppose what Kelly did. Now that we've established that, let's discuss why we opposed it and what to do about it instead of just screaming "Deadmin her!" and "Lynch mob!" at each other. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I for one want to commend Phil for what he's doing, it's certainly both bold and needed. --Wgfinley 00:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We were all acting like children, myself included. It was high time for one of us to be the adult, and I took the initiative. The original RfC is still ongoing. If you want to bicker like a little kid, go there. This is a refactoring intended to draw out everyone's concerns in a rational and civil fashion. If you didn't want me to do this, you should have spoken up on the RfC when I proposed it yesterday. Since the positive response was overwhelming, I refactored. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This childish user missed the RfC yesterday and certainly didn't read the talk page. I came to it fresh today and reacted strongly to the 'thou shall not comment' tone. However, having read it through since, I have no wish to comment further. Good luck. --Doc ask? 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for reformatting

I am having trouble telling who it was who did the rewrite of the RFC on Kelly Martin on Deleting stuff without consensus, but I think it was Phil. Whoever did it, and it may have been a team effort, they deserve a Superhero Editor Barnstar for translating the anger and frustration into the different cogent view points. But perhaps after userboxes and templates are resolved, barnstars could also become a controversy, unless I am misunderstanding some of the nuances.

Some people may feel that Phil missed some pieces, so perhaps it was not a perfect job, but someone needed to do it, and given the contentious nature of the sides in support of Kelly Martin, and the sides in opposition, it is remarkable that someone has done such a great job. This gives us hope for ultimate remarriage of the divorced sides. User:AlMac|(talk) 18:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remark by Hipocrite

(moved from main page, in response to the top section) Radiant_>|< 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not an appropriate venue for 3, nor is 3 appropriate for someone who has done nothing wrong. Refactoring this RFC like this was an abuse of process, but, beyond that, it was as opposed to an abuse of "process" such that an encyclopedia could be written. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remark by Radiant

Given the utter mess that the RFC had become, I think that this new version is a good idea, so that people can actually find out what happened. And as said above, people can still contribute to the old version if they believe there's a point in that. Radiant_>|< 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How about then renaming it to something like /Original_version? /Archive seems to imply it's read-only. --cesarb 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • {{sofixit}}. /1 and /2 seems to be the most common naming scheme. Radiant_>|< 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Given the currently flammable state of the affairs in the vicinity, I'm loathe to do even an apparently innofensive rename without asking first (I've already been bold enough on these pages by doing a complex and slow page history mangling). --cesarb 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've been bold and renamed the 'archive' as 'original' and linked it back to the RfC page. Nothing is now hidden, no-one forbidden from commenting in the usual way - this new verion is simply offered as an alternative (perhaps even preferred version - since it occupies the usual RfC space). To avoid any call of bias - I will not be commenting on this RfC - either version. --Doc ask? 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So, just what are we doing here?

I'm not at all sure ove. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Arb-Com having turned this down, one sees this mess festering on, esp since the Martin-Sidaway group have decided to ride this one out (a bit like the White House), oblivious of the ill feeling they have generated among a wide cross-section of Wikipedians (both old and new) and determined to ignore all protest. Tony Sidaway's recent behaviour reminds me of the repeated provocative behaviour of the Bush White House in the face of criticism. (And I'll thank you all very much not to amend or correct this comment). --Peripatetic 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

last I looked, two members had declared an interest and withdrawn, while two more had turned it down. One on the grounds that user boxes was a rather trivial issue, which seemed to entirely miss the point. If that counts as being turned down, then the system is falling apart anyway, since it is supposed to take four votes to accept or reject. If it it has failed because there is no one left to hear it, well...quite a different problem. Some remarkably speedy voting, though, the number of people expressing a view on the case is still growing.Sandpiper

What are we trying to do here? We're trying to come a mutual understanding of everyone's perspective. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defense of Kelly Martin's actions

  1. These templates are divisive
  2. These templates are clear violations of copyright

[edit] Response by SPUI

1 is an opinion, not an undeniable fact that can back up a massive deletion. 2 is simply wrong, as the emplate itself is not a copyright violation; removing the image fixes the problem. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Even the images themselves don't violate copyright; using them on userpages falls well within the bounds of fair use. They're a violation of a Wikipedia policy, and an irrational one at that, nothing more. Rogue 9 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I moved this response by SPUI to the talk page. Per Phil can we try editing the text on the RfC to be how it hsould be as a way to reach consensus and talk about it here? ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • the wording of 2 should be changed to "contained images that are" intsead of "are" to address the objection, so I did. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Incivility

I have noticed in this RfC, on talk pages associated with it and so on, a lot of incivility on all sides. Some of this incivility has been coming from admins, arbcom members, and other "senior" members of WP administration. I don't want to name names here in the interest of cooling this down, but I feel that many of the complaints made in the initial RfC directly result from "ordinary" editors being treated with contempt, ridicule and incivility by members of WP administration.

I believe that the sole exception of Ignore All Rules should apply to WP:CIVIL, and I ask the members of WP administration to apologise for any abusive comments they have made. It will reassure many editors of your good faith in this matter.

-- Synapse 00:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur about incivility. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree; this mob mentality is like nothing I've ever seen on Wikipedia before. But that doesn't help us resolve things, so please let it drop. Ambi 00:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking for people to apologise for being abusive because I believe it would be constructive to resolving things. -- Synapse 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that asking for apologies at this particular point in the process is the way to go. I think just asking people to try to be more civil going forward (and reminding them that Phil has stated intent to remove incivil remarks completely) might be the way to go. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies will just mess up something that's already messed up, so I agree. Now, off for my attempted wikibreak. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the way things are going, this seems to be working, so I'm forced to agree -- Synapse 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuck apologies. Just get on with it, and don't do it again. Let's keep this go civil. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Which mob mentality is that? I read much of the original RfC and it did not seem so very out of control to me. It seemed to express an extraordinary degree of consensus that a wrong had been done entirely unrepentantly, and was likely to be repeated. If that happens, and people are seen to get away with it, then, yes, perhaps a 'mob' is the correct descriptive word for the resulting overwhelming consensus. Sandpiper 01:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Amen. It's only a "mob" if you don't like what they're saying. The RFC process has been devalued by this new page. --Peripatetic 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think people must realise by now that this issue is one that many many wikipedians feel very strongly about. The archived page clearly shows that. The opinions expressed there are not lost, not swept under the rug, and I doubt anyone would be able to claim differently any time soon., no one will forget. But that RfC was felt by many, even including many who expressed dismay at Kelly's actions, to be degrading into a pitchfork party. No one comment was the sole bad comment but taken as a whole, surely you agree they were not WP:CIVIL? This new process is a sincere attempt to get everyone's issues documented in a way that is civil and respectful to all parties involved and I think it should be given a fair shake. Modify the points and expand them as you see fit, or discuss your proposed modifications here first, as you prefer, but don't comment there and don't start signing things yet. IMHO. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Rogue 9

(remarks in response to this section Further response from Kelly Martin to a comment by Kaldari [5]) moved to talk page by ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

Kelly Martin is gravely mistaken in her assessment of her powers and the effects that her wielding of them in this instance wrought. I will address each part of this defense in order.

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.

This is authoritarian thinking. CalJW will probably come barging in and say that the preceding sentence is a personal attack, but it is not; it is a simple statement of fact. Who is Kelly Martin to unilaterally decide that any one of us should be forced to leave? None of us have that power by ourselves, and none of us should have it. It is my opinion that those who hold such attitudes should not be entrusted with any power whatsoever beyond those of a normal editor, lest they abuse it in pursuit of their personal goals and vision, but I do not say that my opinion should be the one enforced. I submit that Ms. Martin should not either.

Wikipedia is not a social experiment; it is an encyclopedia.

Quite true, but irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a social experiment, and it is an encyclopedia, but it is also a community, and if the community is not allowed to exist, then neither will the encyclopedia. And the community will not exist for very long if the members have no incentive to stay here. Many of us who contribute to articles would not be here if Wikipedia tolerated only the driest of academic discussion and concourse, and the encyclopedia would suffer for it.

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.

Ah, and here is where Ms. Martin is most seriously wrong. Her actions did, in fact, target a large portion of the encyclopedia-writing community. You see, Wikipedians do not fall into two monolithic groups of those who write the encyclopedia and nothing else and those who express their personal opinions without touching articles. I challenge anyone to examine my edit record and question my commitment to writing and improving encyclopedia articles on several subjects, and yet one of the first templates deleted, User Capitalist, was made for a Wikipedian category that I founded, namely Capitalist Wikipedians. Her actions did indeed target writers of the encyclopedia, and a great many of us at that.

I will not apologize for my actions; they were motivated by my belief in what is best for Wikipedia.

And they may well have been; in fact I daresay that they were motivated by the best of intentions, but we all know what the road to Hell is paved with. Be that as it may, good intentions do not excuse bad actions, and the summary deletion of the work of scores of her fellow editors shows callous disregard for the community that builds, maintains, and sustains this encyclopedia. I will not presume to tell Ms. Martin that she should apologize, but I submit that her reasoning for not doing so is flawed.

Nor will I apologize for the response to those actions because it was not I who responded.

This is only fair, but the response to her actions is with a few possible exceptions is not something that requires apology from anyone.

Nor will I apologize to my response to the response, as I have done nothing for which an apology is appropriate.

And that is something for this RfC to determine, not Ms. Kelly Martin.

I thank the good editors of Wikipedia in advance for their forbearance. I may have rambled overlong, but sometimes that is the best way to illustrate one's point. Rogue 9 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Rogue 9

I feel that you're making an error in logic that a lot of people make that leads to hurt feelings. Your contributions are not you -- you do not own them, nor is it guaranteed that they have a place on the encyclopedia. Decisions that they do not belong are not attacks on you, and should not be taken as such. If you are a well-behaved editor, we'll be happy to have you in the community, and if you produce good contributions, that is very cool. Don't, however, get defensive about things and think you own them. This site exists for a project, and personal use is merely usually tolerated when it doesn't get in the way of the encyclopedic goals. Enforcing the rules may be authoritarian, true, but in the appropriate time and place, such authority is well-placed. All these userboxes are a waste of time, unrelated to the primary goal. Regardless of the work on keeping the project self-governing, and regardless of whatever votes people might do, Wikipedia is never going to be your Yahoo or Geocities homepage. This will not change if a million Yahoo/Geocities people come here and start voting or complaining. I don't always agree with Kelly Martin, and some of her positions on following rules make me uneasy, but in what she has done here, I agree fully, and in what she has said about the aim of people coming here I also agree fully. Those who are not here to work on the encyclopedia should be (kindly) shown the door. It is very unfortunate that this situation arose -- if userboxes had been nipped in the bud when they started, it would have been for the better. As of now, corrective action needs to be taken. Please try not to feel attacked when your works are judged unsuitable for the encyclopedia, and please remember that your userpage is at most a small sideshow to what you're hopefully doing on the encyclopedia. If you want free speech, get a webpage. If you want democracy, go start a club with your friends. We're an encyclopedia. --Improv 03:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The only corrective action that needs to be taken is against Ms. Martin for her blatant disregard for consensus. The very thing that is in dispute in this RfC is whether the userboxes in question have a place in the encyclopedia; since Kelly Martin completely bypassed the method for determining this, she didn't know, much as she might have thought that her personal opinion was fact. She was operating on assumption, which is a very bad thing to do when undertaking deletions on a massive scale. Further, the only thing I might take personal offense to is not the deletion of User Capitalism; it's that I'm evidently held in contempt for daring to make the category that it links to, and the assumption that I must be worthless as an editor because of it. Rogue 9 22:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I find it really obnoxious when people say "it's an encyclopedia" to justify their own views, as if the rest of us don't think it's an encyclopedia. Well, I think it's an encyclopedia, and I also think the only problem we have here is the one caused by Kelly. I think process and policy are essential to the successful operation of the encyclopedia, and therefore Kelly's actions were harmful to the encyclopedia, because they caused disruption and unfairness in the community on which the encyclopedia is based. Everyking 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remarks by Monicasdude on The Actions in Question

(unsigned on main page, moved here by CarbonCopy (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)) <<original edit history line: 00:25, 4 January 2006 Monicasdude (→The actions in question)>>

This summary is objectionable. The first quotation from Kelly Martin applied only to a small group of templates created by a single user, including such items as template:User Coca-Cola, template:User Pepsi-Cola, User:UBX/McDonald's, template:User TacoBell, and template:User KingKong. The original RFC misquoted Martin on a crucial point, and it is disturbing that its successor also misrepresents quoted comments.

Thanks for the clarification. I've edited it accordingly. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, you didn't. Martin gave a much clearer, policy-based explanation of her actions governing the entire set of deletions, and you suppressed it in favor of a prejudicially selected subset of comments. Monicasdude 05:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


This summary is objectionable. It emphasizes Kelly Martin's response to a particular question regarding a set of conspicuously frivolous, just-created templates and presents it as though it is representative of her stated reasons. The framer(s) of this RfC are perfectly capable of presenting Martin's statements fairly, but choose not to do so. (unsigned on main page, moved here by CarbonCopy (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)) <<original edit history line: 03:03, 4 January 2006 Monicasdude (→The actions in question)>>'

[edit] Not happy with the new incarnation of the RfC

Ladies and gentlemen: I was one of the individuals who advocated a fresh start for the RfC, but I'm dismayed to see what has replaced it. This appears to have become more of an exercise to present only criticism of Kelly Martin's actions, and apparently not be able to present any counterarguments or mitigating circumstances in the document. Moreover, it appears to begin with a prima facie assumption that Kelly was indeed in the wrong, without providing any means for disproval nor for reasoning to the contrary. The document also has the appearance of being tightly controlled and not freely editable, which is not satisfactory. Phil, I appreciate what you are trying to achieve, but I do not agree with such closed debates as this - especially since the gist of the RfC was that Kelly did not pay attention to the community, and now it seems only those who agree with that opinion are permitted to present views on the RfC. Please, consider opening this up more to those who do not share your views. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Nick's concerns here are valid, and should be incorperated, but this is certainly better than the last debacle that ensued.--Tznkai 01:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it really? I gather that the last one was considered a "debacle" because some perceived that it was uncivil, but I contend that nothing is more uncivil than intellectual dishonesty, particularly that resulting from adherence to artificial standards of politeness. Simply put, if we're not permitted to comment on Kelly Martin's actions accurately because her actions were such that they necessitate a marginally "rude" response, then what good is this proceeding? Rogue 9 01:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Kelly Martin did not kill your mother. She does not eat babies, and as far as I'm aware, she didn't kill Kennedy either. If you can't contain yourself from being a jerk when you complain about her actions, that's a personal problem. We're trying to communicate here. The incivility of the previous RfC was noise, not signal, and the purpose of this refactoring is to filter out the noise. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh* I call a spade a spade. Her behavior was arrogant, authoritarian, and completely anti-consensus, and I will say so. These truths are certainly unpleasant, but they are truths nonetheless. Sometimes the truth hurts. Does that mean we shouldn't say it? I'm not going out of my way to be excessively rude, but there's no absolutely polite way to say some of the things she did without it coming off as an attack, because frankly she did things worthy of attack. I remind you that taken by the strictest definition the whole concept of an RfC is a personal attack, because it suggests that the initiator found something wrong with the editor's behavior. That's all I'm getting at. Rogue 9 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
At the same time, it would be a nice gesture on Kelly's part if she somehow indicated that she is interested in the outcome of this new process. Given that there's already a RfAr on this topic, we're not really gaining anything by this re-hashing of arguments if she doesn't wish to participate. —Kirill Lokshin 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Concur to a degree. There are beliefs from several sides, right now we're not seeing that. That's not a problem with the format, {{sofixit}}. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a big section for you to provide defenses of Kelly's actions in the RfC. Please do so. Some of the items listed under "concerns with Kelly Martin's actions" respond to some of the defenses provided, so don't be afraid to use the defense section to respond to the concerns presented. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What he said. It may not be perfect, but I think it's worth trying to make this work - it's certainly better than the fiasco we had before. Ambi 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeing stuff get added there, even just since I moved some comments here,so I think it's not one sided at all. Doing it this way is more cumbersome than just letting er rip, commentwise, but I think it will be a better result and I applaud Phil for the effort (which is why I moved a few things, trying to help out)... ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Applauding Phil is something with which I can concur fully. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Phil: I'm sorry, but I really can't work out what I can write, and where. It says at the top of the document: "For one thing, endorsements or "me-too" signatures are discouraged, as are outside views." If outside views are not permitted, why is Rogue9's response printed verbatim in the document? Also, the "Other defenses" (which I assume is what you are referring to) is shoved right down at the bottom in a subsection, as a bulleted list. What can I write there, if not a view? It strikes me that the negative comments are arbitrarily considered to not be a view (as in, the "Specific actions" at the top, and Rogue9's response) and the ones supporting Kelly's actions aren't. Please tell me - or better, still, make it clear at the top of the page - what I am permitted to post, and where. Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Questions kindly answered by Phil via IRC; thank you Phil, and sorry for my initial rudeness. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Rogue9's comments appear to have been moved back to the main article (I moved them here). I am not sure who did it (WP is balky for me tonite, walking the history failed) but I understood the idea was that they not be there whichy is why I moved them here. I don't want to get into a edit war (I've never been in one andwould like to keep it that way) so perhaps someone else could determine why they were moved there and then move them back? ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This process will not go anywhere unless new comments get incorporated into the text. There is absolutely no point re-stating the same view, but comments both pro and anti need to be inserted somewhere so that the text can make a full representation of all views expressed. When people have run out of new points, perhaps we can move on to section 3. Sandpiper 02:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
New comments or new points? Do we have all the points/issues yet? I'm not sure we do and those ought to all be added before moving to part 3. Unless we are moving to part 3. As for the process not going anywhere, I saw on User_talk:Jimbo Wales that Jimbo is thinking about this, and held back from comment because it is not an easy question. If all the pros and cons, all the issues and defenses can be cogently and civil-ly put forth, I think that will aid everyone in deciding how they now feel about how to proceed (and may I again put in a plug for the Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes process as well?) I think it is useful to try to look at the other side and see what objections there might be (if you feel that Kelly did the right thing) or what justifications there might be (if you do not feel Kelly did the right thing). It is an excellent exercise. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I really don't care about userboxes, though I suppose I should form a view on it now. It is the way this has been done which is the problem.Sandpiper 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The reason I keep giving the userbox policy link is because people that think this is about boxes, or that have feelings about boxes, might be better served to participate there. This is, IMHO, not about boxes, this is about out of process deletion, and whether it is justifiable or not. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest that the deletion was symptomatic, and that the actual issue is lack of a system of checks and balances on administrators. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is another problem of scaling up wiki. Not only does it become impossible to keep track of editors, it becoms impossible to keep track of administrators. However, it at least ought to be possible to control actions of administrators by rules, whereas it is difficult to control random editors without stripping them of rights to participate. Sandpiper 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind every one there is no Wiki-right to free speech. We demand you be civil, polite, and avoid being a dick. Personal attacks are inexusable.--Tznkai 03:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the purpose of continuing this RFC?

Opinions on the matter have been clearly expressed on the original RFC, as the page now appropriately says. I tried to present a possible way out of the current sorry state of community relations without too many feelings getting hurt.

But some people insist on prolonging this. I fail to understand what they are hoping to achieve beyond an acknowledgment that there is no consensus for templates to be deleted the way Kelly did it. User RFC is not the appropriate venue neither for punishing editors nor for creating policy. Insistence on using it for either is no less abuse of the process than the transgressions on the other side. Zocky 03:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some people seem to think this whole affair is the Revolutions of 1848 all over again ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 03:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but some concrete way forward to resolve the problems brought to light would be helpful. If not RfC, then what? I can't say RfC has worked well, but ArbComm has apparently declined to take up the issue. Is there any other process available? This whole episode is very likely to end up leaving deep divisions in the community. And Wikipedia does need a community to function. Perhaps the implication in much of this debate that the community is the problem explains the vehemence of some of the participants. CarbonCopy (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Haven't the problems been resolved? The userboxes were re-created, and we established that tere's no consensus for deleting templates out of process in this way. Again, what more do you want? Zocky 04:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, the underlying problems have most definitely not been solved. Thinking that simply restoring the userboxes restores the community is in many ways a revealing symptom of the unresolved issues. Will this sort of event happen again? Is Wikipedia operating from community or authority? What are the checks and balances? Will I be blocked for expressing opposition to admin actions? Some of us want answers to these questions. CarbonCopy (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like those answers, too, but none of those questions is about Kelly Martin. Zocky 05:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps this RfC should be titled differently, but the initial actions triggered a whole chain of related events, and I see no neat way to compartmentalize the issues. CarbonCopy (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I second Carbon Copy's sentiments. It seems to me that there are now a significant number of people not editing Encyclopaedia articles because they ahve become embroiled in RFC on the actions of administrators deleting without consensus, blocking people for alleged uncivil actions and deleting the evidence of those actions, so that only administrators can judge whether the actions justified the blocking, administrators engaged in a wheel war that would not have started had this dispute not begun over userboxes, and now the process has begun on whether various chunks of work from the userboxes wiki project should be deleted, and thankfully several deletion proposals combined in a handful of deletion proposals. Am I mistaken, or is some action by Tony Sideaway very similar to that of Kelly Martin that was opposed? The RFC should be on the action that is deemed controversial, and remove personalities when more than one person may be engaged in the same action. User:AlMac|(talk) 18:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned objection

From the RfC page:

This summary is objectionable. It emphasizes Kelly Martin's response to a particular question regarding a set of conspicuously frivolous, just-created templates and presents it as though it is representative of her stated reasons. The framer(s) of this RfC are perfectly capable of presenting Martin's statements fairly, but choose not to do so. (above unsigned comment: 03:12, 4 January 2006 Monicasdude)

Monicasdude: {{sofixit}} Give the info here first if you want, or just do a revision on the part that you think needs fixing. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should be done

Below are two proposals of conclusions. They are separate versions of each other. Editors are encouraged to do either of:

  • endorsing conclusions they agree with.
  • proposing amended or separate sets of conclusions and offering them for endorsement

[edit] Initial proposal of conclusions

Using this page to a rehash the now archived RFC doesn't seem very useful - editors have already expressed their opinion there. Using it to debate a wide range of policy issues is neither appropriate nor likely to achive anything.

Therefore, I'll move right to point 3 and outline what I think to be a rational course of action that will allow us to move on to more useful things:

  • Kelly Martin is a valued editor and a respected member of the community. Desysoping her or removing her from the ArbCom over deletion of a few templates is not likely to be good for the project.
  • Kelly should acknowledge that many editors, both those that agree and those that disagree with her about the issue of userboxes in general, have expressed legitimate concerns about the results of her actions in this case.
  • Editors who believe that procedures are irelevant as long as results are right should acknowledge that there is a large number of editors who disagree and believe that procedures should be adhered to in order to avoid conflicts and maintain good will in the community.
  • Userbox supporters should acknowledge that userboxes are entirely secondary to the process of writing the encyclopedia and that many editors have raised legitimate concerns about their potentially detrimental side effects.
  • Everybody should re-read their comments in this debate and strike them out and/or apologize if they decide that they were intentionally or unintenonally incivil.
In the future
  • We should have a proper discussion on the existence and/or deletion of userboxes. This should be done at an appropriate page in a civil and mature manner.
  • Polls and RFCs about policy and community issues should not be advertised on wikiprojects and various ===special-interest noticeboards. Use Wikipedia:Current surveys and Wikipedia:Village pump to get site-wide attention instead.
  • We should avoid adding spurious and/or humorous views and votes on RfCs and other polls and discussions. Even when not intended, it can be easily understood as making fun of people who are taking the issue seriously.

I don't see how further debate on this matter can contribute anything useful. Therefore, I move to close this RFC with the above recommendations.

[edit] Editors who agree that above is an acceptable solution of this matter:

  1. Zocky 01:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 01:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Hermione1980 01:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. FCYTravis 02:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dalbury(Talk) 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. *Dan T.* 02:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Tznkai 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC) (I prefer to have this closed here, but willing to let it remain open as well)
  9. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. User:AlMac|(talk) 18:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC) agree with all of the above except one point commented on in the disagree section.
  11. This isn't what I would myself prefer, but consensus is in short supply here and I want to help bring some more of it. David | Talk 00:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editors who disagree that above is an acceptable solution of this matter:

  1. I agree with all but the second point. I do not believe that Kelly should be pressured into acknowledging something she seems to have made clear she doesn't actually believe. Sarah Ewart 05:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    Acknowledging that there are people who honestly disagree with you does not require that you believe they are right. Zocky 05:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I know and far be it for me to put words in her mouth, but she doesn't seem to believe the concerns are legitimate (which is what the statement actually says). At least, I have not seen her express that opinion. If she states it is her opinion the concerns are legitimate, I would happily support the conclusions. I would also support if it were changed to something similar to what you say, i.e. that she acknowledges "that there are people who honestly disagree" with her. It's the requirement she acknowledge legitimacy of those concerns that rankles with me.Sarah Ewart 05:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    I belive she is being asked to acknowledge something. Thers no requirement for her to actually do so. Does this ally any concerns of yours?--Tznkai 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    I understand that nobody will be forcing Kelly and that endorsement of these conclusions does not mandate her in any way at all. However, I personally cannot endorse a statement that I feel amounts to pressuring someone into making a statement they may or may not believe or support. Kelly doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would actually respond to such pressure anyway, but I believe that a person should make statements like this, particularly when in conflicts, entirely of their own volition and not because a group of people demand it. So, no, unfortunately it does not allay my concerns. It just reminds me of Super Nanny trying to get "naughty" children to apologise regardless of whether they actually mean it. Sarah Ewart 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. The second bulleted point of the outline - I do not see Ms Martin anywhere acknowledging there are legitimate concerns. Please provide something showing she did, then I can endorse this. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. My one disagreement with the above overall presentation is that when there is a proposal that directly affects a project or article, I feel it is appropriate to have some NPOV template on the top of its talk page to inform participants of that project or article of the proposal, linking to both where the proposal is being debated, deiscussed or whatever, and also to the WP policy or policies that are relevant to the proposal. User:AlMac|(talk) 18:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional proposed conclusions

This amended proposal adopts the proposal above, with the addition of these statements:

  • Wikipedia operates according to consent, not authority. Kelly should acknowledge that when there is good-faith opposition to admin action, it is frightening and against Wikipedia's core principles to undertake such action unilaterally.
  • Kelly Martin's actions aside, any future efforts at unilaterally deleting things that large number of people want kept without discussion would be ill-advised. The existence of this belabored RfC process is proof of that.
I see a problem in the structure of the above sentence, and propose the following clarification: Kelly Martin's actions aside, any future efforts at unilaterally deleting things without discussion that a large number of people want kept would be ill-advised. The existence of this belabored RfC process is proof of that. -- Dalbury(Talk) 08:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Templates for Deletion specifically is an insufficient way to address the issue.
  • Newer members of Wikipedia deserve respect (per WP:BITE). They deserve to be involved in the community. It is true that newer members should recognize the stated purpose of Wikipedia and help in it—however, it is the responsibility of more experienced Wikipedians to use positive, non-confrontational means of helping new members to become productive Wikipedians.

[edit] Editors who agree with the above statements:

  1. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. CarbonCopy (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dalbury(Talk) 08:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editors who disagree that closing of the RfC at this point is an acceptable solution of this matter:

  1. This appears to me to totally misunderstand the actual problem, not to mention attempting to short-circuit the attempt to refactor this RfC. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. The main thing in my mind is what happens next time someone massively deletes userboxes. VFU was helpful with Tony's deletion, but I can see the battle stretching on, each side hoping the other tires of it. I think we need to come to a consensus that the massive deletions as done by Kelly and repeated by Tony are a Bad Thing. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    I think that is covered by "Kelly should acknowledge that many editors, both those that agree and those that disagree with her about the issue of userboxes in general, have expressed legitimate concerns about the results of her actions in this case. ... We should have a proper discussion on the existence and/or deletion of userboxes. This should be done at an appropriate page in a civil and mature manner." FCYTravis 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, but the problem is that, as far as I am aware, kelly does not acknowledge this, and while she might agree that her actions have given rise to legitimate concerns, does she agree not to repeat them?. Sandpiper 02:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    I believe she has stated (on IRC?) that she would not repeat those actions, but of course a statement here on this RfC would be specifically appropriate. FCYTravis 02:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    I believe the point is to send Kelly an accurate picture of what the community thinks of her actions, politley, and to state, from the community to the community the same. How any of the above respond is their buisness until it leads to a problem, neh?--Tznkai 08:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sandpiper 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC). well, obviously I disagree, as would about 150 people who have voted on the previous page. Attempting to write this rather silly post script would mean that absolutely nothing had been done about the situation, that no one had even been told they were being a naughty boy. The plain consensus was that kelly should not have done what she did. Whether she should be 'punished' for this is a matter of some contention, but plainly there should be an assurance that she will not immediately repeat this action. That is the point, really. Not to have her or any others who supported her actions toasted, but to make it clear that there will be no repetition of this by any admin.
    Once again, that is not the purpose of an RfC. Ambi 02:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    ah, but then what exactly is the point? what else do you suggest? This is a venue for community feeling to be expressed. The numbers involved here are sufficient to propose a brand new policy mandating that admins should automatically be stripped of their position in such future cases, for example. Sandpiper 02:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    RFCs are not for policy proposals. If you wish to initiate one, please see Wikipedia:How to create policy. FCYTravis 02:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Also disagree. Saying that "Kelly should acknowledge" is not the same thing as Kelly actually acknowledging anything. We haven't seen her acknowledge even the existence of this page. In fact, her multiple statements reflect an unpologetic attitude and also indicate that acknowledgment is the farthest thing from her mind. While we all want to get on with "writing the encyclopedia", the core issue (heavy-handed unilateral action followed by contemptuous dismissal of objectors) that led to this whole fiasco remains, as of this writing, unaddressed and unresolved. Who will guarantee that this will not happen again in the future? --Peripatetic 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. CarbonCopy (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Closing so rapidly, and right after the controversial refactoring, has the feel of sweeping this under the rug rather than resolving the issues. It is obvious that little has actually been resolved. Not that the old page was getting anywhere either, but trying to ignore such an outpouring of dissent is unwise and ultimately will prove fruitless.
  6. We aren't done yet. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. We certainly are not. Rogue 9 02:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. No way, this has been very almost turned into a "lets just end this and pretend this never happened" page by supporters of her actions. --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Varizer 03:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Kelly Martin making a public act of contrition (particularly for the wrongful blocks) is the bare minimum for closing this RfC. See User_talk:Sam_Spade#from_the_RfC. Sam Spade 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. We can close this RFC when action is taken. Revoking of adminship - why is it that over a hundred people have agreed with me that kelly is in the wrong for many days and yet nothing has actually been done.--God of War 20:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. I believe we need some kind of clarity: whether what Kelly Martin has done was the right way or the wrong way to achieve what she felt necessary. If we do not take a decision either way, this discussion will pop up again, and again, and again. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment ... it is quite possible that some problems cannot be solved. There are still people talking past each other, and continuation of this further raises the anger and frustration levels.
Can't we agree to disagree?

Some people will continue to make userboxes that other people feel ought to be deleted, and when they do so, they will annoy people who feel the process has not been followed. That;s what closing the RFC could accomplish.

The question of continuing the RFC rests with whether there are participants who honestly believe that some good can come from such continuation. User:AlMac|(talk) 18:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Course of action

It was pointed out to me above that sanctions against individuals are not the proper result of a RfC. This has already become a rather unusual RfC, and I would not see why it should not continue in that fashion. I would therefore make the following proposal, that the general proposition should be accepted as wiki policy, that an administrator abusing their powers in a case of this nature should be subject to automatic sanction (to be determined), and reversal of the actions which they have undertaken. Sandpiper 03:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether I support or oppose such a procedure, making this proposal on a Request for Comment is fundamentally invalid. If you wish to create policy, you must follow the procedure at Wikipedia:How to create policy. FCYTravis 03:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the rules must always be followed -- oh wait, except for WP:IAR. I always find some irony in controversial actions justfied by IAR, which have the consequential RfC rejected for being "out of process." --66.101.59.18 03:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It still doesn't work that way. Like anyone else, if you want to make a fundamental change of policy, you make a formal proposal, rather than drawing it up by a mob in some obscure corner of the wiki. Furthermore, if you think you've resolved every last option for dispute resolution (which patently has not occurred here), then the arbitration committee is the court of last resort. An RfC has absolutely no juridiction to do anything besides give some indication of the feelings of the community. Ambi 04:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
And what would you say those feelings are, Ambi? Do you think 150+ angry people might be able to create a policy and get it passed if they took a mind to? Or perhaps thats what has you and others looking to close this RfC down (or "refactor" it). Sam Spade 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether this is out of process or not. It is perfectly possible for people to make their views clear here, which can then be transferred to the correct procedures. Nothing is violated by editors forming a consensus which some wiki lawyer can then dress up in the correct plumage. Whether this technically creates policy or simply expresses the consensus that such a policy should be made does not really matter at this point.Sandpiper 03:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A peculiar argument - "It doesn't really matter if this is out of process or not". Isn't people doing things out of process what this whole RFC was about? Zocky 03:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't say so. Technicly perhaps, but the point about whether people break rules, is whether the result justifies the rulebreaking. In Kelly's case, obviously it did not, because it upset a lot of people. Deleting the boxes the correct way might also have upset a lot of people, but at least they would have had their chance to have their say, and would have felt that everyone had agreed to it. This way, they don't. Instead they feel it is just one person's campaign. Now, should my motion here be shown to be invalid, absolutely nothing will have been changed, because no new policy will exist. The failure of process will be self-cancelling. Consensus should be allowed to override rules, but a minority should not.
Another thing - I read the original RFC again. Out of almost 200 people that commented I could find only a few that suggested that desysoping Kelly or anyone else for this or a similar matter would be appropriate. There is clearly no consensus on that. Zocky 03:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, no, but that is not really relevant. I would suggest myself that the correct punishment for a first offense would be to cancel the actions and give a warning. Then have an escalating scale of bans if the action continues. The most important thing is first to address the grievance, by revercing it. Sandpiper 07:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting to get very frustrated with newbies who frankly have no clue how Wikipedia works expecting to order the rest of us around. We don't punish people. Full stop. We never have, and we never will. If someone is doing serious harm to the project, then we work out how best to prevent the harm, which only in the most serious cases (vandalism, trolling or very serious disruption) ends in a ban. Furthermore, it again shows that you have no understanding of WP:BOLD. If something needs doing, it gets done. If people react badly, it gets reverted. You do not "warn", you do not "punish" and you most certainly do not ban. Ambi 08:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok ambi, so how exactly are you proposing to stop the serious harm to the project being done by Kelly, in the name of furthering the project? Sandpiper 19:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What serious harm? Seriously, there's been a lot of mud thrown here, but no one has actually demonstrated how any harm at all has been done. Some userboxes were deleted; it was perfectly reasonable to be bold at the time, not knowing the backlash that would come. People disagreed. Said userboxes were recreated. There is absolutely no harm done there. We sanction people if, and only if, there is ongoing harm to the encyclopedia, and this is very plainly not the case here. Ambi 05:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that analysis, is that Kelly professed an intent to continue deleting even after objections had begun, and as far as I know has not withdrawn her stated intention to start again. It is by no means clear that she could not have reasonably anticipated the furore before she began, and further that someone suited to being an administrator should have anticipated such an outcome. Comments posted on here would even suggest that she enjoyed stirring up trouble. The ongoing harm is the stated intention to resume actions which were being objected to, and the perception that either she or others might at any time do such things again. This uncertainty undermines confidence in wiki and brings into questions peoples willingness to contribute to something which might suddenly change into something entirely different absolutely without discussion. Sandpiper 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, Rebecca, I think they understand Wikipedia better than you do, because I think they've got it more or less right in this situation and you've got it more or less wrong. I think that's a better measure to judge by than experience. When you start complaining and lecturing about "newbies", consider that you're on very tenuous ground. It may be a sign that you are out of touch and deaf to the dynamics of things. Also: when you're lecturing people on things they already know and/or believe, it may indicate you've either misunderstood them or you're posturing for the sake of argument. Everyking 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as you didn't appear to have read anything I actually said, and instead jumped on me for daring to berate "newbies", I don't think there's any point me responding to that comment. As I detailed, and you made no effort to rebut in any way, shape or form, Sandpiper is highly misguided about fundamental aspects of the way Wikipedia works - a misunderstanding which seems to be at the heart of this saga, and a point which remains unchallenged. Ambi 08:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I read what you wrote. I also observed that you endorsed Kelly's viewpoint on the original RfC. I think that says more than anything about who actually understands how Wikipedia works. Everyking 08:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
So this is about my signing Kelly's statement. A-ha. Feel free to respond to my comments here, in which I explained precisely why Sandpiper does not understand the way Wikipedia works, anytime. If you've got issues stemming from my comments in other forums, please take it up on my talk page. Ambi 08:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I had to leave this due to the regrettable need to sleep and work occasionally, but speaking for Sandpiper, it is not at all clear what it is you have explained that I do not understand. I do understand that wiki is increasingly out of control. This is a growth thing.
I don't know how long you have been here. Maybe you remember when there were 6 admins and you all went to the same parties and exchanged christmas cards. But how many of them do you know now? How many will you know in 5 years time when there are ten times more of them? Sandpiper 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I wasn't. Really, this is basic stuff - I'd expect anyone who has been here for even a couple of months, or anyone who has even tried to read some of the material in the Wikipedia namespace to know this. The problem is this sudden onslaught of people who've been actively editing for weeks and plainly haven't read any of that then turning around and insisting that they understand how it all works better than the people who created it in the first place. Ambi 05:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Please explain which basic stuff point I am missing, because I'm still not sure which point it is.Sandpiper 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of punishments, and saying otherwise insults and upsets me, as a person who has been on the unfortunate end of 2 controversial, punitive blocks. Between bans, blocks, arbitration and rude comments of every shape and size, wikipedia is brimming w punishments, that is beyond debate. The question is what to do about it, how to make the wikipedia less punishing, maybe even welcoming to newcomers, rewarding to contributers... possibly even a nice place to be?!? I've been asking Jimbo to help, and now I'm asking you, Ambi. As a "oldtimer", please help. We need you to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Sam Spade 14:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia still doesn't punish. We use blocks in a couple of very defined instances - the three revert rule and personal attacks, cases which have near-unanimous support and which are common enough to warrant a slap on the wrist to encourage people not to do it again. If people push it so far that they are severely disrupting the project, then arbitration comes in - not to punish, but to protect the project from people who are doing more harm than good. And I'm sorry, Sam, but charity starts at home. Wikipedia should be a nice place to be, and it's on those grounds that I tried to extend an olive branch to you yesterday. And despite that, you made pretty damned clear that, above all else, you were either going to get your way or you were going to get vengeance. Ambi 05:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe I just read someone saying there were no "punishments". The way the wiki is currently working, or so it seems, is that an admin who knows that they would meet hostility from many users if they pursued an action through the accepted procedure, circumvented the procedure. In the ensuing kerfuffle, I saw that very same admin block another user for "making a personal attack". Not to prevent them from making more. Not to fix a problem or anything like that. But to punish another editor for making a personal attack. But I'm a newbie. I probably just didn't understand what was going on. Would Ambi mind explaining what I've got wrong in that? I'd really like to know what sekrit workings of the wiki I've missed out on there. James James 02:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't punish. We use blocks in a couple of very defined instances - the three revert rule and personal attacks, cases which have near-unanimous support and which are common enough to warrant a slap on the wrist to encourage people not to do it again. And we certainly don't sanction people for be bold; indeed, we encourage it. In this case, people complained, and the action was swiftly undone. That is precisely why being bold is fine - if there is a problem after all, it can be undone in seconds. They're hardly sekrit workings of the wiki - try doing a bit of reading of Wikipedia guidelines and try making an effort to understand the spirit of the project before insisting that you know what you're talking about. Ambi 05:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Punish - 'to force (someone) to undergo a penalty or sanction' (collins english dictionary). So, you are saying either that no sanctions are applied to anyone, or that it is entirely voluntary whether people choose to observe them. No, I think you are saying that no major penalties, merely nominal ones are applied. So no user has ever been permanently banned, and no admin has ever been removed from that post. Ah, no, someone on this very page said that his sysop rights were removed, so thats not precisely correct either. Isn't there a page listing permanently banned users? Can't be that then, either. Sorry, you tempted me a bit too much there. I don't think we should really get carried away with this. You mean, perhaps, that wiki has a policy of avoiding punishments as far as possible? I suspect the real problem here is that someone has overstepped the mark, and there is a real argument that a punishment would be appropriate, against someone in a position for which impartiality and fairness is expected. Sandpiper 22:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
---
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous to me. You can call it whatever you like. But clouding the issue, labelling newer users, and condescending to those who disagree with you over the use of a word is pointless. And that's all "punish" is here. Rhetoric. Semantics. Maybe Wikipedia doesn't "punish," but we certainly warn, discipline, and even permanently ban users who refuse to abide by guidelines or who exhibit a trend of behavior that is detrimental to the functioning of Wikipedia as a whole. Maybe what you're getting at is that Wikipedia doesn't punish for punishment's sake. I would certainly agree to that. I would also state that I don't think anyone here wants that. I think a large number of the people presenting legitimate concerns over Kelly's actions and attitude are people who don't know her and have no personal vendetta against her (myself included). In fact, had Kelly Martin said that she did not foresee this controversy and apologized for the strife that this has caused in Wikipedia, I doubt this would have blown up much at all. The real issue in regards as to what to do now is that many feel that Kelly Martin is unrepentant (perhaps even hostile) and would probably do this again, given the opportunity. And that's precisely the type of situation in which Wikipedia DOES discipline its users, at the very least, for the sake of deterrence. As for your question as to what harm has been done, I'd recommend that, before you castigate other editors for their inability to read, you go ahead and read the very page this talk page is appended to.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hear hear! And like many others in here, I refuse to be treated as some clueless newbie. Many "opponents" of Kelly Martin are established, experienced, decent contributors, and they (we) deserve to be treated accordingly. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editors who agree with the above proposal

[edit] editors who disagree with the above proposal

  1. CarbonCopy (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Automatic sanctions aren't a good idea. And besides, who would make the determination? Seems to just open another avenue for abuse and/or conflict.
no doubt we would need a forum to lodge a complaint. However, the onus would then be on the person complained about to explain their actions. Which would work much like this RfC has, except that the initial 150 to 50 would have been a majority to reverse the decisions. So if the actions were justified, there would be no problem, and if they could not be justified, we would have resolution again by the agreed rules. But no need to argue endlessly about the proper course of action next. Sandpiper 07:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Dalbury(Talk) 08:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC) This has been an anomalous RfC, and it would be precipitous to change the process over one incident.

[edit] Part four: Concerns about this process

I am DEEPLY concerned that this RfC is being treated as a vote, with running tallies on whether Kelly gets "censured." That is not, and has never been the point of RfCs, and that it is still at the top of this page speaks volumes to the fact that this process still hasn't been turned into something productive. Phil Sandifer 04:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a democracy, Request for Comment, etc. Hey, aren't you supposed to be fishing? I (& Kitty, esp.) expect a report on the daily catch. El_C 04:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. The original RFC doesn't even mention the word censure. What's the basis for claiming that any percentage of people support it? Zocky 04:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
{{sofixit}}. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 04:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 04:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, this RfC is most assuredly not being treated as a vote, as all "voting" sections have been removed from it. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 04:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad - hence the need to not talk about the vote on the page. Because it's not a vote. Phil Sandifer 04:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This isn't really an RfC, anyway. A "Requests for comment" which essentially forbids comment is frankly bizarre, in my view; also, I still maintain it had a head start towards the camp critical of Kelly Martin's actions. Incidentally, I must however point out that despite an out-of-turn, hysterical and unpleasant outburst of mine, the maintainer Phil Welch patiently explained to me the process to add material in defence of Kelly's actions, so it is certainly not bad faith that this has occurred in. I am still, however, not satisfied that this process is really adequate to determine consensus. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, look at it this way. The only reason this is necessary is because the previous RfC was a zoo. (Though I too have misgivings about this.) —BorgHunter (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Also people ARE commenting, here on the talk page. I'll reiterate, I don't think the fact that 100+ people endorsed the first one is lost on anyone important, and it won't all be swept away, and further, it's still there and not protected. ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
We're not going for consensus, just mutual understanding. After that we can agree to disagree. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 06:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we have consensus just yet. If we can agree to disagree about the same things, thats a major step forward--Tznkai 08:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the problem is contempt

The problem is contempt. Contemptous behavior generates anger. Being contemptous toward part of the community is the opposite of civility. This problem can not be solved unless the contempt problem is dealt with. WAS 4.250 06:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear. Sam Spade 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment moved from the RfC

This summary is objectionable. It emphasizes Kelly Martin's response to a particular question regarding a set of conspicuously frivolous, just-created templates and presents it as though it is representative of her stated reasons. The framer(s) of this RfC are perfectly capable of presenting Martin's statements fairly, but choose not to do so. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Monicasdude (talk • contribs)

[edit] Subversion of RfC

What happened to this page is totally unacceptable. The real RfC is @ Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin/original. This page on the other hand is the sort of sick joke that passes for "process" on the wikipedia. Sam Spade 07:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, grow up, Sam. For once, I'd like to see you try putting your differences with people aside and actively try to resolve a dispute, rather than just taking the opportunity to piss on anyone you take a dislike to. Ambi 07:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
"WP:CIVIL to the max!" Oh wait, you're an admin. You don't need to. -_- Go ahead being vulgar and offensive to people all you like. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you need the irony of this comment pointed out to you? Or are you aware? Either way, please remove your commentary, since evidently my doing so is vandalism.--Tznkai 09:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My differences w what people? This welch guy? I don't even know him, and he's the one who replaced the RfC w this farce. Sam Spade 08:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly its this comment that pisses me off the most, and its completely unrelated to the RfC. Sam Spade 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if you felt I was targeting you. I actually meant that in refrence to WP:DICK and was admonishing the community at large for the acidic commentary being used, when the entire point of refactoring the RFC was to remove it.--Tznkai 09:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it was a far more clear example of a personal attack than any of the comments you deleted. Instances like this are exactly why WP:RPA is a disputed guideline, rather than a policy. When in doubt, don't refactor. Sam Spade 09:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
We may have to agree to disagree on that.--Tznkai 10:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the vitrol, what is the resolution to this? Kelly has no sign that she is willing to learn from her mistakes, nor have you ambi, nor has anyone to my knowledge. Therefore their really can't be any resolution, just a record of errors. Sam Spade 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I know you have strong opinions here, but criticism has been aired - repeatedly. At last count, there was more than fifty pages of criticism and counter-criticism, and I really feel that there's nothing more to be gained from continuing that except further bad blood, leading inevitably to repercussions for both sides. If the issue continues to be approached from the stance of "apologise for your sins or we will smite you", it'll just lead to further hostility, but if we can actually sit down and try to work out an amicable solution, as Philwelch and I tried to do last night, then something useful (or at least some peace) might just come out of this. There has been enough bomb-throwing; now is the time for actually trying to resolve this mess in a manner that is amicable to as many people as possible. Ambi 08:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. I don't agree that you and Philwelch alone can work out a solution and impose it on others without their agreement, any more than he can delete my discussion regarding it and claim to be part of an honest dialogue. I do however think that you discussing things politely w someone who disagrees w you is a positive step. My impression of your position is that you feel this incident is not a big deal, and should blow over. My position is that it should be made widely known, so that Kelly will be resoundingly removed from office in the upcoming elections. As different as these 2 positions are, there is room for compromise. If Kelly makes it clear that she regrets her actions and will strive not to repeat them, I would also support the RfC being ended. Sam Spade 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] weirdness

I thought we were going to do this without the incivility and personal attacks. I tried to help here and this is what I get? Fuck this RfC. I give up. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 09:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This does look like a far more productive attempt to get some kind of discussion--a proper RfC. Excellent work, all who have been trying to work on it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Kinda like a sausage. ugly in detail, but tasty with catsup.--Tznkai 09:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I respectfully bow out of this debate

Ladies and gentlemen: It strikes me that the ship of amicable reasoning has long since sailed in this matter, and indeed docked at ports in a far-away, exotic land. I consider myself, at my great personal regret, to have been one of the many mutineers who assisted in cutting the ropes anchoring the ship at bay. I have been consistently arrogant, self-important, insensitive to the concerns of others, and probably my behaviour relating to this matter has been amongst the worst I have ever shown on Wikipedia. I do not believe my reasoning was wrong, rather the way I went about presenting it was, and the manner in which I attempted to ram it home. I realised that I had, overnight, become that dreaded creature - a POV pusher - regarding my views on Kelly Martin's conduct. I thus apologise most humbly to all whom I may have spread vitriol or unpleasantess to by participating in this sordid affair, and promise to never, ever repeat such behaviour. I thus bow out of this dispute, most respectfully. I would like to thank all of those who have worked towards making this debate successful, regardless of its actual outcome. My very best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that was nice, thank you. Sam Spade 09:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the use

This attempt to discuss the issues at hand without the incivility that marked the first go round is obviously failing. I think it's time to take this off my watchlist and let the diehards beat each other senseless. -- Dalbury(Talk) 09:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And the point of announcing this to us was?--Tznkai 09:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The point was showing those to whom it applied that they are driving away those who are actually trying to make a difference. Do you think it applied to you? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Public act of contrition"

What would be most appropriate:

  1. Self-flagellation
  2. Hair shirt
  3. Stocks

Any other choices?

Or should we just end this now and get on with the business of writing an encyclopedia? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A simple acknowledgement that there are legitimate concerns about her actions? —Kirill Lokshin 20:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That isn't contrition. Contrition would be beating her breast and chanting "mea culpa". As Kelly has no intention of doing so, nor should she, by the demands of certain people above, this farce will never end. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
True; but she apparently has no intention of doing what I asked for either, whether she considers it contrition or not. —Kirill Lokshin 21:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think its simple. You don't need Kelly to do anything. You can whip this RfC into shape, send a polite message, and leave it at that. A formal reprimand if you will, with 0 enforcement, because none is needed. You don't ask people to say they're sorry, you politely express your unhappiness and leave it at that!--Tznkai 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
One newb's opinion....There is an RfAr already going, that is the place for any actions other than statements of fact and opinion. Where I'd like to see this end up is with the RfC front page showing a clear statement of the pros and cons of Kelly's actions, that all parties agree is a clear statement. It should include the fact that many people were concerned, and it should include a request that more careful consideration for consensus be given, by anyone, not just Kelly, before undertaking mass deletions in future. I don't think demanding apologies or threatening things, or asking for hair shirt wearing or flagellation is likely to be useful. Certainly I would welcome Kelly acknowledging that there is widespread concern and lack of consensus, but even that cannot and should not be forced. What I would recommend people do, going forward, is use this information as input in how they express consensus about admin and arbcomm candidacies. If I can determine how to formulate civil and respectful questions germane to this (a non trivial task), I may just do so and add them to all the current arbcommc candidate pages. More is not reasonable to expect from a request for comment. We have commented. Except for smithing some of the facts and positions a bit I wonder how much more there is to do that is constructive at this point. PS I previously commented that the RfC should run its course before the RfAr is taken up... at this point I think it has, or almost has, and I think I will revise my request to wait to a request to consider the matter.++Lar: t/c 22:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The point here is not apologies, userboxes, de-adminship, or blame, just a word from our admins and fellow wikipedians that more consideration be taken into mind when deletions are undertaken. (Also, Ms. Kelly's comments and behavior were somewhat un-civil) Talking to people and explaining viewpoints never hurt. And no one, I mean, NO ONE is above not being civil and/or not reaching concensus about matters. No ifs, ands, buts, NO CONDITIONS. Just discuss things over. Please. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. If Kelly does not want to apologize, she should not be forced to do so disingenuously. as per MegamanZero and Lar, what should come out of this is a garuntee that more careful consideration of consensus will be given in the future; what happened, according to both sides, should be summarized and preserved for posterity. the point here should be to make sure this does not happen again, not to punish Kelly. --Heah talk 00:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Note. Zoe's section heading looks like a quote, but actually it's his own phrase and no-one has used the word 'contrition' in this RfC. I feel this isn't helpful as it muddles the issue at hand. — mark ✎ 10:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be a reference to this diff to the talk page (rather than the RFC itself) and the discussion linked to from there. The statement is (as of this edit) still in a list on this talk page, item number 10. Michael Slone (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for pointing that out; I didn't search the talk page indeed. Apologies to Zoe for the false allegation. — mark ✎ 15:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This is my quote. Does someone need me to clarify it, or what? The question that started this thread is clearly rhetorical, so... Sam Spade 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This RfC is now moot

Since policies now obviously count for nothing in Wikipedia, I respectfully withdraw from this RfC following the wise ones among us who already did. In addition, I believe we can delete any article with a {{policy}} or {{guideline}} tag now, since they can now be easily circumvented at whim. I am available for further discussion at my user talk page, or through email. I may post additional comment here as I see fit. I am withholding my contributions to Wikipedia until I can assess its current worth as a concensus-driven, community-supported encyclopedia. Have a great day. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following too closely. How have things been going with this? Apparently not well, judging from the above...what is Kelly saying about her actions now? Does she still defend them? I'm gathering that she does. Everyking 11:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Kelly Martin posted in answer to arbcom election questions

A: I am a strong supporter of IAR. That said, IAR never justifies any action; it merely recognizes that actions can be justified by any rational argument, whether or not supported by policy. Basically, IAR means that one can ignore the rules if one has a damn good reason for doing so, but when one does so one had better be prepared to explain the damn good reason.

A: 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.

A: Administrators are not "special" or "privileged" and are required to follow the same policies as everyone else.

Q: How would you describe the state of Wikipedia now?

A: Troubled. Very troubled. The community has been overrun by a large number of relatively clueless people whom we have failed to effectively indoctrinate with the spirit of Wikipedia. They have become large in proportion, almost a majority if not in fact one, and are causing all sorts of trouble. These new people do not appreciate our core values (which is entirely our fault, for failing to teach them to them effectively) and are running amok in their efforts to create the "Wikipedia Club", in which social interactions are more important than actually writing the encyclopedia. I don't have any quick answers for this problem, but I think it's important for those of us chosen to lead this community to take decisive action to restore the focus of all Wikipedians to our goal of writing an encyclopedia, and to purge from our midst those people whose prime purpose for being here is something other than that goal.

Q: Ms. Martin, you've plainly and admirably professed an adherence to our policies of civility. However, in your communications with other editors, you've often expressed yourself in with a degree of bluntness that could be mistaken for rudeness, including the use of terms (like wikilawyering) that are frequently viewed as perjorative. What would you say to those who feel that the strength with which you frequently voice your convictions is more confrontational than should be expected from an arbitrator?

A: I would say that their expectations are unreasonable. I am not a politician, and prefer blunt frankness to coy evasiveness. At least with me you know where you stand.

extracted and copied here by Sandpiper 00:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC) from Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Candidate_statements/Kelly_Martin


[edit] Elections

For anyone that may be intrested, The Arbitration committee elections for Kelly Martin are now being held. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Kelly Martin. In order to vote, you must have an account registered on or before 30 September 2005 and 150 edits by the start of the election (January 9).--God of War 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As a note, the election notice does appear on watchlists and a lot of other places, so this notice may not have been strictly necessary, and some people may think that this is soliciting for votes by someone not eligible to vote themselves. ++Lar: t/c 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem with soliciting anything on wiki, is that it always solicits the opposite at the same time. However, I am a great believer in openness so I am restoring this section to the text. Sandpiper 20:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I would just add, that anyone considering voting in the elections should at least try to read candidates statements and make an informed choice. (regrettably this is a difficult task)Sandpiper 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move Forward

Can we please take whatever steps need to be taken to move forward on this now? it's been 12 days since the incident, this needs to end in some way.--CastAStone 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that Kelly has withdrawn from the arbcom elections. This is in effect tantamount to resigning from it, althought she was showing a net vote of around 50 against her appointment at the time she withdrew. However, in effect, this would seem to be sentence carried out. Sandpiper 14:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Alright, lets close this then.--CastAStone|(talk) 04:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
She has also resigned from ArbComm. This was an Rf C meaning comment. Not sentence or execution but comment so speaking of sentence carried out seems incorrect and not very sensitive. I believe Kelly knows now that there are a number of editors that, while acknowledging that she believed she acted in good faith, are nevertheless concerned about what she did and why she felt she had to do it, and who felt other courses of action would have been more appropriate. She has said that she would not do it again the same way in future. Personally, I think it is quite regrettable that it has come to this. It is not the outcome I hoped for as I have a great deal of respect for Kelly and for her service to Wikipedia, to the community, and on ArbComm. I just differ about whether and when process should be followed or not. Unfortunately it seems Kelly found herself in a place where she could not or would not accept the majority view and move on. (who among us is strong emough to be able to do so, really, rather than withdrawing and saying "I'm right and the rest of you are wrong"... it is very hard to do!...) So it is almost like her hand was forced into doing way more than most of us would have wanted, and perhaps understandably, Wikipedia may be seeing less of her services. Which again, I think is very regrettable. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving this RfC

The following is listed on the RfC archives page as the criterion for archiving an RfC:

Disputes should be archived under any of the following circumstances:
  1. If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped.
  2. The parties to the dispute agree.
  3. The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.

Regarding criterion 1, This RfC has had no actual comments in a week, other than postings of Kelly's comments made elsewhere.

Regarding criterion 2, Kelly made a number of concessions in her comments which indicated that Kelly would not handle a similar situation in the same way, and more or less apologized to the upset members of the community for the way she handled the situation. This indicates to me some level of agreement.

Regarding criterion 3, Kelly resigned from the ArbComm elections, And stepped off of ArmComm, citing personal reasons, which was the resolution called for by many who commented.

I believe that this should be archived at this point in time due to criterion 2 and 3, and, short that, if five more days pass without new comment, criterion 1 as well. Please agree or disagree with civility below.--CastAStone|(talk) 04:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving this til 23:59 UTC January 14th unless someone objects.

With an objection now noted, I will take comments until 11:59 UTC January 15th.--CastAStone|(talk) 03:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, since this is not achieving anything anymore. Ian13ID:540053 19:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. (I am not a party to this dispute, and this is my first and only comment on the matter.) --Aaron 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - for what it's worth. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Kirill Lokshin 03:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. It's over. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - FCYTravis 03:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Disagree unless it progresses through to a Request for Arbitration and/or a Request for de-sysop (I think that the latter is more appropriate). I think that this needs to stay, as we are still getting comments here, and this is still very much relevant. With the recent ban of User:Mistress Selina Kyle, this is escalating, not calming down. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But the recent ban of User:Mistress Selina Kyle, while it is related to this whole mess, may belong in a separate discussion thread than the reaction to how KM's deletes were handled, and intepretations of community vs. encyclopaedia. User:AlMac|(talk) 12:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Arbitration was rejected. No one has commented on the main page in 4 days other than minor edits and positng Kelly's statements of the 9th.--CastAStone|(talk) 04:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My understanding was that the main reason put forward for the rejection was on the basis that the RFC had not yet run its course. I hope that this being rejected does not mean that an Arbitration is not possible. I for one do not believe that Kelly Martin's behaviour has been addressed at all, other than her being voted out of ArbCom, which itself was a vote not a punishment. I think that punitive measurements are appropriate. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This RFC is about the out-of-process deletion of userboxes. The block of MSK plays no part in this. NSLE (T+C) 06:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe her ban was more due to her worldly attitude toward scientology than to anything in this RfC--CastAStone|(talk) 07:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree --NaconKantari 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. It was a silly fight to begin with. *Dan T.* 04:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Yeah, silly. Sure. Thanks for telling everyone who bothered to voice any concern here that. Nothing is going to be done, Kelly's attitude is unlikely to change, and ArbCom could care less. This page isn't serving any purpose. Sucks to not be an admin these days, doesn't it? - brenneman(t)(c) 04:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree, agree with Zordrac. Everyking 04:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with CastAStone. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree -- criterion 1 appears to be satisfied. Michael Slone (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree that it should be closed. But (call me curmudgeon if you must), I disagree it was a "silly fight". And further (call me Pollyanna if you must) I most respectfully disagree with my esteemed (and fellow footnote loving) colleague Mr. Brennerman that this did little or no good. It's regrettable that the ArbComm case wasn't taken up but I do think things were noticed and hope that there were lessons learned. I certainly learned some things. I also think this case influenced the ArbComm election as well, hopefully for the better (although it's hard to say for sure). ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Sarah Ewart 05:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree I've put it behind me; I just pray behavior such as this does not continue in the future. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In the name of all that is holy yes archive this RfC, nuke it, it hurts me to know that it exsits. --Wgfinley 06:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Respectfully Disagree - Doesn't look like it matters, but I have to agree with Zordrac on this one. This isn't just about ArbComm. Kafziel 06:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I mean agree should have been closed before now - mountains and molehills, you know. --Doc ask? 10:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Bury in peat, etc. --Alf melmac 10:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Time to end this. While there may have been some basis for a complaint, this has gone way too far. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree the matter is resolved.  Grue  11:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Zocky 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. I must respectfully disagree with Zordrac, who would keep this page open. This page should exist solely for comment on Kelly Martin's behavior. That process is over. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. This dead horse has been well and truly flogged. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Let's formulate a reasonable policy and move forward without recriminations. David | Talk 14:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. She has apologized. No need to keep kicking her at this stage. AnnH (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh? Why are we voting to "archive" an RFC? If people wish to stop talking about it, they will. If other people wish to continue talking about it, they will too (which in my opinion would be pointless, by the way). If by "archiving" people mean "protecting", then I strongly disagree (q.v. protection policy). If they mean "not deleting", then I strongly agree (valid RFCs are never deleted). And if they mean "unlisting from the RFC main page" I should point out that generally, RFCs are only unlisted several weeks after debate has died down. Obviously debate hasn't died down here yet. None of the above should require a vote. Radiant_>|< 17:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I broadly agree with Radiant on this. I've no idea what "archiving" an RfC would involve and why it would help Wikipedia to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know all the technicalities, but I believe it means to keep it around somewhere as a record of what was said, but not have it listed any more as a currently-in-progress RFC. *Dan T.* 18:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I read CastAStone's intentions as using the guidelines stated on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive to move the active listing to that page. Whilst this action has in practice taken longer, I see no reason not to invoke these guidelines for doing so sooner, as the consensus so far suggests we do so. --Alf melmac 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Radiant is right, that is what usually happens for RfCs, and this RfC should not be treated any differently than any other (it has even been as pointless as most). However, I would argue that leaving RfC's 'open' for several weeks is usually unhelpful and sometimes harmful - they simply become festering moaning boards or worse ongoing vitriol than allows no-one to move on. Usually within 7 days of an RfC opening (or shorter) nothing new is being said, and if the party concerned feels any need to learn, then they have already done it - and if not, then it is off their watchlist by that point. So, I say, delist - and let's set a new precident. --Doc ask? 18:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Archiving dosn't even move the page, but it takes it off of the current list. this used to be done regularly, it has not been done with any RfC in over 2 months, so there are a few dozen ready for archival, which I will do when/if I archive this one. what is done "generally" is following the criterion above to delist from the main page a.k.a. archive. If you think it is not time to do so yet, now is the time to say so.--CastAStone|(talk) 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That is in fact wrong, I archived several RFCs last week. What is done in most cases, is cut/pasting the links from the main RFC page to the archived page for any RFCs that have not had any activity for at least two weeks. Radiant_>|< 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So, um, isn't that very thing what we all (most of us, I mean) just expressed approval for doing? This RfC has been a bit out of band compared to others, I gather... (how many get "resets"/"do overs"?) Maybe normally some admin just does a WP:Be Bold and cuts/pastes the links and that's that. But in this case by having bunches of people saying support... maybe whatever admin does it won't get lambasted (by the one or two people who didn't support) for doing it? Avoiding needless admin lambasting seems like a good thing to me in this case even if doing the CYA shuffle is unnneeded and unwanted in most cases. If that makes sense. Hopefully it doesn't set a precendent! ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And I, naturally, agree with myself. The final tally is 26 to archive, 3 to wait for further comment, and 2 to just plain wait. The consensus is therefore by a margin of better than 5-1 to archive this RfC, which I will do immediately. --CastAStone|(talk) 12:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

== Kelly Martin back in Arbitration Committee in the Clerk's office == Header changed by Fang Aili to addess concerns that this subject is nonsense (2/1/06) In an underhand procedure, Kelly Martin has been given some of the powers of an Arbitrator again. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerk's_office. The "Clerk's office" was created a couple of days ago. - Xed 17:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So what? Let it go. Holding on to your anger is not good for your health. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, let it go. Just take comfort in the fact there's about a gazillion people watching every move. --Oscarthecat 19:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Very underhanded. Letting it go would be bad. Ignoring abuses means more abuses will happen. Everyking 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought it looked pretty underhanded too, but based on my skimming of the "Clerk's office" page and discussion, it looks like the clerks don't have any real power; they're helping the Arbitors but not making any decisions. --Fang Aili 20:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully. Anyone here ever actually worked as a clerk? And can they say with honesty that clerks have no power? LOL. Only if they are only hired for their looks. Real clerks have real power. 203.122.221.73 04:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC) --Dschor 16:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
In this case, they will not. They will only have write access to the arbcom mailing list. They cannot influence decisions. They can basically just organize the various pages and help with such stuff as informing users that cases are open against them, closed, etc. Basically secretarial type work. Nothing beyond that. They won't be writing decisions as far as I know. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've resigned from the Clerk's office. I would request that this discussion be terminated. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Kelly_Martin_eb46.html"