Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Kelly Martin (talk • contribs • logs) has stated that she is forming a new policy in order to close off ongoing discussion pertaining to an issue. Both the tone of the statement and this method of creating policy have been questioned.

[edit] Description

On 2 August 2006, Johntex (talk • contribs • logs) proposed a clarification to the guideline Wikipedia:Logos. The proposed clarification would read

Sports team logos may be used in articles or aticle sections where the team is discussed. Discussion of the logo itself is not necesary. However, there must be some discussion of the team represented by the logo. Use of the logo is not allowed in a list unless the list contains discussion of the team.

Please note that there are two different situations involved: one where the logo is used alongside discussion, and one where it is not.
Discussion has proceeded at Wikipedia_Talk:Logos. There has also been a request for mediation cabal action, which has gained the support of editors from multiple sides of the discussion[1] but which has not yet been accepted by a mediator. but the process is slow. Mediator Kaitei has agreed to accept the case.
During the ongoing discussion, Kelly's first statement (8 August 2006) was to state that she was ending discussion on one of the two points in question. Kelly seemed to be basing this action partly on the basis of off-wiki discussion.[2] When asked by Johntex[3] to point to notes from the off-wiki meeting where this was decided, Kelly's response was somewhat vague: "...there were several sessions on copyright and I believe the issue came up in at least two that I attended."[4] Future discussion reveals that there is no recorded record of either of the two sessions.[5]
In a follow-up statement, Kelly said "I have now formulated a policy as a result of the discussion. You may continue the discussion if you wish, but the policy is now made, and will be enforced."[6] However, she did not write his "statement of policy" into any actual policy. Instead, she stated on the Talk page "...the fact that a policy does not appear on any policy page does not in any way deprive it of policy status."[7] Kelly has not ruled out the possibility of issuing a "ruling" on the second half of the discussion.[8] The question is whether Kelly Martin violated policy (WP:CON, WP:DR, and WP:EQ) in making this policy statement during ongoing discussion, and whether she violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in her tone.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

The following is a selection of edits which may fail to WP:AGF, fail to be WP:CIVIL, or appear needlessly provocative through their tone. Other edits on the subject may not been included.

August 8, 2006 
WP Logos 05:57 - User talk:Kelly Martin 12:25

The following is a selection of edits which may violate WP:CON, WP:EQ, and WP:DR by attempting to unilaterally close off dicsussion rather than seeking agreement and consensus building, by attempting to build policy through unwritten off-wiki conversations, even in the face of ongoing discussion on a Talk page, and by being outside of an existing request for dispute resolution.

August 8, 2006 
WP Logos 05:57 - User talk:Kelly Martin 05:51 - User talk:Kelly Martin 07:57 - User talk:Kelly Martin 10:00 - User talk:Kelly Martin 10:41 - User talk:Kelly Martin 11:39

The following is a selection of edits which may be taken to imply that unwritten policies are to be enforced, even with the threat of blocking.

August 8, 2006 
WP Logos 07:06 - User talk:Kelly Martin 05:51 - User talk:Kelly Martin 10:03

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  2. Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Wikipedia:Consensus
  4. Wikipedia:Etiquette
  5. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

[edit] Related policies and guidelines

  1. Wikipedia:Blocking policy (in so far as using blocks have been threatened upon editors who do not follow along with Kelly Martin's policy statement)

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Requests on Wikipedia_talk:Logos to provide a basis for the action: Mecu, Nmajdan, LtPowers, Dknights411, Remember, Johntex, MrDolomite
  2. Requests on User_talk:Kelly Martin to provide more information or expressing concern over curtailing discussion: Johntex, Johntex, Dknights411
  3. Request specifically requesting Kelly Martin engage in the open mediation discussion: Mecu
  4. Rejection of that suggestion by Kelly Martin: Kelly Martin

Given that Kelly's first statment in the discussion was under a bold heading labeled "Enough", it seems clear that from the very beginning, Kelly has wanted to have the final say on this matter. Mediation has been specifically refused. Blocks have been threatened which may have a chilling effect on some users. Therefoere, it seems other attempts at communicating directly on this issue are not likely to be productive.

[edit] Summary

  • Policy discussions and decisions should be made on-wiki, except for actions by Jimbo, Danny and the Foundation Board (such as WP:OFFICE)
  • If a policy discussion is moved to a new forum, efforts should be made to ensure the original people discussing the situation are informed and brought along into the new venue.
  • Kelly's authoritarian and dismissive tone was a violation of WP:CIVIL and Kelly violated WP:AGF by discounting opinions that differed from Kelly's.
  • Kelly violated WP:CON, WP:DR, and WP:EQ when choosing to make a personal statement that discusion had to end.
  • Excluding Jimbo, Danny, the Foundation Board, and the Arbcom, we do not want to allow any actions or statements that may imply we have a new class of user who is able to make a definitive statement of policy in the face of ongoing discussion.
  • It is not acceptable for one user/admin to state on a talk page that he/she is setting policy without incorporating the change into an actual policy page.
  • It is not acceptable to take the view that we have policies that are not written down because the community cannot be expected to follow rules if the community does not know what those rules are.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Johntex\talk 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. MECU≈talk 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Powers 01:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1.  — MrDolomite | Talk 00:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Remember 00:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. NMajdan•talk 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Masonpatriot 14:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ian¹³/t 17:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Herostratus 18:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Also, Wikipedia:Blocking policy may be considered to be upgraded from "Related policies and guidelines" to "Applicable policies and guidelines" as Kelly Martin did block one user over this with no talk page warning.[9]
  7. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. LotLE×talk 18:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Everyking 14:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Karwynn (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) OPened up a talk heading "Karwynn's endorsement"
    --MONGO 10:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (decided to comment instead)
  11. David D. (Talk) 19:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

First, the small things: I am not a "he". I will charitably assume that Johntex is merely ignorant of my gender, rather that trying to be rude in some way.

More importantly, I am not trying to close off discussion. I specifically stated that discussion may continue. At the time, however I believed there had been enough discussion, and that it was time to make a declaration of my intent to enforce what amounts to existing policy by creating a new, specific policy: that galleries of unlicensed team logos are not acceptable on league or conference article pages, and to put everyone involved on warning that reverting any edit removing such galleries is a blockable offense. This policy actually flows from generally accepted policy prohibiting galleries of unlicensed media of any sort, and from generally accepted policy permitting the aggressive blocking of people who wilfully violate copyright policies. These broad policies are themselves derived from our fundamental mission of creating a freely-redistributed and freely-reusable encyclopedia. My new "policy" is simply a clarification of existing policy to the immediate dispute, and is really just a declaration of my intended future practice, a warning to those who might choose to ignore it, and an invitation to other admins to join me in enforcement.

I will not address the numerous claims that I have violated an alphabet soup of policies. To quote SethIlys, "ooh! I can't even read that! too many acronymns!" I don't even know what half of those acronyms mean without looking; I am not a wikilawyer. I don't even know how I could violate the dispute resolution policy (which is apparently what "WP:DR" stands for, something which I wasn't aware of until I hovered over the link).

Addressing the specific items in the "summary" section:

  • Policy discussions and decisions should be made on-wiki, except for actions by Jimbo, Danny and the Foundation Board (such as WP:OFFICE") - To this I must vehemently disagree. Those of us who are involved in driving policy often discuss policy in forums such as IRC, email lists, and (less often than we should) face-to-face discussion. The face-to-face discussions of policy we had at Wikimania were, in my opinion, extremely valuable, and I hope we have more of them in the future. In any case, my declaration of intent to block people for creating galleries of unlicensed sports team logos wasn't something that was specifically developed at Wikimania, although my decision to make that declaration was certainly informed by the discussion we had there.
  • If a policy discussion is moved to a new forum, efforts should be made to ensure the original people discussing the situation are informed and brought along into the new venue. - Discussions of policy move between venues constantly. Some of these venues are private. You are not invited into my dining room, where I often discuss Wikipedia policy with my friends and family. As to policy discussions at Wikimania: Wikimania was open to anyone who wishes to attend, with very few exceptions. It is very reasonable to expect that at a gathering of a significant fraction of Wikipedia's leading contributors and administrators, policy would be discussed.
  • Kelly's authoritarian and dismissive tone was a violation of WP:CIVIL and Kelly violated WP:AGF by discounting opinions that differed from Kelly's - Actually, I was being civil in giving fair warning that blocks would ensure if the violations of policy continue. Giving warnings, even stern warnings, to policy breakers is generally not incivil. Furthermore, I do not see how examining and ultimately concluding that an offered opinion is meritless is in any way a failure to assume good faith. I fully accept that a misguided opinion can be offered in good faith; however, what matters is whether the opinion has merit, not whether it is faithfully held.
  • Kelly violated WP:CON, WP:DR, and WP:EQ when choosing to make a personal statement that discusion had to end. - This statement recites a falsity. I specifically stated that discussion may continue. Furthermore, I do not see how it is possible for me to violate the policies on consensus or dispute resolution, or the guidelines on etiquette, as the former merely documents how consensus and dispute resolution normally work on Wikipedia, and the latter is merely a list of suggestions of how to minimize conflict between users. None of them seems to me capable of being specifically violated, as in all cases the individual editor is free to decide for himself or herself the best course of action in any given situation. These policies offer guidance for the editor, not directives to the editor, and are descriptive instead of prescriptive, like almost all Wikipedia policy.
  • Excluding Jimbo, Danny, the Foundation Board, and the Arbcom, we do not want to take allow any actions or statements that may imply we have a new class of user who is able to make a definitive statement of policy in the face of ongoing discussion. - I do not claim to be a member of any special class of editor; any editor may declare at any time his or her intentions as to how policy should be enforced. Insofar as I am an administrator, I have the authority to carry through on such declarations, but I am one of nearly a thousand administrators and as such am not particularily special in this regard. I am aware that many editors hold my opinions in high esteem, and I try to refrain from making such declarations when I am not certain that the declaration is in the best interest of Wikipedia. In this case, I am certain. I am being bold, which is purportedly a virtue on Wikipedia.
  • It is not acceptable for one user/admin to state on a talk page that he/she is setting policy without incorporating the change into an actual policy page. - Wikipedia policy pages are descriptive. They describe, to some degree of accuracy, what policy is, or at least was at some past time. Policy itself constantly changes as editors and administrators examine situations and decide how to proceed. The written state of the policy invariably lags behind the actual state of policy. I do agree that the policy documents should be kept as close to the current state of policy as possible, which is why I encouraged other editors to update policy to reflect my recommendation. I simply didn't have time to do so at the time, as I am still dealing with the consequences of being away from home for the past several days. To be quite honest, I don't even know where in the current corpus of policy documents my policy declaration would best fit; I admit to not be very well-informed as to the current organization of the descriptive policy documents. It is my impression that they are in serious need of a cleanup. Perhaps we should arrange an administrative retreat where a small number of editors from the community could sit down around a table for a few days and hash out a better descriptive policy.
  • It is not acceptable to take the view that we have policies that are not written down because the community cannot be expected to follow rules if the community does not know what those rules are. - Mainly see the preceding section.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. "I am aware that many editors hold my opinions in high esteem, and I try to refrain from making such declarations when I am not certain that the declaration is in the best interest of Wikipedia" basically says it all. ed g2s • talk 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. InkSplotch 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yes, I agree. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Tony Sidaway 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Kelly is to be commended on coming up with a good, solid policy. It would take a few sticks of dynamite to shift it.
  7. Policy is made by the people who show up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Donald Albury(Talk) 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC) How can there be any dispute that galleries of unfree images of logos violate WP policies.
  9. Ms. Martin has not done anything wrong. —Kjetil_r 11:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Cyde Weys 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Bastique▼parler voir 14:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. "When people foolishly insist on their right to do things that are clearly against policy, and don't stop when asked nicely, the next step is to ask them less than nicely." Tom Harrison Talk 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC) The matter of logo use is clear and Kelly's leadership in this area is to be applauded. Regarding offwiki decisionmaking, that train left the station long ago; see also MeatBall:GetARoom. I find the Wikiquette complaints to be without basis.
  14. She did the right thing. This was extensively discussed. In all the sky is falling 1984 talk, did anyone pay attention to Jimbo's emphasis that we should reduce the amount of fair use claims on Wikipedia? Fair use only works in the US, and virtually no other languages try to use it. We're the free encyclopedia, not the fair use one. - Taxman Talk 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Sxeptomaniac 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. —Phil | Talk 20:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. The abuse of logos for decoration is far from the worst of our problems, but it is still forbidden and with good cause. This is not news. Kelly deserves much credit for defending our pages from the gratuitous insertion of unfree content. --Gmaxwell 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. WAS 4.250 21:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. --SB | T 21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. per Taxman Jkelly 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. I only wish I were of the appropriate temperament to make such pronouncements concerning my interpretation of policy so confidently. Johnleemk | Talk 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. TheronJ 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. FloNight talk 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Interiot 10:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Michael Slone (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. per Taxman. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. -- Drini 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. --(ESkog)(Talk) 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. 172 | Talk 06:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

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

[edit] Aeon

Hello, After reviewing all difs and links I have come to the opinion that Kelly Martin has most unfortunately acted in a manner that in inappropriate for a SYSOP. Reading through the Dif's and associated pages, Kelly Martin has violated WP:CIVIL a few times. Kelly Martin could have also and probably should have assumed good faith and should not have acted against consensus in regards to the discussion over the logos. By carrying on as she has done she has acted in a way that concerns me as an editor. A SYSOP should be the model to which non SYSOPS like my self should strive to be like (more or less) and should support and enforce Wikipedia Policy instead of violating it. It is my hope that Kelly Martin when reading this RfC realizes the error of her ways and becomes a better SYSOP because or it. Æon Insane Ward 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Æon Insane Ward 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  2.  — MrDolomite | Talk 00:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Remember 00:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. --MECU≈talk 01:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Attic Owl 02:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dknights411 02:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Herostratus 04:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Z4ns4tsu 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. KWH 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Masonpatriot 15:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. NMajdan•talk 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. User:Angr 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  16.  Grue  15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. rootology (T) 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC) The policy developed is a useful one in dealing with the specific problem that has been brought up, from the discussion I've seen as a completely uninvolved observer. The approach to making use of it, however, would appear to be the problem. Her statement that "I" had formulated the policy in the first invocation of said policy was the biggest problem. This is obviously a solid administrator, but this and other recent issues, as well as the comments here, should give her pause to reflect on her handling of relations with the editing community.
  19.  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Ian¹³/t 17:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Joe 18:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (I concur in the spirit of Tony F's comment as well)
  22. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 02:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Everyking 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Thumbelina 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Danielross40 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) This is unfortunate. I know this is an admin who is dedicated to the project, and she is also one who should know better. This is the second time her actions have resulted in an RfC. Implement policy... but PLEASE try to do it in a way that doesn't offend the rank and file. It's quite easy to upset people here, but I have to believe it's easier to do things in an unoffensive way. Danielross40 12:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Badgerpatrol 02:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. CharonX/talk 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Computerjoe's talk 09:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. LotLE×talk 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Karwynn (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) ALthough I must admit this sounds exactly like the orginal summary. May modify as needed.
  33. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) I wanted to spend an extra couple of days looking over the diffs, just to make sure before weighing in on this matter.
  34. Ansell 12:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Not because the policy in question is wrong, but to show people that they are not able to make unilateral decisions in a consensus wiki environment. Doing so will harm the community which is a necessary prerequisite to getting cooperation, especially on the issue in question.
  35. I firmly believe this RfC is fundamentally about behavior (WP:CIVIL especially) and not about policy. --StuffOfInterest 17:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. David D. (Talk) 19:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Bubba ditto 22:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Blanning

I'm leaving the central issue of copyright policy, unilateralism, threats to block etc. to others, who will be able to put it better than I (I don't like redundant outside views). However, I do have something I'd like to say on the issue of how Kelly brings up these off-wiki discussions.

I find any suggestion that formulation of policy, or any important decisions for that matter, could be formed outside of Wikipedia pages very disturbing. That usually applies to the IRC channels and/or the mailing lists, which I don't subscribe to. I find it more disturbing than I can put into words the suggestion that formulation of policy could take place at some con or other in America.

Now, I don't think that Kelly Martin is actually suggesting that a policy was formed at Wikifest or whatever it was called and we now all have to follow it - it seems more as if she's saying that discussion took place which should be paid attention to. In my opinion that still doesn't wash, as many Wikipedians - no, the vast majority of them in fact - were on the other side of the world from that discussion and have no idea what was said, nor can they, per [10].

If something important regarding copyright was said at Wikithingia, it has to be made available here, and if discussion took place, it has to be rehashed here before it can be claimed to have resulted in any actionable conclusion. Otherwise not only does it put many editors in the dark, but it especially alienates those in foreign countries - or to be more accurate, countries outside America, as no country is supposed to be any more foreign than another in this worldwide encyclopaedia.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I naturally support the right of Jimbo, the Board, Arbcom etc. to make decisions without making their reasoning public - however, a) Kelly Martin is not claiming to make decisions in any such capacity, and b) Arbcom, for one, doesn't have a geographical bias.)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sam Blanning(talk) 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (as writer of above)
  2. Æon Insane Ward 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  3.  — MrDolomite | Talk 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Remember 00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. --MECU≈talk 01:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC) with my preference for correction stated on the talk page, see the link below.
  6. Powers 01:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Attic Owl 02:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Dknights411 02:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Herostratus 04:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Avenue 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Z4ns4tsu 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Masonpatriot 15:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. NMajdan•talk 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Mailer Diablo 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    (Commentary has been moved to the talk page. --SB 00:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
  15. -- nae'blis 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  18.  Grue  15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. rootology (T) 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Ian¹³/t 17:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Joe 18:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  23.  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 02:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. Everyking 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Thumbelina 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Yes. Policy discussion on the mailing list and IRC and eventually in real life is inevitable, but any new policy has to go through WP first. Having said that, Kelly was just explaining her interpretation of policy (which is eminently correct, IMO), so I am making a general statement that doesn't really apply here. Johnleemk | Talk 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Badgerpatrol 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Totally agree. Policy is subordinate to the community and its goals; almost by definition policy cannot become consensus off Wikipedia. It's fine to discuss, and fine to say that the people I happened to run into at Wikimania and whom I talked with about this proposed fair use policy agree with me when one discusses a proposed policy on-wiki, but it is a whole 'nother thing to say that as a result an official policy has been formed and I think I will begin enforcing it now. --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. With a few exceptions (Jimbo etc.) policy can't and shouldn't be decreed, nor should it be created outside Wikipedia as - let's try for something absurd here - anybody could discuss "policy" with a few pals (leaving out almost all wikipedians), and then go implement it. Well, with the one difference that some would actually have the power to enforce any "policy" they could create that way. Let's keep that can of worms closed, right? Maybe the worked-out Wikimania proposal might have been presented as a (quite finished) policy proposal, instead of policy right away and much grief could have been avoided. CharonX/talk 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Elonka 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Off-wiki policy discussions can no doubt be useful and if you and your friends work something brilliant out in a conference then by all means draw up a proposal and collectively endorse it. Then those of us not fortunate enough to have been at the con can give our input as well. Haukur 11:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. LotLE×talk 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC). I happened to have actually attended all the copyright-related talks at Wikimania myself. Kelly Martin's concerns about fair use are not unreasonable or absurd; but neither are they obviously correct either. AFAIK, she ain't a laywer even. The questions need discussion and policy resolution on Wikipedia, not in whatever back room Kelly Martin happened to discuss the question with, with whomever she so discussed.
  37. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Karwynn (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Policy needs to be available for review, editing, and most importantly, reading.
  39. Transparency is vital. Bubba ditto 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  40. StuffOfInterest 17:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  41. David D. (Talk) 19:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  42. Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Policy should be decided by the community and open to debate.
  43. Travb (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Kelly has had a history of pushing her policies, and getting infurated if someone questions them. I ask her a question about how copyright policy was formed, and she refused to answer my questions, 8 times.
  44. kingboyk 18:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Definitely. Wiki business should take place on-wiki as far as possible.
  45. David Mestel(Talk) 20:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) fewer than 0.05% of Wikipedians attended Wikimania, and I am deeply, deeply concerned by Kelly's language whereby she unilaterally declares policy. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it's not a dictatorship either.

[edit] Herostratus

Blocking, or threatening to block, can send quite a serious message. It's one thing to temporarily block an editor for edit warring, vandalism, flinging insults, and the like. That at least the person blocked can (or should) understand. It's quite another thing to block for violating a new, esoteric, and strongly disputed interpretation of policy concerning a minor detail of some sports-related pages. Threatening to block after one notice with no further warning gives the same effect, to a lesser degree. Blocks and block warnings should not be used in these circumstances until the editor has been individually engaged and, at the very least, informed of the circumstances. An edit summary does not satisfy this requirement. (And at least Ed g2s if not others have been galvanized to such actions by Kelly's declaration.) Blocking a constructive, productive editor with hundreds or thousands of edits to his credit in this circumstance constitutes an unsubtle demonstration of the power relationship between him and the blocking admin, and basically sends the message "you are not wanted here". Is this constructive to the encyclopedia? No it isn't. Herostratus 04:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Johntex\talk 05:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Attic Owl 06:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. — Deckiller 06:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Addhoc 12:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. MECU≈talk 12:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Dknights411 13:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Z4ns4tsu 13:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Æon Insane Ward 13:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  10.  — MrDolomite | Talk 14:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. KWH 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Remember 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. NMajdan•talk 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Masonpatriot 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. User:Angr 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Mailer Diablo 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. -- nae'blis 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  20.  Grue  15:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Haukur 15:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. rootology (T) 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. SB_Johnny | talk 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  24.  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Ian¹³/t 17:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Joe 18:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. I have no quarrel with Ms. Martin's intentions, which don't strike me as particularly revolutionary. But the use of blocks in this situation did much more harm and accomplished nothing that couldn't have been done better with a more subdued approach. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Sam Blanning(talk) 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. classic example of doing the right thing in a needlessly-dramatic way. Friday (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Exactly what Sean and Friday wrote here, and Sam did in his statement. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 02:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Yes. I don't contest the policy, I do contest the quick and brusque way of blocking. — mark ✎ 08:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Everyking 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Thumbelina 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Nails it. Vsion 21:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Elonka 19:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Carmen Chamelion 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  40. Karwynn (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Blocks are to hinder disruptive behavior, not discourage people whose edits an admin dislikes from editing.
  41. Bubba ditto 23:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  42. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  43. StuffOfInterest 17:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  44. David D. (Talk) 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  45. Fairsing 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  46. Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC) The threat of a block has a chilling effect on editing. It directly flies in the face of WP:BOLD. While all of us need to be aware of copyright issues, not everyone is going to know the details right away. Education is needed, not just a heavy-handed block, unless people repeat the behavior after being warned.
  47. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC) What Elkman said, particularly about the Chilling Effect.

[edit] Philwelch

This RfC isn't senseless drama, it's just stupid. Policy discussions happen off-wiki for a reason: wikis are awful for facilitating discussion. I believe any user conduct RfC can be cited as evidence. I applaud Kelly for having the intestines to do the right thing, even when it's unpopular.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. — Philwelch t 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. The lack of commentary on the rightness of the policy in question by the other responders is telling. I fear that they'd support a bad policy produced by "good" (in their view) processes. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Interiot 11:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Telling indeed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Regrettably, I agree. People are too idealistic that everything can be handled in a wide-open discussion with the entire community. What they fail to realize is that we have lots of nutters and people who are simply not here for the right reasons; thus, they don't particularly care what happens to Wikipedia so their opinions aren't well-grounded in the project's goals. One of the best examples of this is the "userbox wars"; we had hundreds of people showing up to policy discussions and nothing was being done. Eventually we pushed through the German solution and now deleting userboxes isn't very contentious - if nothing else, because so many of the people who were here for the wrong reasons are gone now. In this case I do believe that the people arguing for fair use galleries are here for the wrong reasons, or at least, aren't here for the right reason, that of creating a freely redistributable free encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. I agree as well. I've been watching the entire event unfold with limited input, and it appears that mob mentality is taking over. This is why much of policy is created in human, person-to-person sit-downs. Bastique▼parler voir 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Phil | Talk 15:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Tony Sidaway 21:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC) After much contemplation, on balance I think this is not only a reasonable view but also possibly a correct one with worrying implications.
  9. Jkelly 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Syrthiss 12:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Gmaxwell 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Donald Albury(Talk) 23:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) How did I miss this one earlier?
  13. -- Drini 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. 172 | Talk 06:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attic Owl

The issue here isn't copyrights as much as behavior towards policy making, which is seriously flawed.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Attic Owl 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  2.  — MrDolomite | Talk 04:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Indeed. I'm concerned that we've been presented with a false choice between passivity and abusiveness: it's possible to be proactive while remaining civil. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. I agree that the specifics of copyright are a red herring in this RfC. David D. (Talk) 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SB_Johnny

To be quite honest, I read this RfC yesterday (just a few minutes after it was opened), and wanted to reply, but was feeling a bit intimidated by saying anything critical about an admin who exhibits this sort of behavior. Admins have a few extra tools available to them, but they're intended (I hope) to be used in administration, not for excersizing control over "mere" contributors.

Comments such as:

I have no basis for beliving I have greater authority to decide the question. I've simply decided to make the decision, because someone had to. You are free to ignore the policy I've decided on; however, doing so may be problematic for you. [11]

and:

There has been an extensive discussion. The sides hve been drawn, and the arguments made. I have now formulated a policy as a result of the discussion. You may continue the discussion if you wish, but the policy is now made, and will be enforced. [12]

should be retracted and apologised for: both on the page where they were posted, and on the userpages of those involved. They should not be rephrased by Kelly at all, and due to the hard feelings involved here: she should just stay out of the discussion for a while and watch quietly. There are bound to be others who share her views on this issue and who can advocate them effectively, because at this point it is clear that no-one will take her views at face value, and in fact may be daunted by a fear of being blocked by an admin who seems to have lost her cool. She needs to step back from the issue and allow others to build a consensus before getting involved in it again.

On the other hand: from the nature of her comments, I get the impression that Kelly was really revved up by the excitement of the wikimania convention, and perhaps just came off a bit harsher than she intended to. Much as one might drive inappropriately fast on a back road after spending an hour on a highway, Kelly may have forgotten for a while the difference between hard debates in person (possibly with lots of beer), as opposed to consensus building on wikipedia (which may or not involve beer on one side or another). There is, after all, a big difference between an off-the-cuff comment made while sitting around and chatting and an off-the-cuff comment made in writing, which is much easier to misinterpret. In other words, I don't assume bad faith on her part, but rather think she has momentarily forgotten the nuances required in demonstrating good faith when discussing things on wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. SB_Johnny | talk 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Powers 15:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. NMajdan•talk 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. MECU≈talk 15:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  5.  Grue  15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Johntex\talk 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mailer Diablo 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Remember 18:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 02:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  11.  — MrDolomite | Talk 02:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Yes, I stand behind this nuanced summary. We should certainly strive to decrease use of fair use images on Wikipedia (as Taxman says somewhere above, "we're the free encyclopedia, not the fair use one"), but upon having reviewed Ms. Martin's course of action, I think the case was made needlessly dramatic. I feel it would have been better to ask another admin to weigh in, and if really needed, to place a block; for her placement of the block in this case could be construed as violating the blocking policy (she herself being involved in the dispute). All in all, a short way to say this would be that Ms. Martin's course of action was too brusque; such an attitude should be avoided because it tends to have bad effect on the atmosphere of our collaborative project. — mark ✎ 08:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Avenue 09:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. The art of persuassion seems to be getting lost as people ram through changes. Change is good but patient explanations are also good. David D. (Talk) 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Elonka 19:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Karwynn (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Adminship is about maintenance, not control.
  17. Threats, either actual or implied, and unilateralism are never good. --StuffOfInterest 17:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Vadder 18:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] InkSplotch

I find Kelly Martin's actions to be inline with consensus (established outside of, and well before the Logo pages), as well as the Foundation and Jimmy Wales' comments:


And it is one which we should approach with great caution. I would be in favor of never relying on "fair use" at all, except that it would be silly and close to impossible to do so, particularly since ordinary quotes from copyrighted texts are "fair use". Shall we have a rule that we can't quote a few words from a copyrighted text? Absurd, I think.

Even so, caution is warranted, because re-users might not be in the same position vis a vis fair use as we are. And we should be sensitive to that.

– Jimbo , wikitech-l 2003-06-01

2. At the same time, we need not "push the boundaries of law" on this -- we can and should be conservative about our own legal exposure.

3. We also need to be sensitive to the needs of reusers in multiple jurisdictions. This also suggests that we should be conservative for their benefit. At a bare minimum, this means we need to have good tagging and source documentation -- something that we do very poorly at the moment.

– Jimbo , foundation-l 2004-08-10

English Wikipedia is in my opinion far too liberal about accepting fair use images -- not from the point of view of pushing legal boundaries, because I don't think we really do -- but from the point of view of encouraging the development of free alternatives.

– Jimbo , wikinews-l 2005-04-23

Now this may not have been well known amongst the crowd on the Logo discussion pages before now (I just dug this up with a google search of the mailing list archives, I'm certain I could find similar quotes from Jimmy Wales on the wiki itself if the search engine worked better), but fair use issues have flared up on Wikipedia several times over the last few years. And Kelly Martin has been bold in those times as well, and her actions upheld. I am dismayed by the lack of faith in her experience in these matters, and further concerned at the impression I get from some that her boldness here must mean she's wrong.

I see admins here as leaders, and Kelly as a strong leader in the realm of Fair Use practices on Wikipedia. I don't think this means anyone needs to agree with the direction of her leadership, if you don't than an RFC is an excellent way to discuss the issues. But this RFC wasn't called to discuss the choices she made, but that she dare make choices at all.

I believe in consensus. I don't believe consensus means we need before we can ever act. Sometimes, people firm in their convictions need to act. If they're wrong, the Wiki will heal itself. From what I've seen, it's done a pretty darn good job so far.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. —Phil | Talk 16:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Well said. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Super endorsement Bastique▼parler voir 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Couldn't agree more. Be bold is an valuable character trait that is being crushed by those who care more about process than about substance. Consensus on all decisions is not one of the governing principles of wikipedia. Redistributable content is. -- Seth Ilys 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sxeptomaniac 17:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Good summary. I disagree w/ Kelly on plenty of things, but not this one. Her actions are completely appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Tom Harrison Talk 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Endorse. Donald Albury(Talk) 19:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Cyde Weys 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. When consensus does not serve the ultimate goal of the project (a freely distributable encyclopedia), consensus may be boldly ignored. We're not Napster or Limewire for a reason. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. AnnH ♫ 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Tony Sidaway 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Gmaxwell 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Jkelly 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Kjetil_r 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Syrthiss 11:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Legitimate uses of fair use are being tarnished with the thousands of far more common and inappropriate instances of fair use. This gives the extremist argument concerning the banning of fair use altogether traction. Johnleemk | Talk 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. TheronJ 20:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. FloNight talk 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. AMEN -- Drini 18:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. [ælfəks] 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sxeptomaniac

I believe Kelly Martin's only failing was in not being as clear regarding the issue in the original talk page as she was above in her response. I have seen enough issues come up around unlicensed images here to know that it is a concern for the higher-ups. InkSplotch has previously summarized those above. Being bold is good, but often it's also helpful to stay cool, and carefully think through one's comments before jumping in.

So, in summary, I believe Kelly correctly summarized important policies, but probably should have phrased it more clearly, especially given the finality of her stance. I consider this to be relatively minor, and not an infraction of any actual policies, though.

  1. Sxeptomaniac 17:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. With the caveat that this is not so much a "failing" of Kelly Martin's as much as a failing of a great many of us, myself very much included, to allow a deliberate and coordinated flouting of our license and copyright policies to continue for weeks without sending a clearer, firmer message much earlier. Jkelly 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ditto Jkelly, although this should not diminish the fact that Kelly could have been clearer in her meaning. Johnleemk | Talk 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avillia

  • The actual portion of the psudeo-policy-whatever she is trying to uphold is fairly true. There was a open forum at Wikimania, it sounds like a consensus was met, and it sounds like the Foundation's Legal Council was present. I'm not about to say some such folly against Fair Use law, illogical and bloated as it is.
  • That being said, going into whatever page Kelly went into, citing the results of a forum likely to change policy (a very key policy of drastic importance to Wikipedia), and using that as justification to force changes was wrong. The actual legal liability caused by the situation regardless, it sounds like that while the situation didn't quite conform to existing policy, it didn't violate it either. But, you know, whatever. It may have been a bad course of action, but it's a understandable one.
  • There is one last note to be made about a few remarks made; They do sound quite intimidating, as well as a mite self-absorbed, and do reflect badly on both the Project and the Person. It would really be nice if these remarks cooled off a bit, regardless of the status of the AngryCloud, but I'm not exactly in a position to recommend that, considering what a blunt, rude, hypocritical bastard I am.
  • In regard to the above (Inkwhatshisnameis), [13][14] don't say "We should be conservative in our fair usage for the sake of legal liability", a statement which would have averted all this. It says (Please do recall the above, as I need to be blunt here;) "I'm making the rules on Fair Use now. If you don't like my rules, you'll get blocked. Oh well." And that isn't being dramatic, either. That is more or less what got said, in a summarized format.
  • Any action should have been postponed until the policy changes were formalized, plain and simple. Considering the policy we are talking about, formalization is probably along the lines of a Board Member (including Jimbo) or Brad going there and editing in the changes theirselves. While Kelly is a outstanding volunteer for the Foundation, she does not, at this time, hold a offical position, nor do most administrators here. (hint, hint).
  • All that being aside, Requests for Comment... They're designed for reviewal of actions and, via instruction and such social constructs as DissuadeReputation in the event that someone is being a stubborn jerk, or ReinforceReputation (something like that) in the event that people act in a fashion the community feels right... I expect Kelly hate to pile up here regardless of the actual chain of events, I expect the usual fanatical calls for deop and absolute condemnation by the community at large and by higher authorities, turning RfC into a tool for conflict escalation instead of conflict resolution... And in advance, I would like to say the following:

Sigh.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 23:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. MECU≈talk 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC) All except last word.
  3. KM was absolutely right in what she wrote, but chillingly wrong in how she wrote it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Powers 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC), particularly the last paragraph and word. Powers 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Endorse paras 1-5. Regarding the last one, some bits of Requests for Comment can be stupid, and that certainly applies to this one as well as Kelly's last one. However, a good editor will be able to tell the difference between the reasonable voices and the bullshit, and will consider the former and ignore the latter. The bullshit doesn't make the reasonable voices worthless. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mailer Diablo 01:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. I agree and hope that no one else calls for Desysoping, if would be VERY wrong to do so. Æon Insane Ward 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. This is a partial endorsement; I don't believe Kelly intended to create policy, just to enforce it using a new interpretation. Johnleemk | Talk 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rootology

I think the aim of the RfC is a gauge of civility and perceived overstepping of bounds... Rereading it all, her wording seemed to have caused the fracas. A good action in enforcing existing policy, but declaring statements that read to the 'common' users with an "I am the Wikipedia" tone are never needed or warranted--no one user has any more intrinsic value to the Wikipedia project than any other, irregardless of their being an admin or a regular editor--except Jimbo. Any user can of course make up a new policy or interpretation of policy but it's not policy unless Jimbo, the legal team, or concensus says it is, in that order. I can pose a new policy tomorrow that says "You shall not upload images on odd-numbered Tuesdays, during the full cycle of the moon," but it would irrelevant, justly unenforced, and justly rejected unless concensus agreed that Tuesday full moon uploads on the 5th of November were a bad thing. EDIT: Added last entry, somehow missed on copy/paste.

  1. Consensus is never one, unless the one is Jimbo or a Wikipedia Foundation attorney.
  2. Changes and reinterpretations of policy--or declarations thus--can be made by any one person, but should/shall never be considered policy or enforceable unless that one person is one of the ones listed above.
  3. Changes and reinterpretation of existing policy should/shall be done by concensus only, for obvious sanity reasons, unless the Office says otherwise. Discuss possible changes wherever, but changes to policy if not an Office decree need to be vetted by concensus.
  4. An admin's role is to enforce existing policy, not "ban"--in response to various points throughout the RfC and the Talk page behind it. Unless I'm misreading everything Wikipedia is.
  5. The edits by Kelly to nuke the gallery was a good faith action action based on perceived existing policy.
  6. Good action in the end by Kelly for the edits, but could have been handled much better, and with far less of an inflammatory and dramatic tone.
  7. The block itself was not a good idea, as it was based it appears on a new interpretation of policy, as opposed to something existing and approved by Jimbo, the Foundation, or concensus.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. rootology (T) 00:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  2.  — MrDolomite | Talk 02:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Your first sent agrees with the SoD above. Thx for summarizing.
  3. NMajdan•talk 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SB_Johnny | talk 14:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Karwynn (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) An encyclopedia is not served by unilateralism of any type, and Kelly Martin doesn't have the authority to supercede that.
  6. Johntex\talk 01:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Partial endorsement - disagree on points 4,5,6. Johntex\talk 01:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Semi-)outside view by Simetrical

  1. Kelly Martin's interpretation of the fair-use policy is at least consistent with past statements of Jimbo Wales amongst others regarding the concept behind the "freeness" pillar of Wikipedia, and I believe the interpretation is furthermore almost certainly the correct one, but there is good-faith disagreement on this issue.
  2. Foundation issues such as freeness of content are not subject to consensus in their essentials.
  3. However, where there is a good-faith dispute amongst established and respected members of the community as to the interpretation of a Foundation issue, it is unnecessarily damaging for one side to unilaterally declare the discussion over and begin enforcing their side of the issue. Rather, in such a case, a Wikimedia Foundation official such as Jimbo, Brad, or Danny should be asked to clarify. This will result in much less conflict and angst, at no cost to the enforcement of Foundation issue.
  4. Kelly Martin is a prominent member of the community, and it seems likely to me that she could get Jimbo's attention on the matter if she tried. Therefore, she acted incorrectly in unilaterally announcing her intent to block others, who included administrators, based on her interpretation of policy. This is not relevant to whether she's right or not in her interpretation; angering and alienating contributing members gratuitously is bad.
  5. This RFC is not frivolous or stupid. It is a good-faith attempt to open discussion on a member's behavior, which is the entire purpose of the RFC process.
  6. Could someone please ask Jimbo or Brad to comment so we can end the underlying pointless dispute? I've already tried, and they didn't respond to me.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  2.  — MrDolomite | Talk 02:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Titoxd(?!?) 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Powers 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC). Eloquently stated, Simetrical.
  5. Æon Insane Ward 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. rootology (T) 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. -- nae'blis 14:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Tony Sidaway

It is a reasonable act, well within the purview of an administrator, to deter people who would knowingly, without a solid justification, place unlicensed material on our free encyclopedia. Declaration of intent to block for such abuses is a reasonable and laudable action. Kelly is to be commended for blocking a deliberate, repeated and knowing abuser (see here, here, and here). Well done. Wikipedia is not a venue where knowing copyright infringement has ever been countenanced. Knowing copyright infringers may be blocked, irrespective of their excuse.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Tony Sidaway 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cyde Weys 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Yes. Johnleemk | Talk 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Donald Albury(Talk) 00:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Gmaxwell 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. —Phil | Talk 07:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jkelly 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Bastique▼parler voir 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. FloNight talk 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. —Kjetil_r 22:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. -- Drini 18:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. [ælfəks] 02:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Cowman109

Copyright infringement is not a joke. It is a very serious matter that could have serious legal implications for the foundation. Administrators are there to deal with such issues and block users to prevent copyright infringement from occuring when users are persistent in adding possible violations. Usually, if use of a copyrighted image is questioned, it could potentially be harmful to the encyclopedia. Cowman109Talk 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Cowman109Talk 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cyde Weys 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. I'll note, however, that flattering use of logos is very low on the infringement cleanup priority list. Jkelly 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Toffile 20:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC) No disagreement here with copyright protection.
  5. rootology (T) 20:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ; to principle of this outside view
  6. Voice-of-All 20:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. TheronJ 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. —Phil | Talk 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Bastique▼parler voir 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. FloNight talk 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. AnnH ♫ 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Donald Albury(Talk) 23:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Johnleemk | Talk 07:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Although logos are about the least important from a copyright perspective they are still important from a free content perspective. I still fully agree with the above. --Gmaxwell 17:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. While thinking this has almost nothing to do with the substance of this request for comment. brenneman {L} 01:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. -- nae'blis 14:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (with the observation that Aaron should stop reading my mind). -- nae'blis 14:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. —Kjetil_r 22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum to view by Cowman109

This RFC has gone for much too long. Yes, Kelly Martin was working to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. She may have sounded a bit harsh, but there were no blatant personal attacks and blocks are indeed tools used to protect the encyclopedia. This has been addressed and blown out of proportion into something much bigger than it needs to be. We could be much more productive if we went back to editing the encyclopedia instead of complaining about an administrator's actions that have already been addressed - there is no further need to go any further. Thank you, now if you'll excuse me there are backlogs to deal with. Cowman109 23:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Cowman109Talk 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Obviously :)
  2. My name is Tony Sidaway and I endorse this message! 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. My sentiments exactly. Let's get back to the project. Bastique▼parler voir 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Phil | Talk 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. totally -- Drini 18:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    let it go -- Drini 18:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. I almost didn't endorse this because I was busy getting back to work on the 'pedia. Thanks for wasting two minutes of my life, Cowman. :p Johnleemk | Talk 05:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Donald Albury(Talk) 11:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. [ælfəks] 14:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by TheronJ

I don't see the problem with Kelly's actions.

  1. She had a reasonable understanding that galleries of copyrighted team logos would violate Wikipedia's existing core policies relating to copyright, fair use, and the creation of an open encyclopedia. She gave fair notice that she would block users who reverted properly summarized removals of those galleries. This seems consistent with Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Block.
  2. Kelly explicitly said that the discussion could continue. If the logo proponents can somehow establish that the use is appropriate, they may be able to start inserting galleries but (1) copyright policy isn't subject to consensus, it just is; and (2) while the issue is at least in doubt legally, I don't see the problem in remaining on the safe side and keeping the galleries out.
  3. I don't see the problem with Kelly referring to the off-Wiki discussions. She explained her reasons, and also disclosed that the discussions occurred. She could have kept the discussions secret, but that would result in less full discussion, not more. It's not reasonable to expect people not to discuss Wiki off-line, and I'd prefer those discussions to be disclosed rather than not.
  4. Maybe in a perfect world, Kelly could have explained this in a way that didn't hurt people's feelings, and I agree that admins should try their best not to offend the hoi polloi (such as myself), because some admin-related resentment is natural. With that said, Kelly's comments weren't any worse than a lot of the other comments thrown around, and certainly didn't violate WP:CIVIL.

TheronJ 20:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. TheronJ 20:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cyde Weys 20:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jkelly 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. AnnH ♫ 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Bastique▼parler voir 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Cowman109Talk 21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Tony Sidaway 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Of course.
  8. FloNight talk 23:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Donald Albury(Talk) 23:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Johnleemk | Talk 07:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Makes sense to me. --Gmaxwell 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. —Phil | Talk 15:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. —Kjetil_r 22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. -- Drini 18:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. [ælfəks] 14:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by MONGO

I agree with all efforts to protect wikipedia from copyright violations. I agree that those that knowingly add copyvios to wikipedia should be blocked. I agree that admins should be bold about addressing these issues and should act swiftly and firmly. I do not agree that vague policy should be expected to be followed if this policy hasn't been adequately explained on a policy page in a written form. I completely disagree with off-wiki policy development via IRC etc., though do agree that Jimbo Wales and the foundation can develop policy and then have someone else then write it into the appropriate policy article as changes are decided. Maybe Kelly has the blessings of Jimbo Wales and the foundation, but I have not seen that expressed anywhere in particular. So, changes in policy on the fly seem to me to be both arrogant and elistist. I am concerned about Kelly's comments in her response:

  • "Those of us who are involved in driving policy often discuss policy in forums such as IRC, email lists, and (less often than we should) face-to-face discussion." By the comment "those of us who are involved in driving policy" I presume that Kelly believes that she has somehow been a major player in Wikipedia policy decisions. Most of the policies that Wikipedia has have been altered some but they generally predate Kelly Martin's arrival at Wikipedia, which is about one month before I started.
  • "Discussions of policy move between venues constantly. Some of these venues are private. You are not invited into my dining room, where I often discuss Wikipedia policy with my friends and family. As to policy discussions at Wikimania: Wikimania was open to anyone who wishes to attend, with very few exceptions. It is very reasonable to expect that at a gathering of a significant fraction of Wikipedia's leading contributors and administrators, policy would be discussed." Of course Jimbo Wales and a number of those at the most recent Wikimania event are important players in this endeavour, but to assume that just because you got to go to Wikimania somehow makes one an important player is just plain arrogant. I can think of hundreds of outstanding regular editors and admins too that did not go to Wikimania. I am glad policy was discussed there, but before coming back and proclaiming policy without bothering to write it into policy pages one should recognize that not all of us could attend Wikimania and be part of this "significant fraction".
  • "I do agree that the policy documents should be kept as close to the current state of policy as possible, which is why I encouraged other editors to update policy to reflect my recommendation. I simply didn't have time to do so at the time, as I am still dealing with the consequences of being away from home for the past several days. To be quite honest, I don't even know where in the current corpus of policy documents my policy declaration would best fit; I admit to not be very well-informed as to the current organization of the descriptive policy documents. It is my impression that they are in serious need of a cleanup. Perhaps we should arrange an administrative retreat where a small number of editors from the community could sit down around a table for a few days and hash out a better descriptive policy." This last comment is simply troubling to the core. Kelly states that she isn't well-informed of the current organization of descriptive policy documents. Kelly tells other editors to update the policy based on her recommendations as if others are her personal secretary. Lastly, the idea of a "small number of editors from the community" gathering together to determine policy is really troubling. That is the kind of thing that should be discussed in the talk pages on a policy or via the creation of a proposed policy.

In summary, my opinion is that the right thing was done in the wrong way, and those that filed the RfC have a message for her which I read to be: stop acting like a mad bull in a chandelier store...something is bound to get broken.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --MONGO 11:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. -- The things that are likely to get broken are editors, and we must prevent that from happening, Mr./Mrs. Martin's ego notwithstanding... Attic Owl 14:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. NMajdan•talk 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. LotLE×talk 17:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC). Other than the general sensibility of MONGO on such questions, I think the point about Wikimania is notable: I was there too; I "discussed policy" with some people; but I wouldn't dream of proclaiming the result of such discussions simply on the basis of the fact I live near Cambridge (or even if I had paid for a plane ticket). Discussions need to happen on regular WP policy pages and the like.
  6. rootology (T) 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. KWH 10:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Carmen Chamelion 14:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC) per Mongo, Lulu and Owl. Carmen Chamelion 14:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Herostratus 16:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. — Rebelguys2 talk 16:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. brenneman {L} 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. There's a difference between why and how - most reasonable editors have no objection to why she acted. -- nae'blis 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  14.  — MrDolomite | Talk 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. David D. (Talk) 22:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Johntex\talk 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Mailer Diablo 08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Excellent summary of the problems. Endorse. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Xoloz 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Endorse. Thanks for the quotes - I didn't realize that Wikipedia policy decisions could as easily be made in Kelly's dining room by discussion with her family and friends. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Endorse. Policy that affects the entire Wikipedia body needs to be made on-wiki, not in someone's living room. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Transparency in all things (where legality allows) is critical. --StuffOfInterest 16:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Seems like the right take on this Æon Insane Ward 00:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Fairsing 05:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. --Firsfron of Ronchester 10:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  28.  Grue  11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. I fully support Kelly's efforts to uphold our policies (and would have endorsed her resoponse if she had been willing to strike through her implication that it requires charity to assume that someone who made a genuine mistake was not trying to be rude); but I do wish she'd spend some time reflecting on how administrators such as GTBacchus and Jkelly are able to enforce policies while making an effort not to antagonize people unnecessarily. AnnH ♫ 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Haukur 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC) As I mentioned above, policy needs to be decided by the community. Copyright issues aren't a matter of discussion, but the implementation details are.
  32. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Vadder 22:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Evil saltine 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Nandesuka 01:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Bubba ditto 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Well stated, Mongo. -/- Warren 23:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Bearcat

Although I recognize that there may be an issue with Kelly's manner of communicating in this dispute, she is entirely correct in that Wikipedia fair use policy explicitly precludes the use of "fair use" logos and photos in any context other than the specific article about the specific topic. The Miami Dolphins logo, for example, can only be used on the Miami Dolphins article. Under fair use rules, it cannot be used in a list article on the team's conference; it cannot be used in a template; it cannot be used in a logo gallery on National Football League; it cannot be used to illustrate Miami, Florida; it cannot be used to illustrate a biography of a Miami Dolphins player; it cannot be used to illustrate Dolphin Stadium. It can only be used in the article on the team represented by the logo.

This isn't just some personal rule made up by a Wikipedian to be difficult, it's the actual state of federal copyright law — so if you don't like it, write your congressman, because nobody on Wikipedia has the power to do jack shit about it. I know it seems arbitrary, but the law governing fair use explicitly states that a copyrighted image only meets the definition of fair use in a discussion of the thing itself; it does not meet fair use policy if it's being used to illustrate a different topic, even if that topic is a related one. And if the policy page isn't clear enough in a given situation, then yeah, somebody does have to step up and clarify or expand the policy as written.

Kelly is, thus, entirely correct on the issue itself, though I'd ask if maybe she could try to communicate it a little bit differently in the future. However, I remain concerned that on some level, this RFC really has more to do with objecting to and/or disagreeing with her statement itself, rather than her method of communicating it. Quite simply, I don't see that she's done anything which really warrants an RFC or any kind of sanction. Bearcat 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Cyde Weys 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Interiot 01:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. TheronJ 01:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC). Update: On reflection, I'm not positive that Bearcat is correct that the law is as settled and absolute as he/she indicates. However, as long as the issue is at least in doubt, I think Kelly was reasonable in barring logo gallery use pending further discussion, and I think Bearcat's remaining analysis is spot on. TheronJ 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Donald Albury(Talk) 09:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Johnleemk | Talk 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. InkSplotch 13:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Phil | Talk 15:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Tony Sidaway 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Regarding Bearcat's second paragraph, copyright law is somewhat more subtle than stated above, but having a clear and easily understood Wikipedia policy that is acceptable under copyright law is another matter. I agree with him on that. I also agree that this entire RfC would be utterly inexplicable except in terms of a dislike of the idea that an administrator or other experienced Wikipedia can and should say these things. Those who harbor such dislike may feel that they would be happier on some community that, devoted solely to discussion, never has to move forward and make decisions. There are many such communities, but Wikipedia is not one of them.
  9. -- Drini 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Agree that copyright is a non-negotiable issue, but the implementation of policies is negotiable.
  11. [ælfəks] 02:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Karwynn

mostly copied from discussion to see who, if anyone, agrees

I won't adrees everything here - other summaries have it covered (see my endorsements for my complete outside view). What I do want to discuss is civility, especially in regards to admitted and deliberate intimidation. These sort of comments [15][16][17] make me think that this is not a slip-up of policy; moreover, it seems to be a lack of understanding or possibly even respect for the civility policy or dispute resolution. I've seen countless disputes, some very divisive, some including disputes over WIkipedia policy, both with admins involved and without, that were solved without sarcasm, disdain or intentional intimidation. Intimidation and not-so-light-hearted sarcasm only serve to inflame and alienate people and cannot be productive. The way to solve disputes is not to use scare tactics and take advantage of one's position as an administrator to supercede civility and mutual respect as equals. Tactics like intimidation that specifically target another user's feelings rather than their claims are counterproductive, inflammatory, and just plain mean. I've seen several vandals-turned-legit editors, even if they have to get a username - what would the effects be on that sort of "transformation" if {{test}} were replaced with "If you so much as misspell another word in one of your edits, you and your IP address will be banned forever. Your kind are not welcome here!" Working together is always better than pulling rank and being closed to discussion. Intentional intimidation is not acceptable in dispute resolution under any circumstances. Karwynn (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum at 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC): This Jimbo comment is disturbing. WHat Kelly needs is not necessarily a block or desysop, but a major attitude adjustment. Karwynn (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Karwynn (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. This is exactly my feeling. Admins and 'higher ups' need to be more open to discussion. At the very least they should be more transparent with regard to their rationales. I understand it is tiresome to rehash the same arguments again and again. If this is too difficult then create a FAQ page and direct people to these rationales and examples of the point you are trying to make. It is not enough to say or imply "I am right" or "this has been discussed before". Not all wikipedians are up to speed and the encyclopedia will not evolve if admins do not listen to legitimate objections to policy. If other wikipedians have more access to the rationales for such decisions and are given time for such rationales to sink-in, there will be far less friction at the policy level in wikipedia. Kelly and others should be using the strength of the argument to persuade other wikipedians they are correct, NOT the strength of their connections. David D. (Talk) 16:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. I like the tone of this, this is how I feel that Kelly Martin has conducted herself. If I was a newbie I and had been on the receiving end of her statments I would have left the project. I only hope the Ms Martin sees the error of her ways and becomes a better admin. Æon Insane Ward 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. rootology (T) 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) ...nail on the head.
  5. Powers T 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. NMajdan•talk 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. KWH 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  9.  — MrDolomite | Talk 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Yeah. Mean people who pull rank are not my cup of tea. It's one thing when you have employees; they have to take it (up to a point). When you're running a volunteer organization... it boggles the mind that people think that kind of stuff is productive. I mean, people work here because they enjoy it. People who are in Major No Fun Mode are not just a drag, they're a detriment. Why can people not see that. Herostratus 03:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Mailer Diablo 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Sarcasm and intimidation are the quickest way to drive away new editors. --StuffOfInterest 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  14.  Grue  11:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Wikipedia defines intimidation as an "attempt to frighten or overawe by speaking or acting in a dominating manner". Merriam-Webster says it "implies inducing fear or a sense of inferiority into another" and gives the synonyms "cow", "bulldoze", "bully" and "browbeat". I accept that sometimes we have to warn people that they will be blocked if they do certain things. I also accept that we will then have to block them if they do go ahead and do it. But we should always do these things as a last resort and as nicely as possible under the circumstances. We should especially avoid inducing fear and a sense of inferiority in people. Haukur 14:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Travb (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment By Carmen Chamelion

Everything seems to have been hit on, i'd like to Call To Question, or whatever the Wikipedia equivalent is.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Carmen Chamelion 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Almost-Outside View by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

This is a top-to-bottom debacle. The "policy" involved is necessary. The brusque and condescending-seeming way in which it was implemented was unnecessary and counterproductive. For KM to announce the policy in this way was disruptive. KM admitted that there was no immediate need for urgent action. If a good enough consensus was reached at Wikimedia then another administrator could have made the policy announcement. An administrator more trusted and respected by the entire community, for whatever reasons. The policy has been poorly explained. The importance of free content needs to be clearly expressed. The policy must be clearly communicated to WP editors. A reasonable transition period focusing on education rather than coercion is required. The current discussion does not correctly describe copyright and trademark law. If the supporters of the policy cannot describe it clearly and accurately they cannot convince other editors to use it.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. David D. (Talk) 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. rootology (T) 22:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Bubba ditto 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Powers T 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. NMajdan•talk 23:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. badlydrawnjeff talk 02:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Mailer Diablo 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. KWH 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  11.  — MrDolomite | Talk 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Definitely a poster child for "what not to do to improve WP" all around.
  12. I agree, KM's is correct to enforce policy but the way she tried to enforce policy was wrong. Æon Insane Ward 20:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Evil saltine 23:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Outside View by BigDT

Is anyone actually defending logo galleries? I think it is pretty universally agreed that a gallery of fair use images violates existing policy. That wasn't even being discussed until Kelly brought it up. The original topic, as I understand it, was using logos in articles like 2006 FIFA World Cup. Scroll down to the bottom and you will see a bunch of tables. Each team name has a graphical logo next to it. This is fine because those are PD flags. The question is, would this be fine if we were talking about NFL teams or NCAA schools? In my mind, that's questionable at best. The lesser question is, suppose you have an article on that classic USC-Texas game - 2006 Rose Bowl. Is it acceptable to display the USC and Texas logos in this article? In my mind, this is reasonable. At any rate, none of this has anything to do with logo galleries. I would encourage Kelly to let process work. Participate in the discussion - don't declare it to be ended just because you don't like it. Allowed to procede, it would probably reach the right conclusion anyway, but llowing the processes to run causes fewer hard feelings. (Note, I have no problem with blocking someone who repeatedly violates existing fair use policies by creating a fair use image gallery. My concern is this edit [18].) BigDT 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. rootology (T) 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Johntex\talk 01:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) - exactly right. An article about a sports contest between two teams, both of which are extensively discussed in the article, is a perfectly acceptable place to use the logo of the two teams. Johntex\talk 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. NMajdan•talk 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) - In your FIFA example, no. Placing the Ohio State Buckeyes logo here, where there is critical commentary,
  4.  — MrDolomite | Talk 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC). This RfC isn't about the logo issue, but that definitely needs to be clarified as well.
  5. Mailer Diablo 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC), especially that last edit mentioned is indeed very worrysome.

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.