Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin/original

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Kelly Martin has abused her sysop powers by deleting userbox template pages out of process and without any discussion at all.

[edit] Description

Kelly Martin recently began a wide-scale deletion of many of Wikipedia's userboxes. (See the log under Powers misused below.) These deletions occurred out of process, and the stated reason (on Kelly Martin's talk page) is that "Those templates are crap and should be deleted. No point in wasting TfD's time with them." [1] (That same diff also contains the sentence "Screw process," something ill-befitting someone whose duty is to uphold process on Wikipedia.) She further asserts that the templates should be deleted "per recent comments by Jimbo", though these comments were not linked to, and it should be noted that Jimbo's comments do not make a Wikipedia policy.[2]

[edit] Powers misused

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

  1. Template:User AI (Amnesty International)
  2. Template:User Chinese Traditional Religion (Taoism or Buddhism)
  3. Template:User antimonarchist This was deleted by a different admin; my mistake. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian
  5. Template:User Anti-euro
  6. Template:User GoaPsyTrance (Goa and psytrance, two very closely-related genres of trance music)
  7. User:UBX/Communist
  8. User:UBX/Capitalist

It may also be of interest that while she deleted many of the supposedly "crap" userboxes, several very prominent ones were left undeleted. Under Wikipedia:Userboxes/International Politics for example, {{user Chinese reunification}} was deleted with the rationale "states a political or religious affiliation". On the other hand, {{user independent Taiwan}} was not. Since these 2 templates are located close to each other, I don't see how one could have been deleted while the other not, if the reasons are really as she cited. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location was untouched, where almost every single one of the userboxes show a political affiliation. {{User AmE-0}} was unceremoniously deleted with the cryptic message: "Not." But to be honest, I'm more concerned with her unwillingness to cooperate and her Father/Mother-knows-best attitude. I don't really care what her justifications were, the least she should have done is communicate with the users. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes, and a talkpage is there for a very good reason!

[edit] Applicable policies

Wikipedia deletion policy (and CSD) do not cover "use of unfree images," "incivility," or "political content," especially in templates intended for use in the User: namespace only. The templates she deleted were not sent through templates for deletion, and were deleted unilaterally without any attempts to gather consensus or even, originally, explanation as to why all these userboxes were suddenly disappearing. Kelly's "Jimmy Wales made some comments" defense only arose after she was questioned as to why the userboxes were being deleted, and in any case, Jimmy Wales alone does not dictate policy for Wikipedia. (Even if he did, the policy is not yet listed anywhere.)

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [3] User:Grue made the original comment asking Kelly to cease. The reply was "Screw process," etc. [4] Grue's response: [5] Kelly's response, which says that "putting process over result is just wrong":[6] NOTE: Until 03:04 2 January 2006 this statement misquoted Kelly Martin as saying "putting policy over result is wrong," and some user statements on this page may therefore be responding in part to a comment she did not actually make.
  2. My comment asking for a reason these had been deleted: [7] A response to User:Dbiv asking for Kelly to follow proper procedure: [8] Kelly's claim that she is enforcing policy: [9] Two responses by User:Miborovsky and myself: [10] [11]
  3. Right here on this RfC: "it's just that I took a break after finishing the C's; don't worry, I'll get to the rest soon enough" - sarcastic, scathing, vitriolic, acrimonious, insolent. When an admin cannot even drop her holier-than-thou attitude when being confronted with an RFC, there is something seriously amiss here.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  2.  Grue  22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Miborovsky 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC) (My comments in green)

[edit] Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Seancdaug 22:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Morgan695 22:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mistress Selina Kyle 31 December 2005 (UTC) — WP:RFDA
  4. Sceptre (Talk) 22:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mike Dillon 22:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oscarthecat 22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Fang Aili 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. TCorp 23:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Synapse 23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. KirbyMeister 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. rst20xx 23:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. dannycas 23:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. --Celestianpower háblame 23:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. – ugen64 23:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. --Angr (t·c) 23:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Chris 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - Two of my created userbox templates have been arbitrarily deleted without discussion.
  21. OneTopJob6 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - My (since restored) PGC was deleted, PBC was not. See statement for irony.
  22. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Firebug 00:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) This whole process is a blatant defiance of Wikipedia policy.
  24. Kurt Weber 00:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) As Mojo Nixon has suggested to Don Henley, "Don't be afraid of fun; loosen up your ponytail!"
  25. AnnH (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC). However, I'd like to make it clear that I do not in any way endorse the actions of Mistress Selina Kyle.
  26. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Ian13ID:540053 This is mad, there has been no discussion or cleanup. The threats for future deletions, an her general disrespect make me feel de-adminship is in order.
  28.  ALKIVAR™ and people wonder why there were objections to her getting on arbcom and becoming a bureaucrat.
  29. --God_of War 01:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - Where is Template:User Anarchist2 I created this yesterday I have seen no notice of tfd.
  30. Cjmarsicano 01:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC) See also my comments below.
  31. —Andux 01:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Inanechild 01:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - Wikipedia should be a community, not a bureaucracy.
  33. karmafist 01:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) It's about time. If this is what we can expect of someone on the arbcom, the supposed enforcers of policies and guidelines, then there's little hope for any policy or guideline on Wikipedia, which seems to be the case lately since they all contradict each other or can be so easily circumvented, as evidenced here. karmafist 01:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Probert 02:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) This is an outrage!
  35. mdmanser 03:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - Actions by admins (which are not reversible by normal Wikipedians) should always be discussed/warned first.
  37. Utterly innappropriate behavior. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Kelly Marin's arrogant and paternalistic attitude is offensive and terribly inappropriate behavior for an sysop. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 04:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Rogue 9 05:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Can we just ban all the deletionists already? Regardless, those who revel in the destruction of others' work have no place as admins, and I would argue have no place on a Wiki.
  40. FREAK OF NURxTURE. 05:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Niffweed17 05:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Jiang 06:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Terence Ong Talk 06:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Per Miborovsky, it's odd that the admin deleted Chinese Reunification template without deleting Taiwanese Independence template. These are two sides of the same n-faceted coin. --BenjaminTsai Talk 07:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    She was going in alphabetical order. That's already been discussed. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. SatuSuro 08:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 10:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - There should be some discussion at a talk page before creating a load of red links to users' talk pages.
  47. Closedmouth 10:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Lukobe 10:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. FireFox 11:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Ral315 (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. D-Day 12:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I find it odd that she would delete Communist templates, when, in theory, her actions are themselves Communistic.
    Red baiting is good, red baiting is great, we surrender our will to Comrade Stalin as of this date! El_C 12:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. User:Noisy | Talk 13:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Ali K 13:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Cactus.man ✍ 13:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - Disappointing behaviour on what appears to be a unilateral deletion spree. Particularly ironic given Kelly's stated personal policy in relation to the use of Admin powers: "Use talk pages".
  55. They may waste a little time and space, but it is on *user* time and *user* space and if it makes an editor happy to "show their colours" in this way rather (or inaddition to) in their userpage text, then it is not for one person to decree that they must not do so. Unacceptable behaviour - discuss before delete please! --Vamp:Willow 14:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. →AzaToth 15:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Though I recently gave up adding more userboxes to my page (instead taking a different approach [12]), in all seriousness Kelly's actions were utterly against policy and stunningly arrogant. the wub "?!" 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Holy crap. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. This is an absolute farce and shouldn't be allowed to stand. Deano (Talk) 16:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. UK Bourbons3Talk 16:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Seems like far to wide-sweeping an action to be justified with no discussion --Petros471 16:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Out of process deeltion is always bad. "Screw the process" is far worse. This ought to be grounds for considering de-sysoping. DES (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. In my own exchanges with Ms. Martin, she has been consistently sarcastic and arrogant. Her attitude is now detrimentally effecting the personal wiki-pages of numerous users. She needs to learn better "playing-in-groups" skills. Xoloz 17:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Mrs/Miss Martin has repeatedly demonstrated that she regards rules as beneath her. I am extremely concerned that Jimbo thought she was suitable to be an arbitrator, as her behaviour shows her to be woefully inadequate for the task.--Victim of signature fascism 17:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Yes, talk pages exist for a reason. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Should probably be desysoped for this, absent a full apology—it's wildly unacceptable. Everyking 19:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Back off, Ms Martin. You're about to raise a tsunami of protest from the Great Unwashed. --Peripatetic 20:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Wikipedia's greatest strength is the fun, casual, joking nature of the community. Kelly Martin has something stuck in her craw and takes herself too seriously. I take WP more seriously than anyone, and even I think userboxes are fun. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. A person's userpage is not an article, people should be allowed to express opinions and beliefs on their userpage. Asdquefty 22:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. I'm willing to believe the motivation for the deletions was good. But, the way it was done and Kelly's response to the objections shows arrogance and disrespect for the community. Kelly Martin should be desysopped for having a temperament unsuitable for an admin. Friday (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. While assuming good faith in Kelly Martin's intentions for the good of the encyclopedia, the policies in force should be followed. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 22:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Very uncalled for deletion. Station Attendant 23:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Lawyer2b 00:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Varizer 00:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Joe Sewell 02:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. —Preost talk contribs 02:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Lord Bob 02:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Titoxd(?!? - help us) I don't care much about the userboxes themselves, but there are legitimate issues here about administrative conduct. 02:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. --SpacemanAfrica 03:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Strange behavior. Cyberevil 05:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. I think the heart of the matter here is how she behaved, not the issue of userbox template pages themselves. She acted very dictatorially in the Wikipedia democracy. BehroozZ 06:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I know it's been said before, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. Ultimately, what matters should not be Ms. Martin's supposed violation of democratic practice (because, in any case, Wikipedia is not a system of laws, either), but her disregard for consensus, which is the principle method through which the core goal of Wikipedia (producing an encyclopedia) is accomplished (at least, that's how I see it). – Seancdaug 06:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. What's so f'ing bad about userboxes? Apart from that, that was way out of the usual way to do it, with no reason to ignore all rules. —Nightstallion (?) 07:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. David Hoag 07:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Very immature, irresponsible behavior, a shameless abuse of authority, and stridently anti-consensus. Wikipedia will not succeed if unchecked petty martinets are allowed to rule by whim.
  84. Mexcellent 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC) I care little for the userboxes, but I feel this was handled improperly.
  85. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. PeregrineAY 07:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (i think my sig is broken)
  87. Herostratus 09:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. For those of us who are relative newbies, could we get a link to how a sysop is supposed to act? Kelly sounds like a lot of bosses I have had. I not like what they say, but they ARE the boss. User:AlMac|(talk) 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Captain scarlet 14:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Power trip or what, few ops seem to take arbitrary decisions based solely on their personal beliefs and opinions. No reasons given
  90. Sandpiper 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. JYolkowski // talk 17:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC) While such actions may have been acceptable a long time ago, Wikipedia is such a large place now that failure to follow process is no longer a workable option.
  92. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  93. Yeltensic42.618 18:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Deletionism has reached a new low. Perhaps de-adminship is in order?
  94. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) A disgraceful act that shows contempt for other users. Yes, de-adminship makes sense in this case.
  95. E. Sn0 =31337= 19:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (edit: sorry about the screwup) Anyways, I've had several userboxes on my profile deleted; since restored by the diligent efforts of agents unknown, to whom I would like to thank. Have a good day, and play nice :)
  96. Gateman1997 20:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC) I would support de-admin in this case. This shows blatant disregard for users and is systemic from the recent purge of userboxes by a number of users.
  97. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  98. CaptainCarrot 21:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Not only was this an abuse of power, it's hypocrisy as well, because Ms. Martin's user page is cluttered with all sorts of userboxes she likes. This biased person is not fit to be an administrator.
  99. Tommstein 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC) For another example of this user's use of administrative powers in inappropriate ways, see the box at the top of her talk page and the discussion of it on said page.Tommstein 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. JeffBurdges 21:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC) I can't really figure out where I sign here, but people ought to have userboxes with which too identify themselves.
  101. Mackensen (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. Heah talk 21:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Funky Monkey 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  104. Ifnord 22:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  105. Babajobu 23:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC), sigh, I like Kelly, and sympathize with her desire to keep things encyclopedic, but all this accomplished was the alienation of loads of newish users who now feel that Wikipedia is less like a dynamic collaborative project and more like a kindergarten with bossy teachers. That's a Bad Thing. People won't participate in a voluntary project that feels like that. Babajobu 23:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  106. CastAStone 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Seriously - Deleting others work without process is THE WORST violation possible on Wikipedia.--CastAStone 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  107. I think Kelly is a good editor but I have to agree with Babajobu. Whatever happened to admins are just editors with a mop? James James 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  108. David Levy 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC) I dislike most of these userboxes, but Kelly's actions were utterly outrageous. I'm stunned by her claim that it was appropriate to delete templates because they contained non-free or unsourced images. Why not simply remove the images?! Would she also delete articles for this reason?
  109. Jeff Fenstermacher 01:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Ms. Martin seems to have completely missed the point about Wikipedia being a collaborative endeavor. When she says she's going to continue with her deletions "soon enough," one must surmise she's utterly rejected what Wikipedia is all about. How unfortunate.
  110. Nandesuka 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC). None of should act like we are more equal than others.
  111. -- DS1953 talk 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC). I don't have any userboxes on my user page but I can't believe that in a project based on consensus anyone would undertake unilaterally to eliminate these user boxes and then respond "Screw process". It's just wrong.
  112. Pilatus 03:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC) I find userboxen silly and don't use them but how can it occur to anyone to start deleting them without prior discussion? Pilatus 03:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  113. PurplePlatypus 05:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Power-tripping much?
  114. I just found out how to create userboxes today, but to me, it sounds like Kelly went a little too far here. Sounds to me like somebody was a bit bored on New Years' Eve because they either a) didn't get invited to a big wiki party that night or b) didn't get any s8x that night. Dr. Cash 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  115. Super Sam 06:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Maybe Kelly is taking WP:IAR too far. Process must be followed.
  116. Windpaw 06:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC) There's a reason we use AfD - to solicit comments before acting. Similarly in the case of userboxes, you should ask first - not just vaporize. Arbitrary deletion is wrong. It's a clear abuse of power.
  117. Sam Spade 07:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC) I don't give a damn about your user boxes, but Kelly Martin's behaviour here and otherwise is a good example of why IAR's and appointeed judges don't mix well. Sam Spade 07:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  118. Such flagrant disregard of Wikipedia consensus, as embodied in policy, is totally unacceptable. Administrators are empowered to enforce community decisions only, and to use their judgment in executing community standards only. These deletions were out of order and ridiculous, and Kelly Martin does not deserve to be entrusted by the community with administrative powers if she is not willing to act solely within the borders of what the community explicitly permits. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 10:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  119. Clearly this is a complete misuse of administrative powers. Now the templates cannot even be re-constituted by non-sysops. This is antithetical to the wiki way. This administrator should be banned from exercising any administrative powers indefinitely. --Dschor 10:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  120. Unacceptable behavior for an admin. Whatever happened to civility? Kaldari 13:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  121. The whole thing should have gone through Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. An admin (who is also an arbitrator) using his/her powers in a mass deletion campain is a bad example for the users and other administrators. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  122. I think it would have been better if these templates had been handled at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Paul August ☎ 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  123. JuanOso 05:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  124. Dan100 (Talk) 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC). I'd noticed Kelly getting more unpredictable lately, but this is madness.
  125. UncleFester 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Kelly says Wiki is not a personal webpage, yet she seems to be treating Wiki like it's her own personal webpage.
  126. Hayter 19:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  127. Silensor 19:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Behavior of this kind is unacceptable and grounds for termination of sysop privileges.

[edit] Users who think we should be writing an encyclopedia instead of burning Kelly at the stake

stk-0 These users oppose the use of burning at the stake on Wikipedia, especially against certain users, possibly because electric ovens are available as an alternative.
  1. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ave! r3m0t talk reserves the right to add himself to other sections too except where limited by law. 02:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. BBQ! BBQ! BBQ! mmmmmmmm, roasted Kelly Project2501a 02:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Even though Kelly is still defiant and maintains she did nothing wrong. If she could just admit that she was wrong and apologise to the community, I'll write 1 article for everyone who endorses this list. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Mmm, same thing on every other RFC i've used though. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 02:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. --CBD ☎ ✉ 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 'Bad Kelly. Very naughty.' Ok, moving on now.
  6. User:Zoe|(talk) Of course. And Kelly did nothing wrong.
  7. Eh. The two aren't mutually exclusive (Please note that I am joking, of course: I do not condone burning anyone at the stake, particularly when electric ovens are so much more convenient). Seriously, though, I think there are important issues to the management of this project at stake here. I want to see the dispute with Ms. Martin resolved: I see no benefit in seek any sort of vengeance. – Seancdaug 02:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • TELL ME YOU DID NOT SAY THAT!! Ouch. I was fearing during the recent hours of this rebellion that Wikipedia would not become a fascist state. That oven comment doesn't help! --Cjmarsicano 02:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. --Our collective goal should be the comprehensive production of an "encyclopedia" not a "discusssion board". Reflect on Encyclopedia Britannica's mission statement: an educational organization "aspires to take all human knowledge, organize it, summarize it, and publish it in a form that people find useful." Do the users at large find userboxes useful? Who is set in place to organize and disgard that which detracts from the purpose? Decisive editors. Kelly fits this qualification. netkinetic 04:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC) No harm no foul.
  13. Calton | Talk 08:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who think we should be burning Kelly at the steak [sic] instead of writing an encyclopedia

  1. All right, but someone else needs to prepare the mashed potatoes. – Seancdaug 09:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to this view

  1. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I dunno. I was all ready to support this view, but then I realized that Ms. Martin lacked any helpful userboxes, such {{User:Xoloz/UBX/User_Vegetarian}}, to specify whether or not she even eats steaks. – Seancdaug 02:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    I do, in fact, eat steak. Preferably quite rare. Kelly Martin (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, well then. I respectfully change my vote. – Seancdaug 09:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who think we should burn Kelly at the stake so we can get back to writing this friggin' encyclopedia and making userboxes without fear of deletion

  1. -- Cjmarsicano 02:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Like we always say here at Wiki, "Be bold" ;
  2. Rogue 9 16:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Hear hear!
  3. E. Sn0 =31337= 19:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC) CHEERS!!
  4. Image:Northernirelandfootnalllogo.PNG Keith Greer 00:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Workers of Wikipedia Unite
  5. Hbdragon88 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Agreed

[edit] Users who just want Kelly to acknowledge that there are some legitimate concerns here

  1. —Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - and quite willing to admit that Kelly makes some good points as well. —Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes. Miborovsky -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. All joking aside, this is my personal concern. I hold no grudge against Ms. Martin (or anyone else, for that matter), but I would like some recognition on her part that there are significant procedural issues at hand here. – Seancdaug 02:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. AnnH (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. As I said, I don't care about the userboxes, nor I am obsessed with procedure, but there were things that shouldn't have been done here. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. I care about the boxes, but Titoxd is right, the procedure is the more important thing here. karmafist 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Absolutely. This is why I filed the RfC in the first place. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. For serious. And we don't need all these outside views to make that point. Ashibaka tock 05:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. But it looks like a stalemate.. as in Kelly Martin isn't going to acknowledge the concerns while we keep signing RfCs ...she keeps attacking petty mistakes we make in our arguments and avoiding the real issue o_O PeregrineAY 08:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. User:AlMac|(talk) I found out about userboxes a week or so ago, and thought they were utterly cool fun. I have since learned that some of them are poorly designed from a server efficiency perspective, so that clear innstructions article needed to help people do stuff that does not mess up performance or add to Wiki costs. But it sounds that is not what the grievance is, rather one of principle whether userboxes have a place in Wikipedia, and the notion that an administrator's job is to administer, not work through some kind of consensus. User:AlMac|(talk) 11:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support this position, hoping Kelly will prove PeregrineAY wrong. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:32, Jan. 2, 2006
  16. With the addition that all those signing above should acknowlegde that Kelly may have had a valid point herself. [[Sam Korn]] 13:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Palmiro | Talk 14:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Cactus.man ✍ 14:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - An acknowledgement by Kelly would be the correct thing to do.
  19. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Rogue 9 17:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Hermione1980 18:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Isn't that the point of an RfC?
  22. Urthogie 18:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Mailer Diablo 19:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. GTBacchus(talk) 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - Yes, Kelly has some good points. Too bad she didn't bring them up for discussion before acting on them, and avoid all this drama. Then we could be RfC-ing userboxes instead of a human being.
  25. Harro5 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC). We need a concession in some form to move on, and not have this thing drawn out for weeks. Let's put the passion from this RfC to use with a userbox debate.
  26. That would be a nice minimum. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Please don't delete userboxes without previous discussion. --Ghirla | talk 00:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. -- DS1953 talk 02:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Cryptic (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. *drew 05:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Tony 14:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC) - (Disclaimer: avid fan of userboxes) The primary problem I have with her actions is that it violates the sense of community and collaboration that is necessary for a large cooperative effort such as Wikipedia. While most (not all) of her reasons behind the deletions appear to be valid, there are other methods to accomplishing her goals that don't alienate other Wikipedians. If you don't want to be burned at the stake, then don't piss off so many people.
  32. Extraordinary Machine 17:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. CarbonCopy (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) If no other evidence is needed, the volume of response should be sufficient to indicate that SOMETHING is wrong.
  34. Probert 20:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Kelly Martin should swallow her pride and admit her guilt!
  35. Dan100 (Talk) 22:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC). Well, it would be a good start.
  36. the wub "?!" 23:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. I would feel more comfortable about all this If I felt that Kelly agreed that some of us at least have reasonable concerns over the way she has handled this. Paul August ☎ 04:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

The templates I deleted were those that:

  1. contained a non-free or unsourced image (thereby violating the fair use policy);
  2. expressed a political, ideological, or religious opinion (thereby tending to categorize Wikipedians by affiliations not related to Wikipedia, which Jimbo himself has expressed disapproval recently on wikien-l); or
  3. in my opinion, expressed incivil or offensive content.

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

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

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

  1. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rob Church Talk 22:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. David | Talk 22:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. --NaconKantari 23:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Golbez 23:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. El_C 23:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 23:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Soltak | Talk 23:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Michael Slone 23:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Sarah Ewart 01:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. —Ilyanep (Talk) 05:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Adam Bishop 06:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. netkinetic 07:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Pavel Vozenilek 13:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Ta bu shi da yu 14:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) we had one user who created some infoboxes about the fact that he ate at Taco Bell. When will the madness stop?! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Phil Sandifer 16:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC). I'm also offended that she got an RfC and I didn't. Phil Sandifer 16:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Death to userboxes. — Dan | talk 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Monicasdude 18:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. What do you call 10,000 user boxes at the bottom of the ocean? --Wgfinley 20:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. « Wikiacc » 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. 172 00:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Users here are making too big of a deal about process. Process is only a means to an ends. The templates deleted were not helping to advance those ends. 172 00:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Apologies for my tardiness in signing this section. [[Sam Korn]] 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Wow, looks like a whole stream of editors I've seen constantly violating rules themselves signed this ridiculous RFC... It's a veritable who's who of people who need to start working on an encyclopedia instead of playing games. I know I don't always agree with everyone who signed the response, but they are clearly in the right here. DreamGuy 04:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    I do wish you'd follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF... —BorgHunter (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    And I wish you can read the article And you are lynching Negroes. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 19:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm just as unsurprised that several of the signatories here are people I've seen on one too many power-trips themselves, and seem to think of themselves as some sort of self-appointed Wikipedia elite. That knife cuts both ways, and for once consensus is clearly not with the otherwise popular editors. PurplePlatypus 05:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Carbonite | Talk 04:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Calton | Talk 09:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC) The userbox proliferation was getting out of control. I mean, Userbox:TacoBell? Userbox:PepsiDrinker? Userbox:GeorgeBushSucks? (titles approximate).
  31. Eightball 06:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Far too many userboxes blatantly violate Fair Use policies and POV issues.
  32. Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Most of these deletions seem to be in line with my own recent expressions of concern about abuse of Wikipedia for ideological statements. Stuff like that must die and as quicjly as possible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. I don't fully endorse Kelly's philosophy with regards to rules/policy in general on Wikipedia, but in this case feel it is appropriate. The inclusion of a nonfree image is a no-brainer, the other templates involve a little bit of judgement on core policies, but in this case her judgement is sound. --Improv 08:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    The inclusion of a nonfree image is a no-brainer - So why on earth delete the whole template, instead of just removing the image? Or deleting the image itself? Dan100 (Talk) 22:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC) EMO ORANGE.
  35. Jkelly 16:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC). How did putting pretty pictures on your User page become an important part of writing an encyclopedia? Oh, wait, it didn't.
    Who said it did? Dan100 (Talk) 22:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Viriditas 08:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. I don't completely agree with how Kelly went about doing this, but she clearly thinks that Jimbo was endorsing this and her reasons are valid. I myself am going to take a couple of the userboxes off of my page because she's absolutely right. There's a place for this stuff...some of it is indeed applicable here (like the admin userbox) but many aren't just taking space. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter response

Like I said, I don't care about your justifications for deleting these templates. What I feel upset at is the lack of communication shown on your part. Your response does not address that at all. Would you mind explaining how your own opinions should be valued more than those of other, normal users? Are you so convinced of your infallibility that you believe it to be unnecessarily to communicate with other users, and especially the group working on the Userbox Wikiproject, before undertaking to unilaterally delete these templates? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Miborovsky -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Chris 00:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!)
  5. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Fang Aili 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Endorse because there was such an extreme lack of communication. Over 70 templates were deleted with no warning or discussion.
  7. Firebug 00:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Again, the question isn't whether you think the deletions are wise, but whether it's appropriate for solo admins, without any broader consensus, to just go around deleting anything they want. Suffice to say that I am not at all surprised by Kelly's small but fervent amen chorus, especially User:SlimVirgin, who has also committed similar abusive deletions in the past.
    Could I see some evidence of my "similar abusive deletions" please? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. AnnH (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Ian13ID:540053 00:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. – ugen64 01:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. TCorp 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - In one verified case the reasoning "non-free image" was given, but the image was clearly free as I had changed it along with another admin according to guidelines. I hope we can revert all her deletes in one go and have a reasonable discussion and vote on what gets deleted and what stays (as wikipedia was intended). It is furthermore not up to you as an individual to decide what Wikipedia the project is to support or not.
  12. karmafist 01:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Inanechild 01:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Morgan695 03:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 04:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Niffweed17 05:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Terence Ong Talk 06:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. MSTCrow 08:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Lukobe 10:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oscarthecat 10:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) endorse as I don't like this nazi-like attitude
  24. Ral315 (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. --Celestianpower háblame 11:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. D-Day 12:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Ali K 13:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Cactus.man ✍ 13:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. FREAK OF NURxTURE. 13:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. →AzaToth 15:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. the wub "?!" 15:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. rst20xx 15:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Petros471 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. DES (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. --Victim of signature fascism 17:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. --CBD ☎ ✉ 19:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Right idea, wrong way to go about it.
  38. KirbyMeister 19:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) believes that User:Kelly Martin abuses his/her adminship.
  39. oooh, that's wicked ;-) --Peripatetic 20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. UK Bourbons3Talk 20:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Save the userboxes. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Asdquefty 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Nandesuka 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 22:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Lawyer2b 00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Xoloz 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. GTBacchus(talk) 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - I'm in favor of more communication and less authority figure behavior from admins. If you think userboxes are a bad idea, start a discussion about it, don't act unilaterally. It's wrong because it leads to this, which was not anyone's goal, I assume. This conversation should have happened at WP:VP, not here.
  48. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Mexcellent 08:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  51.  Grue  10:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. discussion needed. PeregrineAY 11:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. →FireFox 17:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Yeltensic42.618 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. --SpacemanAfrica 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Funky Monkey 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Discussion is needed, particularly when you know for sure you will upset people.James James 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Hbdragon88 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Heah talk 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Pilatus 03:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC) WP:TFD exists, as does Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes. That is where the concerns ought to have been brought up.
  61. Kaldari 13:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Perhaps some userboxes need to be deleted, but that's what we have deletion processes for. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Unilateral mass deletions are not a good idea. Also, nothing is wrong with people having pretty user pages, categorizing themselves by interests, socializing, ur just plain having fun, as long as this does not prevent one working towards building an encyclopedia. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Dan100 (Talk) 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC). Interesting to note the "old school" admins supporting Kelly. But also that they are vastly outnumbered.
  65. I think there are very legitimate and worrisome concerns about userboxes. But like a lot of editors, the main issue for me is not whether userboxes are good or bad but the way Kelly chose to deal with them. Paul August ☎ 04:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. JeffBurdges 18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC) How can you site TacoBell as an example when she is deleting infoboxes for major religions and major political organizations. Its considered good policy to declare you views on your user page. How can you possibly claim that saying your a Christian or a member of Amnesty International is a violation of policy?

[edit] Outside view by David

There has been a profusion of Userboxes recently - most of them benign. However, when they get on to expressing purely opinions, they run into the realm of becoming ways of Wikipedians organising by POV. This happens especially when the Templates include a Wikipedian Category, as most of the deleted ones seem to have. I've no problem with stating facts about a user's background on a userpage (and you may note my own user page has a statement of fact about my political membership), but that is fundamentally different because it does not necessarily tell you where I will stand on an issue. This is becoming an area in which people have just signed up to display their opinions. If not checked now, the day will soon come when there's an easy way to organise a swamping of an AfD debate, or even worse, an RfA. Kelly Martin has acted to stop this profusion.

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

  1. David | Talk 22:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rob Church Talk 22:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Zach (Smack Back) 23:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Soltak | Talk 23:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jaranda wat's sup 23:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Agree with David's view; reserve judgement on Kelly's actions. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Ilyanep (Talk) 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Terence Ong Talk 06:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing View

Deletion vote group swamping already happens, regardless as something as benign as userboxes, a perfect example can be found recently at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. However, in many cases, like that one where one of the Catholic Alliance members contacted many users with similiar views to vote on saving it. However, despite this there was a backlash against not only the blantantly POV premise of the project, but also among the large scale attempt to group swamp the vote, eventually bringing dozens of delete votes as well as multiple vote closures(some of them even a bit too early) by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs).

Not even Jimbo can stop this, people acting in groups is human nature. Censoring or stifling the opinions of those with similiar views does nothing but send them underground, an outcome that i'm surprised so many above find acceptable, since I find it contrary to Wikipedia's very essence. karmafist 02:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. karmafist 02:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Seancdaug 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Rogue 9 05:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. MSTCrow 08:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. D-Day 12:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. rst20xx 15:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. TCorp 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) It is human nature that drives this project in the first place and if I may paraphrase the above, forming groups is human. There are some bots functioning on this site, but most Wikipedians are indeed human. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is written by Wikipedians, a community of humans. There are groups and legions in all communities and they are not necessarily a threat that need to be crushed by an individual admin on a self appointed mission.
  8. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. This user KirbyMeister 19:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) believes that forming groups is human and subsequently agrees with this view.
  10. "Userboxes don't cause POV's, POV's cause Userboxes." Lawyer2b 00:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. AnnH (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Ryan Delaney talk 01:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Well i'm glad to see that David is coming round to the idea that political parties are a bad thing and should not be allowed to form themselves into groups, or form governments. (which is rather more like what is posted on my user page, where there are also none of these group boxes). I see no reason why one group should be permitted, but another entirely arbitrarily deleted without consultation. In fact, I would much sooner that people were permitted to become a group of 10 who believed in the moon being made of cheese, than groups of 100, who were members of a partcular, real, political organisation. The actual deletions seem to entirely oppose the thrust of the argument being made here, that people should not be allowed to form groups showing their particular opinion. The more mainstream the group, the more obviously it represents a threat to the individuals rights on wiki. So the more diverse groups, the better. Small groups favour individuals, big ones do not. Sandpiper 15:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I do wish you would not distort what I have written and make what reads to me like a personal attack while doing so. There's been too much of that in this debate already. David | Talk 16:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • This is a discussion about user pages, and users expressing their personal views. It is also a discussion page, for people to say what they think, not an article page, for substantiated facts. Your own position, as you yourself point out, is exactly an example of the issue. You belong to an established major political party (you used to use your own council badge as part of your signature), and presumably think it is a desireable thing for 'parties' to exist outside of wiki. Yet you are arguing that they should not do so here. This smacks of hypocrisy, and I thought it apt to point out that someone belonging to (and using box labels for) established parties, seeks to stifle minor ones. I assume you declared that you belong to a party to make clear your own POV. How is it good to prevent others declaring themselves as supporters of much smaller groupings? I would rather regard it as honest declaration of POV. If you do not wish to be identified as a supporter of a particular POV, why do you declare it? I am suggesting that your own POV on supporting majority boxes, yet also supporting deletion of minority ones, exactly mirrors the view of most members of major political parties.Sandpiper 16:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You are right that I put my party membership there in order to be open about it. Indeed it was in the text of my userpage before appearing there, and it was also stated in the biographical article on me as well. However, with Jimbo I say "we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral." My objection, which I had hoped was stated above, is to anything which is, or could be made to be, an association of Wikipedians by POV. I disagree that that particular horse has yet bolted, and now is the time to fix the stable door closed - and with superglue if necessary. David | Talk 17:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
          • well i would agree that this horse is not yet out of sight, but I would not agree that it is not already on the move. Preventing wikipedians from banding together on an issue is essentially impossible. All anyone has to do, if they are determined enough, is just contact people who edit a particular way and arrange to contact them outside of wiki. I am certain this must happen already. If the UK political parties are not yet clued up enough to be doing this, I am sure the Americans must be. The same will apply to any interest group with financial clout, and will become worse the bigger wiki gets. In some ways, this policy is making it harder for anyone to organise against such activity in an open, wiki, way. One of the things dictatorships are keen on is banning small parties, and frankly any organised dissent. Consensus can not be reached by preventing people from knowing that something is happening, which is really what you are arguing for. That is censorship. Sandpiper 17:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Cactus.man ✍ 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - David's position is fundamentally flawed. Is he really suggesting that his userbox stating the "fact" of his Labour Party membership does not reveal his POV or his support of that particular organisation to other wikipedians? Other wikipedians who could otherwise affiliate accordingly? This is what he seems to be arguing against on the one hand, but counteracting with the other. Does he join political parties that he does not support, or whose policies do not coincide with his own POV? I find his whole argument baffling. I agree that de-linking to categories is probably a good idea, but this selective "purge" of userboxes is just nonsensical.
  15. Yeltensic42.618 18:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Perhaps deletionists are just in it for a little power trip.
    Deletionists don't get kicks out of deleting. That is the kind of comment that has created much of the AfD poison recently. The point of deletionism is deleting encyclopaedia content (which this isn't). Don't slander. [[Sam Korn]] 00:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    I know deletionists aren't all just in it for kicks. (You can see in my contribs, btw, that I've voted delete on some articles.) I'm just saying that in some cases, it certainly does seem that's the motivation. I think this looks like it just might be one of those cases. Yeltensic42.618 14:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Larix 12:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional observation by Rob Church

It's been stated above that, "Kelly has a duty to uphold process." Incorrect. The process is a means to an end. That end is writing a factually accurate, free-content encyclopedia which covers all points of view on an issue. No-one has a duty to uphold process where that process conflicts with our core goals.

See also:

[edit] Users endorsing this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Rob Church Talk 22:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. David | Talk 23:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC) (This is just a rephrasing of WP:IAR!)
  3. --NaconKantari 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 23:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Soltak | Talk 23:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. —Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. However, whether it's always wise to IAR is another matter.  grm_wnr Esc 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - Agree with grm_wnr.
  9. Firebug 00:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) WP:IAR only makes sense when it's equally easy for other members of the community to act to reverse the actions in question. When combined with admin powers, it's a recipe for abuse.
  10. Sarah Ewart 01:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. I agree with this wholeheartedly, even though I think deleting all the templates out of hand was an exceptionally dumb thing to do, and that she should have known it would result in this sort of shitstorm. —Cryptic (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. —Ilyanep (Talk) 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. See Cryptic's comment.--Sean|Black 08:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. I absolutely agree with this, and agree with Kelly's wish to delete them. However, I also agree with Cryptic — she should have seen this coming. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. FrancisTyers 16:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. This debate really brings out a misconception that people have about Wikipedia. It's not a system of laws. It's not a constitutional democracy. Admins don't swear oaths to uphold the law. We generally try to do the right thing, and policy doesn't always correspond to that. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. FreplySpang (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Not necessarily to condone Kelly's actions, but process is a very unimportant thing next to the encyclopaedia. [[Sam Korn]] 22:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's worth pointing out once more that process exists to further to goals of the encyclopedia. If it is being violated, that should automatically concern anyone involved in developing the project. Unilateral actions taken without the consent of the community are disruptive and counterproductive. I imagine there are a number of people who would have agreed with Ms. Martin's sentiments had she exhibited a little more care in making them known. By disregarded (and, worse, openly mocking) policy, she's effectively destroyed the possibility that her views will get a fair hearing anytime soon. – Seancdaug 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia's policies are not exhaustive. If they are being violated, people concerned in developing the project should ask why the policies have been violated. Too many people (not necessarily you) have become over-concerned about policy here. A more worthwhile question is to ask, setting aside policy, whether Kelly was right to delete these. That said, I think this debate has just about got as far as it will go. [[Sam Korn]] 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I think, ultimately, the problem is that a very large number of editors feel that she was not right to delete them, and that she should have been aware that by going out-of-process in this circumstance, she was effectively denying those who disagreed with her rationale the chance to express their views. Our policies exist to prevent exactly the sort of situation we now find ourselves in: a public airing of grievances, arrayed into two largely distinct camps who, at this point, are completely ignoring any attempt to foster actual discourse. I think you're probably right about this debate having run its course. It's a pity that absolutely nothing seems to have come of it. – Seancdaug 03:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. « Wikiacc » 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. ++Lar: t/c 04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Ashibaka tock 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Signing this view is neither an endorsement of Kelly's actions nor is it a statement that the realities Rob points out are The Way Things Should Be. I personally believe Wikipedia, as it becomes larger, will indeed need to have clearer and more detailed rules and more consistent enforcement, and what we are seeing here is Exhibit A as to why. But what Rob said is indeed the way things are right now. It's not an ideal situation and I don't think it's a stable one but it is reality. PurplePlatypus 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Tony 14:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Not because of IAR, which is, IMO, a stupid and confusing rule, but because things that stand against core policy should be removed on sight. --Improv 19:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing View

When one makes such a wide-reaching unilateral action, another simply makes a counter-unilateral action, eventually culminating in... well... this. In all our posturing about duty and process and creating an encyclopedia, we should not lose sight of the simple fact that we are a community, and that no one person is singularly endowed with the right to choose how we pursue our goals.

  1. ClockworkSoul 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Victim of signature fascism 17:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. karmafist 17:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I have no clue how a userbox conflicts with any goals here. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it's a community of people building an encyclopedia.
  4. Mistress Selina Kyle 18:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) It may be true that the process is only a means to an end, but these templates do not "interfere with our core goals", so the argument is moot.
  6. Because we are a community building an encyclpedia, decisions must be made with consensus. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Xoloz 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. AnnH (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Palmiro | Talk 14:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Of course process is a means to an end. It's also often a very effective means. In this case, ignoring process has resulted in major conflict, bad feelings and wasted time all round. What end is advanced by that?
  10. If anyone has the right to make arbitrary decisions, it is individual users...not administrators. The entire reason for having policies is to control those with the biggest scope to abuse their authority. Sandpiper 16:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. We can't create procedures one day and ignore them the next day. It doesn't hurt to keep userboxes for the duration of a tfd. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Yeltensic42.618 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Kelly's actions were inexcusable.
  13. Funky Monkey 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. CastAStone 23:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Pilatus 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Much heat and no light.
  16. Whenever people start invoking the idea that "process is just a means to an end", it is a sure sign that they are in the wrong. Everyking 04:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Hear, hear! Larix 12:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Dan100 (Talk) 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC). Well put.
  19. Silensor 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 02:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. While the discussion above is relatively mild, even the astonishing growth of the Wiki doesn't excuse over 100 users piling on a sysop who, in general, seems to have done a commendable job. Aside from the notable exception at hand, kudos to Kelly for performing the often thankless tasks of an admin. Ombudsman 21:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional observation by Seancdaug

Mr. Church has argued that Ms. Martin's actions are justified in that they serve the ends of producing an accurate encyclopedia. Leaving aside the philosophical concerns of adopting such a blatant "the ends justify the means" argument, Ms. Martin's actions have illustrate a blithe indifference to opposing points of view, and her stated intention to continue her actions regardless of the stated concerns of muliple editors indicates a worrisome disregard for Wikiquette and rules of engagement. Wikipedia operates as a community, and it is incumbent upon anyone who contributes to abide by community consensus and to work within established channels for decision making. Mr. Church argues that the templates deleted by Ms. Martin "conflict with our core goals." It should go without saying that there are many editors here who disagree with that statement, and that a similar case could be made to justify the actions of any number of vandals who would try to sculpt Wikipedia in their own image, without regard to the consensus of the community.

[edit] Users endorsing this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Seancdaug 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Miborovsky -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Synapse 23:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Angr (t·c) 23:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Chris 00:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. AnnH (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Rogue 9 05:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. MSTCrow 08:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 10:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. User:Noisy | Talk 13:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement is also one of the Five Pillars cited by Rob Church. the wub "?!" 15:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. rst20xx 15:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Xoloz 17:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 20:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Ryan Delaney talk 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. karmafist 04:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Yeltensic42.618 18:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. PurplePlatypus 05:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Kaldari 14:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Fubar Obfusco

There is some practical encyclopedia-writing use to allowing editors to categorize themselves by their religious or political views: it's a way of stating that they know something about the views in question. If I want to know what Communists or Christians think on a subject, or what sort of sources are good to consult for those views, then asking a Communist or a Christian seems a reasonable way to go about it.

That goal could probably be better served by something more similar to the language fluency boxes, though: allowing people to rank their knowledge of a viewpoint rather than their adhesion to same. It's completely possible to be very well-versed in Christian beliefs and traditions without professing them, for instance: consider the case of a learnéd theologian who loses his faith and deconverts; he doesn't lose his knowledge of Christianity's history and doctrines thereby. Likewise, Alexander Solzhenitsyn might know more about Communism than the rank-and-file party member.

The real danger here is the creation of groups which seek to bias Wikipedia in an organized fashion. That was the reason that WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency was so roundly opposed: it was an organized campaign for the purpose of biasing articles against certain topics and views, specifically sex-positive ones. I think we had an anti-abortion crew attempt to organize here as well recently, with similar results. The use of Wikipedia itself as a place to organize biased editing is precisely contrary to the project goal of NPOV.

Moreover, Wikipedia has a vested interest in preventing the formation of any more "voting blocs" -- groups of people who do not discuss contentious issues, but rather simply show up en masse to shout down their "opponents" and declare themselves a majority. The best-known example of this sort of behavior have been groups of self-styled "inclusionists" and "deletionists" who have posted alerts to one another when a discussion on AfD is not going their way. This sort of behavior -- "voting" en bloc rather than contributing to a discussion and the formation of consensus -- hurts the project.

Was it an OK thing to delete these templates? I'm not sure. It depends on how the templates are used. A tool being used to damage Wikipedia needs to be destroyed, but a tool being used to find knowledgeable people needs to be preserved.

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

  1. FOo 23:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. --NaconKantari 23:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Seancdaug 23:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  4.  Grue  23:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Cryptic (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. My main motivation behind creating the Pagan userbox and corresponding category was as an attempt to locate people who could help to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Neopaganism. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 03:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Niffweed17 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Extraordinary Machine 23:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Lawyer2b 00:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] oppose

  1. Unfortunately, all you are saying is that anyone wishing to organise a grouping should do it in secret. Everything posted on wiki is 'public'. Looked at differently, putting up a box like this is a public declaration of your own viewpoint, which very properly tells anyone interested straight up what your own POV is. 50 known democrats arguing one point against 50 declared republicans might both be discounted when trying to create a consensus, in the face of 10 neutral voices. And as I posted above, deleting boxes representing minorities only compounds the possible problem of creating voting blocks. You are only allowed to create your own voting block if you have more than 10, 20, 50? Sandpiper 16:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. While I actually agree with this outside view, it is a completely irrelevant point. This RFC isn't about userboxes, it is about an admin completely ignoring procedure, acting unilaterally, pissing off a large number of people, and refusing to even consent that what they have done might be just a little bit wrong. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 04:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification

I fully agree with the preceding outside view. I am unaware, however, of any of the aforementioned templates being used in such a way as to organize such groups or blocs, and I, for one, never viewed them in any such way. If this has indeed been occurring, however, I would have to reconsider my thoughts on the issue. Does anyone have any examples of such organization taking place, either because of these userboxes, or of situations where such boxes are being created in conjunction with the formation of such blocs? – Seancdaug 23:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not voting blocs do exist on Wikipedia. Regional noticeboards are some of the most prolific spawning pools of such blocs. People from the same country would always help each other out, no? This is especially true of sensitive nationalist subjects such as border disputes. So it's simply pointless to argue that userboxes promote divisions and encourage voting blocs, when such already exist and are easily accessible. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
If voting bloc politics are causing unnecessary division among certain geographic identities, then those should be addressed specifically. I don't see how my labelling myself "Catholic Evangelical" (a rather ecumenical label, btw) or "Christian Democrat" would cause division. I think it is kind of cool to be able to find others to talk to about Christian Democracy. CD is something that is new to me. I find the "Wikipedian" categories to be helpful. -- Chris 00:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason that the standard WP:TFD procedure cannot handle userboxes that are perceived to threaten the project's NPOV or be disruptive. There is a great deal of dispute about whether these boxes fall into that category and Kelly's action was a slap in the face to Wikipedia's editors. Firebug 01:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me! So now we've decided that someone displaying a userbox representing a clear POV is rendered incapable of editing NPOV -- literally guilt by association. Ahhh, but we have the solution! Magically, all POV goes away (poof!) if we just delete the userbox! I'm curious...does this work with bumperstickers in real life too? Lawyer2b 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Kirill Lokshin

Without necessarily taking a stance on whether these templates should exist—Jimbo obviously makes a valid point about their less-than-positive effects—I feel that Kelly Martin's summary deletion of dozens of them indicates a certain lack of respect towards her fellow Wikipedians. It would have been considerate, if not to actually discuss whether the templates should be deleted, at least to notify us that they would be; and to merely remove fair-use images from templates rather than deleting them, in cases where that was the only concern.

After all, we have always made some allowances towards material kept in user-space by upstanding members of the community—even if this material would ordinarily be deleted on sight.

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

  1. —Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Aye. Miborovsky -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Very well put. – Seancdaug 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. A TfD would have been nice. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Behind this statement 100%Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. AnnH (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Fang Aili 00:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Chris 00:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Firebug 00:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) We have a process for this - namely, WP:TFD. What's the point of this if admins simply go around deleting out of process whenever they want.
  11. Synapse 00:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. – ugen64 01:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Rogue 9 05:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Niffweed17 05:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Jiang 06:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Terence Ong Talk 06:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. MSTCrow 08:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Lukobe 10:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Exactly. It's not the intent, it's the way it was handled. Ral315 (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. --Celestianpower háblame 12:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Cactus.man ✍ 13:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. the wub "?!" 15:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. rst20xx 15:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Good point.
  26. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Sceptre (Talk) 17:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Xoloz 17:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Ms. Martin needs to learn to play well with others.
  29. Mark1 17:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Babajobu 18:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Yeah.
  31. Nandesuka 19:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I hate userboxes, and think they are painfully stupid. That's no reason to be high-handed in their deletion.
  32. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 20:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I agree, more or less, with Nandesuka. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 20:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Extraordinary Machine 23:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Titoxd(?!? - help us) Agree with Ral315. 02:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. ++Lar: t/c 04:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. ClockworkSoul 05:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC) – What would happen to the project if we were all to decide to shed the burden of consensus for the sake of convenience?
  39. Mairi 07:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  40.  Grue  10:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Dalbury(Talk) 11:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. - Liberatore(T) 17:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. --Censorwolf 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Radiant_>|< 20:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Precisely, although I observe that material above has now been deleted on sight. Lord Bob 20:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Funky Monkey 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. CastAStone 23:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. --Ghirla | talk 00:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Pilatus 03:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Kaldari 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. No burning at the stake, please; it's just that there wasn't enough communication and that's bad in a community-driven project. I agree most particularly with Nandesuka. — mark ✎ 08:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Dan100 (Talk) 20:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Silensor 19:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by grm_wnr

While I think Kelly's heart is in the right place here, I do not think she had to take such a needlessly confrontational approach, and would like to remind her that seriously annoying a sizable part of the community isn't helping to make a better encyclopedia either - especially since it is well known that admin unilateralism in deletion matters has a near 100% chance of causing a major controversy. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Seancdaug 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Exactly my thoughts --Jaranda wat's sup 00:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Cryptic (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Fang Aili 00:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Chris 00:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) -- agree, except I don't know her heart.
  10. – ugen64 01:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) as per Chris, and there were better ways to go about this than this clear violation of WP:POINT
  12. Sarah Ewart 03:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Thank you.--Sean|Black 06:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Terence Ong Talk 06:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Lukobe 10:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Exactly. Ral315 (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. --Celestianpower háblame 12:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Vamp:Willow 14:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Are you reading my mind? the wub "?!" 15:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 18:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. AnnH (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Extraordinary Machine 23:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Titoxd(?!? - help us) Aye to that. 02:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Exactly, we are asked to be bold, and to be nice. She was bold but not nice. For those of us not on the wiki-list, could we get a link to what exactly was stated by Jimbo Wales on this topic? I see that he is using two Bable user boxes to show what human languages he knows. User:AlMac|(talk) 11:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by SPUI

As per Wikipedia:User page (and the ever-present common sense), editors are offered wide latitude with their user space. "A good start is to add... information about your areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, other homepages, and so forth." These userboxes are simply another way of showing that. Other that the fair use issue, the issues Kelly brings up are all subjective, which is why we have process - to come to consensus. And the fair use issue is easy enough to {{sofixit}} without deletion.

That is not really the core issue though - Kelly has taken it upon herself to abuse her administrator powers and delete these templates. Then, when someone was bold enough to complain, she threatened an RFC. The proliferation of these user boxes (I've even made a bunch of fake ones for my user page) should be enough evidence that this deletion would not be seen as good by all. It might even be a WP:POINT violation - disrupting people's user pages to make a point about how there are supposedly too many userboxes. It's not clear that disrupting user pages would qualify as disrupting the encyclopedia, but it has the same ring to it. (Though many are arguing that another user space-only action is a clear POINT violation on the talk page of this RFC.)

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

  1. SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Seancdaug 00:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kelly's action shows no respect for the Wiki community.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yet more exacerbating evidence of Ms Martin's lack of proper etiquette. Miborovsky -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Firebug 00:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) If Kelly Martin doesn't show contrition, a de-adminship is in order.
  6. Chris 00:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) -- VERY WELL SAID
  7. TCorp 00:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Total lack of foresight and respect for the other wikipedians
  8. Ian13ID:540053 00:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - Should be ashamed, didn;t even cleanup the red links. De-adminship should most certainly not be out of the question.
  9. --Cjmarsicano 01:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Ms. Martin should be ashamed of herself for her blatant abuse of power.
  10. karmafist 02:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. FREAK OF NURxTURE. 05:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Rogue 9 06:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Lukobe 10:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Not a POINT, but I believe in the general intent of this statement. Ral315 (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. User:Noisy | Talk 13:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Cactus.man ✍ 13:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. →AzaToth 15:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. rst20xx 16:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC) — WP:RFDA
  21. DES (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Lawyer2b 00:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Xoloz 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Reserve judgment on POINT, but otherwise endorse this. AnnH (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Joe Sewell 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC) also reserves judgement on POINT, but otherwise endorses
  28. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC) also reserves judgement on POINT
  29. (yes, I'm signing myself to two contradictory views... they're both right) Ashibaka tock 04:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Dalbury(Talk) 11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. DES (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. I've always seen userboxes as just another way to express my opinion on various subjects. I consider it important for three basic reasons: a) It makes it easier to find people with specific fields of expertise. b) It makes it easier to find people with specific viewpoints – which can be helpful if you're not sure yourself whether something you've written is NPOV since your personal opinion on the subject at hand might factor in; in such a case, you can simply seek out someone with a different viewpoint and ask them what they would change to make it NPOV. c) Knowing is half the battle; in many cases, it can be helpful to know what specific POV a Wikipedian is likely to have, since this makes it easier to work constructively on achieving NPOV in my opinion. —Nightstallion (?) 12:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Yeltensic42.618 18:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Kelly's actions represent deletionism at its worst.
  34. Funky Monkey 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. From the mouth of the number 1 editor himself - well put. CastAStone 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. --MONGO 01:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Dan100 (Talk) 20:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Silensor 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who do not endorse this summary

  1. I don't see a WP:POINT here, she explained why she deleted does templates. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is certainly possible to explain one's self while still violating WP:POINT. And User:SPUI does not argue that WP:POINT has been violated, in any case: he simply recognizes that such a case could be made, and that it is already being made elsewhere by other people. – Seancdaug 00:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Not really a WP:POINT. She didn't disrupt anything remotely useful to the project. But, unilateral out-of-process action should only be done when no-one in their right mind would disagree with the action. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. The claim that Kelly Martin's actions violated WP:POINT rests on the theory that she is against userbox proliferation. There is absolutely no evidence for this. She is against userboxes which serve to link users by their POV. David | Talk 00:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Those templates are crap and should be deleted. No point in wasting TfD's time with them." [13] -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. So those who eat at Taco Bell need an infobox? I don't think so. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Agreed --Censorwolf 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Calton | Talk 08:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Like he said.

[edit] Outside view by Aranda56

I don't see a violation of WP:POINT here. Kelly Martin explained her actions why those user boxes were deleted. Were some of them wrongfully deleted, yes but she still explained them. Under wikipedia rules, user boxes can't have fair use images and was deleted without a problem. But the religious userboxes should have had a TFD first, or a community disscution in which she ignored. If she deleted them with out a edit summarry, then it's WP:POINT, but she explained her actions and a RFC is not nessarry. In other words, she did wrong but I don't see any WP:POINT violations.

Creating another view. --Jaranda wat's sup 19:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who do not endorse this summary

  1. The improper use of copyrighted images is a strong case for removing that image, not for deleting the entire template. – Seancdaug 00:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Just because she explained her actions does not mean that a RfC is unwarranted. As you admitted, she did wrongfully delete some templates. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Just have the rfc then, don't "threaten" it in an attempt to intimidate others to see things your way due to your influential position. I've been in an endless revert war with a slew of editors acting out of fear rather than any real world legal reasoning in regards to user space fair use images, and despite continued pleas with them to give me a reason why this occurs, the strongest reason i've heard so far in favor of the no fair use on user page policy is "because that's the way it's always been." karmafist 02:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oh, hell yes. There is absolutely no real reason why fair use images can't be on user space; the only reason I've been given when I've had problems with admins deleting images on userspace is "because I said so" or similar. Rogue 9 05:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, that's not true. I quote, "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." Sure, suing for something stupid like that would be horrible PR, but shouldn't we stick to the letter of the law anyway? —BorgHunter (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I disagree with this summary, being of the opinion that the presence or absence of an edit summary is not relevant. As Seancdaug has stated, removing the images (or replacing them with less controversial ones where possible) would have been much more appropriate than whimfully deleting templates that are in widespread use. All the edit summaries in the world wouldn't make a bit of difference. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:38, Jan. 1, 2006
  6. Agree with all the above, although I should point out that WP:POINT is not the be all and end all, it is more the lack of discussion and respect for others' opinions that bothers me. the wub "?!" 15:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Joe Sewell 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Hermione1980

Let me start out by saying I had no prior knowledge of Kelly Martin's deletion of any userbox templates, nor were any of the boxes I use on my userpage deleted. After looking through her deletion log, I see many templates deleted with a reason stating something to the effect of "contains a fair use image". Deleting the template helps how? If I'm not mistaken, the picture remains on Wikipedia unless it is deleted separately. If that's the only reason to delete a template, don't. Find another picture, or ditch the picture entirely.

She deleted other templates, reasoning that their use factionalises Wikipedia. Maybe they do. But is it up to one person to decide that? Why not put them up on TfD? Template:AmE-0 was deleted with the reason "divisive and/or insulting". It's humorous. It's not really much worse than the template I have on my userpage: "This user has no idea what 1337 is and/or prefers to contribute using proper words."

Yes, we have WP:IAR, but this is just taking it too far. Unilaterally deleting things tends to get people in hot water. I think there should have been some discussion of this before all these templates were deleted, whether at TfD or elsewhere.

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

  1. Hermione1980 00:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Miborovsky -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. My point in the first place, but nicely stated. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Firebug 00:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) WP:IAR should not apply to admin actions at all, since (unlike other actions) they cannot simply be undone by any other Wikipedian.
  5. Exactly, particularly with regards to those templates deleted for including fair use images. – Seancdaug 00:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Chris 00:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Truly. --Fang Aili 00:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. AnnH (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. – ugen64 01:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. couldnt have said it better myself  ALKIVAR™ 01:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. - Synapse 01:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. - Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. karmafist 02:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. —Guanaco 04:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 05:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Rogue 9 05:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Niffweed17 05:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. --Terence Ong Talk 06:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. --God_of War 06:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. gadfium 08:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Lukobe 10:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Ral315 (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. --Celestianpower háblame 12:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. User:Noisy | Talk 13:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. FREAK OF NURxTURE 13:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Cactus.man ✍ 13:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Vamp:Willow 14:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. →AzaToth 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. the wub "?!" 15:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. --AySz88^-^ 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. rst20xx 16:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. DES (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Sceptre (Talk) 17:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Xoloz 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Hermione is wise! Hermione for Arbcom!
  38. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Nandesuka 19:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Yes. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Extraordinary Machine 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Phædriel 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. I'm a damn proud American and even I think that Template:AmE-0 is funny as hell. Lawyer2b 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Joe Sewell 02:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Well put. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Very well put. Ashibaka tock 05:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. ++Lar: t/c 05:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC) I feel like I'm signing too many petitions/statements here, but there are a lot of viewpoints that are correct as far as they go, in my view.
  50. ClockworkSoul 05:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC) – Userboxes are harmless and fun. After wading knee deep through trolls, vandals and zealots day in and day out, some of us want to associate Wikipedia with something that doesn't make them want to pull out their hair.
  51. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. When an image is added whose copyright or fair use is unknown, the user is given 7 days to fix or it will be deleted. Can't same kind of rule be used with userbox images? User:AlMac|(talk) 12:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Funky Monkey 22:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. GTBacchus(talk) 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - Well said, Hermione.
  56. CastAStone 23:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Heah talk 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Dan100 (Talk) 20:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Silensor 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Yes, yes, yes. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by Soltak

The issue of user boxes is one that is highly contentious. While some feel that it's simply another way to express oneself on one's user page, something that is quite encouraged, others feel that it's a needless waste of time, space, and effort. I fall decidedly into the latter category. If one feels so strongly about something that he or she feels the need to express it to the world, what's wrong with just writing somewhere: "I'm interested in politics," "I like peaches," "I think democracy is stupid"? Why the need to create a template, many of which regrettably populate categories, and plaster it on your user page?

In any event, Kelly Martin's actions are justifiable and necessary. Could she have followed a process? Sure. She, however, is an experienced and valuable member of Wikipedia community. She has outlined her rationale for the deletions, all of which seem quite reasonable, and seems completely willing to continuing justifying those decisions to any who asks. This RFC, quite like the templates she deleted, is a waste of time, space, and effort.

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

  1. Soltak | Talk 00:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. David | Talk 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Ilyanep (Talk) 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who do not endorse this summary

  1. "Could she have followed a process"? Not only could she have done so, she should be obligated to do so, if not as an administrator, than simply as an contributor. Her long experience and her value as an editor do not excuse her from the same guidelines of wikiquette and consensus-building that all editors should abide by. And the "reasonableness" of her rationale is the very basis of this RfC: clearly, there are a large number of editors who disagree that Ms. Martin's actions were reasonable, and that alone should be enough to emphasize the importance of following procedure. – Seancdaug 00:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'd hardly call a RfC that gets the amount of support this one has "a waste of time, space, and effort", whether I agree with it or not. I'm not specifically disagreeing with the rest of your views the first paragraph. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I partly agree with you that this RFC is a waste of time, but she should have given more thoughts. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. I oppose this view, a paragon of snobbery, elitism and egotism. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Firebug 00:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Grossly abusive. Kelly Martin should either repent or lose adminship, and so should all the people who support this abusive nonsense.
    • That comment doesn't even make any sense, how could she and like 10 other admins should lose their powers because of this? --Jaranda wat's sup 01:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The elitist attude that being an admin or "long experience" means it's ok to make large scale deletions without any discussion first - Synapse 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Anyone who thinks they're above consensus should lose their adminship. Full stop. Firebug 01:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
          • So Ambi, Slimvirgin, El_C and others that defended her should lost their powers as well, that what you say? --Jaranda wat's sup 01:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
            • That's not why they should, but they should.
          • Certain core values of Wikipedia are not subject to consensus. While I'm not saying that this is the case here, many admins (including myself) stand ready to disregard consensus whenever said consensus conflicts with the Prime Directive of Wikipedia - Write an encyclopedia. If a consensus decided tomorrow that it was OK to delete articles because they talk about sex, such consensus would be utterly ignored. To quote Jimbo, "(Wikipedia) is not a democracy, this is not an experiment in anarchy, it's a project to make the world a better place by giving away a free encyclopedia." FCYTravis 01:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
            • You know, saying it isn't a democracy doesn't change the plain facts. Most matters are resolved by general votes among the members of the group; this is the very definition of direct democracy. This isn't to say that it should be one, but the fact of the matter is that it functions as one. Rogue 9 05:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and most things are not handled by direct vote. The closest we come is RfA, and even then votes can be given different weighting and some outcomes are subject to bureaucrat discretion. By the way, I notice this text in a userbox on your page: "This user supports the use of personal attacks, because idiots don't need to be coddled." If you and everyone else in the Wikiproject Userbox fraternity decided tomorrow to hold a vote to get rid of WP:NPA, it wouldn't change a thing. Our core values are important, and if process or voting gets in the way of that, tough. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
                • You're absolutely right that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and I do not agree with Rogue 9's preceding comment. Wikipedia does, however, work on the basis of consensus. And clearly the interpretation of the project's core goals shared by Ms. Martin and her supporters is not shared by a majority of editors contributing to this RfC. This sideshow about "core goals" is ridiculous: I highly doubt that anyone here, when pressed, would deny that they support the goal to produce the best encyclopedia possible. The issue, and one that I'm increasingly shocked and disheartened to find so many veteran editors and administrators seem utterly oblivious to, is that no one individual's interpretation of the project's goals (and the means neccessary to reach them) is more worthy than anyone else's, and that a willingness to engage in discussion and consensus-building to determine a viable project-wide approach is essential. Vigilantism serves the core goals no better than direct democracy. – Seancdaug 18:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
            • If in doubt, don't delete. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Aye Aye (100% for number 5 above)Eagle (talk) (desk) 01:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. karmafist 02:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. There was absolutely nothing justifiable or necessary in her actions. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Chris 03:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Terence Ong Talk 06:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Ian13ID:540053 10:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. User:Noisy | Talk 13:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Disagree per above. Some editors may be too shy or inarticulate to tell us about themselves in their own words. Userboxes address that need, and help build community among editors. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:45, Jan. 1, 2006
  14. Cactus.man ✍ 13:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - Per Seancdaug.
  15. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Process is not optional, not on deletion issues. Part of becomming an admin is being trusted to adhere to process, IMO. Not following it damages the trust people have in admins and in the project as a whole, and damages the comunity spirit on which wikipedia depends. It therefore harms the project as a whole, to an extent far greater than any possible gain from deleting these userboxes. DES (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. As an administrator, I believe admins should be allowed to do whatever they want without oversight. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Extraordinary Machine 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Lawyer2b 00:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Xoloz 01:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. AnnH (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Process is needed in order to ensure transparency in our actions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Dalbury(Talk) 11:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Silensor 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Cyrius

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

WTH? This person thinks many people have lost sight of the purpose of userboxes, viewing them as an end unto themselves.


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

  1. Cyrius|✎ 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Userboxes are fine, but let's not fetishize them. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Golbez 05:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Well put. Ambi 05:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Zach (Smack Back) 05:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Although that doesn't necessarily mean they should all be immediately deleted. [[Sam Korn]] 13:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Unless they're really, really ugly. Or stupid. {{user freedom}} is a current favourite, as are those silly "hates Dubya" and "reverts vandals" (no kidding!) templates. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Hear, hear. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. But this user has seen quite enough userboxes deployed on this page. FreplySpang (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. --Doc ask? 00:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Rob Church Talk 09:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Palmiro | Talk 14:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Behold, the differences that lead to people refusing to help each other or being problematic because their urge to express themselves leads them to offend others. Behold people confusing their userpage with a website. I am not suggesting we review every userpage looking for the slightest hint of a problem, but when massive improprieties are brought to our attention or we get a chance like this to purge a lot of stuff that hurts the encyclopedia, it seems prudent to undo the harm. Userboxes should serve the end of the encyclopedia, just as, by and large, userpages should. It may be ok to branch of a little bit, but userboxes in particular are often harmful and otherwise pointless. --Improv 08:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who do not endorse this summary

O
M
G		 Image:Pastelbox.gif
  1. They can be rather annoying and stupid, but so are many things on user space. It has been policy/tradition/common sense/whatever you want to call it that user space is subject to much looser rules than others. This outside view also ignores the heart of the dispute - the mass deletion, assuming that all who would oppose it don't matter. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I agree with SPUI's comments. This is a non-sequitur: the issue has never been the value (or lack thereof) of these templates. This is the sort of argument that should be made on the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion discussions that Ms. Martin unilaterally bypassed. – Seancdaug 01:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    That seems to be the problem with this discussion. Those on one side say the value of the templates is irrelevant, it's the way they were deleted that's the issue. Those on the other side say that the way they were deleted is irrelevant, it's the role of the templates that's the issue. There may not be a meeting of minds on this for some time. David | Talk 01:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. This summary is a red herring. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. It's hilarious that the argument here against userboxes has been put into a userbox. Remind me to make {{User Irony-5}} in honor of this occasion. karmafist 02:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Make {{User Irony-5}} in honor of this occasion, Karmafist. (You asked to be reminded.) :-) Hermione1980 02:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • lol, thanks :-) I'll make a {{thank you}} userbox. Talk page template messages are so 2005 ;-) karmafist 02:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. FREAK OF NURxTURE. 13:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Xoloz 01:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Userboxes are a red herring. The problem at the heart of the RFC is the manner in which they were deleted, and the manner in which those deletions were/are defended. Xoloz 01:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. I absolutely agree with Xoloz. This RfC is not about whether or not user boxes are a good thing. That should have been discussed at templates for deletion, and would have been, if Kelly had not taken it upon herself to ignore process. For the record, I think there are too many boxes. Some of them are silly; some are divisive; some may be offensive. But an administrator is not meant to treat process with contempt. The Wikipedia rules about deletion, just like those about 3RR are there precisely because individual Wikipedians should not take it upon themselves to decide, against consensus, that their particular interpretation is the correct one. AnnH (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. I wonder what Cyrius' opinion of the "purpose" of userboxes really are. (Seriously, though, I concur with Xoloz et al.) Joe Sewell 02:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Dalbury(Talk) 11:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Pilatus 03:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Beside the point.
  13. Agree with Xoloz. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Cjmarsicano

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Ms. Martin's actions in her wholesale deletion of userboxes - items meant specifically for user pages only and not affecting the intent of Wikipedia whatsoever - is nothing short of fascist. She has already deleted many templates (one of them was for the US Green Party, of which I am a member and had a userbox indicating same on my userpage) - so I am one of those affected by her actions. She has indicated that she will continue in her ways without apology, discussion, or consensus, and has openly said in so many words, "screw the process". I say in return, screw her instead. She should be totally and completely ashamed of herself and as penance I would highly recommend and endorse removing her administership privleges. --Cjmarsicano 01:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Somebody say amen! Rogue 9 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Niffweed17 05:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I could not agree more. Many users have put time and effort into userboxes, why should she be able to destroy that? Ian13ID:540053 10:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. DES (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ultimately, Kelly's just a symptom of a larger problem, in that policy for all intents and purposes is broken, and she's just filling the void with her own POV. karmafist 18:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Yeltensic42.618 18:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC) De-adminship and a long block might be in order.
  8. Absolutely. This needs to be countered with some harsh measures. Everyking 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Regretably, I must agree. I have personally spent hours learning to create these templates, and have watched proudly as associated categories filled up with like-minded wikipedians. Having my hard work deleted without notice or warning during a long weekend has made me question the wikipedia itself. I feel that Kelly has abused her position, and cannot be trusted with the power to delete without warning. TfD exists for a reason - so that wikipedians have time to respond to one anothers' concerns, and reach consensus. The actions of this administrator are simply destructive of the wiki process itself. --Dschor 11:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who do not endorse this summary

  1. Godwin's law. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by Cool Cat

All processes on wikipedia exist to help us establish a better encyclopedia. When the process is redundent and too time consuming for the obvious desicion it is best to ignore it completely (such as all of speedy deletes rather than vfding them). My view regarding this issue is a bit split.

Side 1
  1. Aside from copyright issues the userboxes should not be an issue after all it is often much easier to use 10 userboxes rather than explaining all of it in a paragraph. Userboxes are the best thing since sliced bread as far as I care.
  2. I like to advertise what wikiprojects I am assosiated with. The purpose of wikipedia userboxes is that they tell people my interests so that if they are writing about lets say Star Trek or about Anime, they can ask for my assistance just by having a glance at my userpage (due to userboxes).
Side 2
  1. Too many {{user ****}} templates started appearing and it has became unmanagable. Often user templates are used for stuff one should take for granted (such as someone being a wikipedia editor).
  2. People should not relly comletely on userboxes. Pages that contain nothing but userboxes are bad for health and should be accompanied by text. Its "too much good stuff".
  3. Wikipedia is a comunity, people oppossing/supporting rfas, vfds, and other votes determined by the personal affiliations (Religion, political pary, race, gender, etc...) of another is something we really want to evade.
  4. Individual political parties are too spesific userpages. General rule of templates is that it is usable by large masses.

Regarding Kelly Martin's action: as per Jimbos ruling karyn is only the messenger, however I would prefer a slower process so as not to accidentaly delete few usefull userbox templates ammong the masses that needs to go. --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

2005 (UTC

[edit] Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. I share these mixed feelings ... on one hand struggling to learn how to contribute to Wiki standards, and not spend lot of time with distractions, impressed with dispute resolution process, impressed with speed of vandalism repairs, dismayed that bosses here can be like those in real life = not underling-friendly. User:AlMac|(talk) 12:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. There are two sides of this story. CoolCat's concerns are valid. --Ghirla | talk 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who oppose this summary (sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Request for clarification

The previous comments are valid, but I do have a question regarding the final paragraph of your statement: precisely what "ruling" of Jimbo's are we talking about? Ms. Martin has not specified to which comments she was referring. I asked her to clarify the nature of these comments, and she then clarified that she was "deriving policy" from Jimbo's statements. Since these statements still have not emerged, and because it seems wildly out-of-character for Jimbo to unilaterally impose new policy on non-critical issues, I would like to formally request that Ms. Martin share this statement. – Seancdaug 01:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It's on the talk page for this RfC. - Synapse 02:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You can read his mail in full here (think that's the one) --Sherool (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm aware of the quote on the talk page, but I noticed that Ms. Martin hasn't confirmed or denied that it is the correct one. If it is, then I fail to see how it can be interepreted as anything more than a statement of personal opinion, and fail to understand how it is being read as a call for Ms. Martin's actions. – Seancdaug 02:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There's also this, from Category:Wikipedians by politics [14]:
        Just a comment from Jimbo: I would like to discourage the use of these and similar templates on user pages, instead encourage people to adopt an attitude of 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.--Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December
--Calton | Talk 08:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Switzerland or United Nations - It's seems that we can never escape the question: Do we want neutral-ish comment, or even-handed comments? Do we want a Walter Cronkite pretending to be neutral and authoritative (though he really wasn't), or instead an articulate advocate from each serious pov on an issue making their case respectfully and as neutrally as they can without compromising their view, and let the reader decide? Perhaps a middle ground where on debateable issues there is a matter-of-fact introduction to an article with advocates limiting themselves to describing thoughtfully their own position within the article, while maintaining order with consensus policing those speaking out of position. It's difficult, but I think that if we pretend to not being advocates, we are simply lying. Being an "advocate" and being "thoughtful" and generous are not mutually exclusive ideas. -- Chris 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Users Str1977, Patsw, AnnH/Musical Linguist were putting up boxes around the time they were combining against Hitler's Pope with Robert McClenon.I show diffs of concerted actions aplenty based on religion-one religion. I believe this here is Jimbo trying some action. I warned him that there had to be a catch- meaning faith-based editing. These boxes and groupings cannot be defused just by removal of the boxes, as they naturally have built up email networks. The error was in allowing emailing. There is possibly no way now to undo the damage, as the private invisible networks know who they are and even a closing of all user names prior to re-start is too late. Perhaps the only way would be to publish the entire email database with the entire stock of emails sent. That way we would likely see what happened, and more importantly we could expect that the subverters would not have built fall-back networks or if they had, that the emails would reveal these. I doubt that Jimbo could take any such drastic action, I have no idea what the legal ramification would be, but someone should tell him-Kelly Martin, say- straightaway to think of this now. Jimbo needs to save his system and run another button linking us to every users email diffs. You may think I'm mad, but I am sick of dishonesty in defence of ecclesiastical crime. Go to todays diffs at Pius XII if you want to see the problem(not me-others) but my whole wikiness reveals the story. Go for it Jimbo, operate on this cancer. Use the same action as here to delete all wikipedian categorisation pages, even nationality pages. In fact disallow anything but text, as the colour yellow is enough. These people use subtle codes, so disallow user-language boxes, and disallow foreign text of any kind on user pages. Set more people on it and put out a general order for users to excise all the foregoing voluntarily or face your team. If you can post an email diff button, users can do the policing. And close emailing immediately, and then lets send the abusers off to the wiki court with their IP numbers round their necks. Sorry, we all see this drastic action as contradicting principles, but users get what they deserve for allowing the cancer to grow. Sorry -community, has to be said.EffK 01:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Urthogie

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Just as users may talk about their POV on their talk pages, they may make userboxes. We don't need to be perfect wikipedians, we can freely express our view with userboxes if we wan't to. Hiding our beliefs will not change how we edit, its a non-issue for talk pages.--Urthogie 01:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Rogue 9 05:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 18:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. -- Cjmarsicano 22:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yes, but I presume Urthogie means user pages rather than talk pages. AnnH (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:NicholasTurnbull

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

The perennial issue over deletion process crops up with surprising regularity at least once every three months, if not more often, on Wikipedia; ultimately what we are seeing here is a symptomatic expression, if you will, of the underlying issues surrounding deletion processes at large. In my view, the deletion processes have become so ridiculously cumbersome and bureaucratic that they discourage people from seeking consensus, because they are the preferred method and are such a monumental pain in the arse to go through.

I myself will readily admit to perhaps applying IAR too liberally when approaching deletion, simply because the deletion processes are so incredibly ridiculous and unwieldy. Let's face it, we're here to write an encyclopaedia. When encyclopaedic content is being proposed for deletion, it strikes me that consensus is absolutely necessary in order to maintain proper editorial controls, and also to ensure a productive collaboration environment. However, these userboxes are not part of the encyclopaedia - they are self-references, which discouraged on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Avoid self references).

The concerns raised re. bloc voting and the classification of Wikipedians based on particular points of view are echoed elsewhere other than user page boxes (see, for example, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia, which I ended up closing early to end the mud-slinging match that happens with such articles). Since we're here to build an encyclopaedia, we should be focusing our efforts on discussing encyclopaedic content, not quibbling over widgets that people dream up to look pretty or to advertise their views. I think that such things which do not fall under the purview of encyclopaedia editing really don't have to go through the cumbersome deletion processes, simply because otherwise we'll end up doing nothing else than squabbling rather than writing the encyclopaedia.

Kelly did the right thing, in my view (although, perhaps a few talk page messages wouldn't have hurted, but by no means obligatory) and I implore other people who wish to get on making an encyclopaedia to use their own judgement and be bold, but discuss what you do properly.--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Amended text --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sarah Ewart 03:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. netkinetic 07:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. [[Sam Korn]] 23:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Rob Church Talk 23:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to this view

Your lackadaisical dismissal of the importance of talkpages is appalling. "although, perhaps a few talk page messages wouldn't have hurted, but by no means obligatory" I take this opportunity to ask you a question: Who builds Wikipedia? Is it you? Is it Jimbo? Is it Ms Martin? Or is it the community? Jimbo said, "We make the Internet not suck". We. Not Jimbo, not Ms Martin, not you, not me. We, the community. Wikipedia is nothing if not for its community, and Ms Martin is threating to destroy it. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Miborovsky: I did not dismiss the importance of talk pages in the slightest; it is merely that spending time discussing objets d'arte and POV indication banners is far less productive than spending time discussing articles - or better still, being bold and writing the things. I cannot possibly see any reason why a project which is meant to be writing an encyclopaedia should squander its time resources bickering about pleasant objects to add to one's talk page. I made it clear above that I would advise better communication, but I fail to see why entering into lengthy discussion is at all useful over something which contributes nothing to our project's actual goals other than to satisfy the aesthetic desires of its participants.
In response to your equestion - "Who builds Wikipedia?" - Wikipedians build Wikipedia, of course. User boxes do not get articles written, they are thus not a part of the goals of our project. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though there is a reason talkpages exist, and that is to use them. Article creators don't get a "Would you like a talkpage with this article?" button and that tells you something - talkpages are not optional! And as a counter point to your answer to my question, "Who builds Wikipedia?", do you honestly think that all the megabytes of bandwidth we have spent on this page has gotten any articles written? Do you think the community overall has benefitted from Ms Martin's outburst on New Year's Day, 2006? Do you know how many editors Ms Martin has pissed off? Do all of them squander their time doing nothing but designing fancy-looking userboxes? Would all of them return after this debacle, after the work they put into Wikipedia, no matter how misguided or inappropriate, has been so callously dismissed? You answered my question - Wikipedians build Wikipedia. How many Wikipedians have we lost this day, and how many articles have we got written because of this? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
To "Who builds Wikipedia?": Would so many editors do what they do here if they saw admins deleting things without notice? Admins ignoring discussion and resolving to do whatever they wanted regardless? Admins ignoring WP:CIVIL, attacking other users and belittling their contributions? Admins laughing off the fact that their actions have pissed off a lot of editors? Would they be more or less inclined to donate money and time to a project that was subject to the whims of a privileged few? -- Synapse 17:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
"User boxes do not get articles written, they are thus not a part of the goals of our project." User boxes are conducive to a casual and fun working environment. The ones Kelly Martin deleted are particularly useful if you want to hunt down someone with a certain POV, which most definitely is conducive to getting articles written. Wikipedia's greatest strengths are the community and the fun casual things we do as a community. We Wikipedians are nice, fun, friendly people. This isn't a workplace filled with cubicles where we're banned from posting Dilbert cartoons on the walls; this is a small startup where we write encyclopedia articles, but we also joke around and have fun. Take that away and you kill Wikipedia. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An opposing view

I don't care much about userboxes either way. I don't have any on my userpage, and I'm not likely to start but I don't care what other people put on their userpages. I don't see that it affects making an encyclopaedia one way or another. I agree with Nicholas that it's not "productive" but how people waste their own time is their own affair. I don't think Jimbo's rather wishful thinking has much bearing here either. People just don't drop their biases at the door, and it doesn't make much difference whether they advertise them. The camps that Jimbo talks about already exist. I can't see that userboxes are ever used to rally support. If they were, Kelly could have made a strong case at TfD, backing up her assertions with evidence. As with most issues of deletion or administrative action, I ask "what is it hurting?" If it isn't actually doing any harm, why try to get rid of it? If people are enjoying working with it or on it, why are you trying to get in the way of that? If they're not doing something detrimental, why try to stop it? What's it to you or me how someone wastes the hours of their life?

I agree with those who say unilateral admin action, with common sense, is sometimes justified. But that action must surely only be done when the admin is confident that it would have near unanimous support from the community. The support of your friends, or of some other admins, is not enough. If you know that your unilateral action will upset many editors (rather than just one or two), you need to think harder about whether it is justified. Admins are supposed to be editors with mops, not lords and ladies of the realm, acting without any reference to the people their actions are supposed to serve.

If I asked myself did Kelly expect her actions to meet approval from the community, I have to answer no. She may have believed in all good faith that she was pursuing a good end, but she must also have known that not everbody would agree it was a good end. She knew she was "pissing on someone's playground".

I think Kelly circumvented process not because it was cumbersome, which would be supportable, but because it would not give the end she personally desired.

I think it's a reasonable principle that admins should never use their powers to carry out unilateral actions to their own ends when they can reasonably expect that those ends are not supported by all but a very small number of editors. Consensus cannot mean "I do what I want because you lack the powers to challenge it". It has to mean "I do what I want because I know you will agree to it".

I am especially alarmed at "screw process" as a shout of defiance. In this instance, it didn't mean "screw the cumbersome process that would prevent me from doing what consensus would dictate", but "screw the community that would prevent me from doing what I wanted".

I don't think it is appropriate for a member of the body that enforces policy on editors, demanding that they pursue process rather than act unilaterally and also demanding that they work with other editors instead of running roughshod over them, to disregard consensus and policy in this way.

It's almost impossible to de-admin someone who acts badly, particularly when they are an arbitrator. One has to rely on the admin's own regard for the community and the feeling it shows towards their actions. Of course, there will be some who support the admin almost regardless, particularly if they share the admin's view on the end they pursued. Unfortunately, this tends to make the person in question feel that they have been endorsed by the community, because their response is endorsed by people they respect.

Nevertheless, I think Kelly should consider requesting her admin powers be removed, and should step down from the arbcom. Can you really sit in judgement over other editors when your own attitude is "screw the policies"? Why can those hauled before the arbcom not simply argue that they were screwing process and expect that defence to stand? James James 01:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another opposing view

I cannot disagree more strongly. If the deletion process is too "cumbersome" for administrators, then they should never have accepted the role in the first place. Ultimately, Wikipedia editors need to be able to stand by their supposed convictions. Emphasizing the community aspect of the project, and promoting the importance of consensus is meaningless if sysops feel free to disregard their own words because it makes things difficult. It alienates editors, and in doing so drives them away from Wikipedia, thereby damaging the goal of "making an encyclopedia." At the risk of sounding like a policy wonk, if we can't expect sysops to follow the rules of the project, how can we expect anyone else to do so? If we can't expect sysops to seek out consensus and to work with the community-at-large, how on earth can we ask newcomers to do so? – Seancdaug 02:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Seancdaug: Admins never accept nomination on the basis that they believe Wikipedia processes are perfect; I do not believe I am alone in my view that the deletion processes have become far far too heavy going, although even if I am I do not believe that invalidates my ability to act as an administrator. I believe in consensus wholeheartedly - this project wouldn't even have got off the ground if it didn't exist, wikis cannot work without some means of bringing editors together into a cohesive whole. There is, however, a difference between debate and consensus, and indeed it is a fallacy to believe that the existence of the former necessarily brings the latter into existence, or vice versa. Consensus is not necessarily achieved by debate, and indeed, plenty of debates fail to bring together consensus. These user page boxes are not part of our encyclopaedic project, they are toys we have created for aesthetic purposes and point-of-view representations. There was no consensus to bring them into play to begin with, so why is it a violation of consensus to reverse that change and delete them? We have never had a consensus that building user page boxes was necessary to a good, neutral encyclopaedia. I would point out that the status quo is not necessarily the same thing as consensus; that is, circumstances may exist even where consensus does not, but just because nothing has been done about a particular decision does not make it consensus by default. I work with the community as much as possible - indeed, I'm sure you can observe I would not be talking here if that was not so, and my rôle on Wikipedia gravitates around talking, namely mediation. I am not advocating no discussion; what I am advocating is that admins use their judgement, and be bold, and that user page boxes are not encyclopaedic and thus do not require the same editorial review processes (which, incidentally do not generate consensus a lot of the time). Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It is certainly true that review processes and debate do not always generate consensus. It similarly true that consensus cannot be generated without some processing of gauging public opinion. And I never once stated that belief in all of Wikipedia policies and processes is a prerequisite for adminship. A willingness to uphold those policies and processes, however, is. They exist for a reason, and if it is not possible to raise the consensus necessary to alter them, then there is very likely a reason for their existence in the first place. Ultimately, you'll notice that the case against Ms. Martin does not solely rest upon her refusal to go through the proper channels, but in her refusal to communicate at all before taking action, and her openly inflammatory response to criticism thereafter.
As you argue yourself, debate does not always lead to consensus, and, similarly, consensus does not emerge solely from debate. The argument that the proliferation of userboxes, for good or ill, was the result of a mere adherence to status quo seems to flatly ignore the situation on the ground, as it were I would also hasten to add that the very presence of user pages on Wikipedia suggests a belief that they do serve some purpose towards the stated goals of the project, even if indirectly. And consensus, to my knowledge, has always been considered a standard of behavior throughout all namespaces. Even if I accept the argument that the formal review processes are inapplicable outside of the article namespace (an argument that I have never once encountered before this RfC, and find highly dubious), more general standards of behavior and of conduct almost certainly do. And it is these standards that Ms. Martin has flaunted, and has promised to continue flaunting. There was no "quibbling," as you put it, until Ms. Martin decided to impose her own personal policy on the community at large. Ultimately, this is conduct unbecoming of a sysop, and even less becoming of a member of arbcom. – Seancdaug 03:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another opposing view

I'll say it straight. Turnbull, you're scaring me. "The process is too cumbersome" is a line uttered by many throughout history. Know who? Dictators, emperors, and despots galore who decided that they were above the law. How would you like it if your district attorney decided that the process of prosecuting criminal offenders was too cumbersome and started having people tossed into jail upon accusation? Uttering that phrase as anything other than a prelude to a reform proposal is an instant warning sign that the utterer should not be entrusted with power and the accompanying responsibility. Rogue 9 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rogue 9: Although you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I do not believe that such reasoning is either rational nor justified in this scenario. When I referred to the deletion process as "cumbersome", I meant exactly that - the present deletion processes, such as Articles for deletion, Templates for deletion, Miscellany for deletion etc. are lumbering, complex devices intended to gain consensus, but instead simply consume a great deal of editor resources and often even do not satisfactorily gain a consensus. I have no ulterior motive to seize control of Wikipedia, nor to strip the community of its ability to discuss and decide. I do not see how simple dissatisfaction with a deletion process is grounds to state that I am untrustworthy to be granted responsibility; as for power, I have none, and do not desire any. Your comparison to prosecution without trial is a fallacious one; for one, the magnitude of importance that deletion holds to human welfare is infinitely smaller, articles are not being "tried" in any respect whatsoever - one is not presenting evidence/counterevidence to an article's deletion; the processes are intended to provide fora to debate whether or not articles should be deleted. I do not consider myself above the Wikipedia community, and indeed all Wikipedia users - whether anons, users or admins - have the ability to use discretion to ignore policy, but are not above it. I implore you to please be reasonable when discussing issues such as this one on Wikipedia. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was a bit too harsh, but an unwillingness to follow proper procedure because it's inconvenient still shows callous disregard to consensus, not to mention basic fairness. Rogue 9 16:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another view ... streamline cumbersome process

Perhaps there should be a separate RFC on evolving those administrative processes that are deemed time consuming, cumbersome pain in the ****. in any organization, there is a tendency to add rules to cover new scenarios, leading to a periodic need to rethink and streamline the whole process. This is true for companies, governments, international bodies, in which some are more in need of streamlining and rethinking than others. Assuming Wiki's continued success, the volume of editors and articles will rise, leading to more volume of demands upon administrators, thus they need to figure out how to make their processes more efficient, in a drive for continual improvement of excellence. User:AlMac|(talk) 02:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said, I wholeheartedly agree. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of Zzyzx11

My two cents:

  • Reading Jimbo's message on the mailing list, it seems that he was only raising the issue instead of setting policy (just like he did when he sent the message back in May that "all images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and will be deleted." [15])
  • Likewise, on his message on Category:Wikipedians by politics [16], he is only discouraging people, not necessarily banning the practice entirely.
  • Deleting a userbox, or any template, just because it has a non-free image is too extreme because you can easily remove the image from the template.
  • It is not helpful for users like me who see vague entries in the deletion log like "political entity -- delete per jimbo" without a link to Jimbo's message, a policy page, or a discussion on the topic.
  • Even if you got rid of these userboxes, people would probably just paste these messages directly on their user pages. WP:UP says that a user can list "information about your areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes..." Wouldn't briefly mentioning one's political or religious views also fall into the categories of one's interests, likes, and dislikes? I would have liked to seen a discussion about that issue instead of unilaterally removing such messages from people's user pages.

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

  1. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Specially 3rd and 4th point. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 18:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Prohibition, or Communist Party? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Larix 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Xoloz 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. AnnH (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Dalbury(Talk) 12:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. If Jimbo wants to use his supreme executive power, I'm sure he will make it perfectly clear. the wub "?!" 17:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. The first point seems to be the crux of the issue. It just simply doesn't come close to justifying Kelly's actions. He specifically said he just wanted to "raise, gently" the issue. This is way beyond raising the issue and there's certainly nothing gentle about it. PurplePlatypus 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Wikipedia's far bigger than Jimbo now, he should be apolitical or realize that future rfcs such as this one will pop up from users who think they're above the law in some Wiki-aristocracy made by Jimbo. karmafist 14:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Dan100 (Talk) 20:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Silensor 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by User:AlMac|(talk) on WP:UP re-write

If the objection to the userboxes is that they share what we are interested in, what our qualifications are (such as the programming languages we know), what we are interested in, etc., because some of these are silly ideas, or potentially offensive, or because when we do volunteer work on Wiki, we are suppose to leave our expertise at the door, and write about stuff outside our area of speciality, then WP:UP needs to be re-written to tell us what types of interests, qualifications, skilles etc. are inappropriate to place on our userpages? Otherwise, a userbox gets deleted, then we state using a body of text, the same sentiments, in ignorance of rules not stated in WP:UP but existing in the heads of the administrators, leading to trouble like this "discussion", which is more like a bunch of people talking at each other but not really "getting" other side views.

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

  1. User:AlMac|(talk) 12:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of Ral315

I respect Kelly Martin, and I understand her intent here (and sympathize with it.) But the way it was handled, by unilaterally deleting the templates without any discussion, was nothing short of disruptive. And deleting templates with fair use images is absurd. Simply replacing the fair use images with text ("dem", for example, instead of the Democratic Party logo) serves the same purpose, while still allowing the template to exist.

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

  1. Ral315 (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Commander Keane 13:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. DES (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Seancdaug 18:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yes, the templates can be replaced to make images free. And even if she was right on intentions, she being on ArbCom should have more respect to process than "screw process". -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Extraordinary Machine 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. I'm not sure to what extent I "understand" and "sympathize" (except, of course, that I do think there are too many user boxes, and that some are silly, divisive, and even offensive). Apart from that one reservation, I fully endorse Ral315's statement. AnnH (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Indeed, the action of deleting the userboxes have been far more damaging to the end goal of producing an encyclopedia than the userboxes themselves. --Fangz 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Agreed, with Musical Linguist's reservation. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Palmiro | Talk 14:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Richard0612 16:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Babajobu 19:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC) True True.
  14. Larix 12:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Dan100 (Talk) 20:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Silensor 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by D-Day

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I'm not an admin, so I don't know the processes they go through in a day, but nonetheless, this is, at best, anti-democratic. None of the userboxes on my user page were deleted, but one I did create was. The userboxes have recently caused a controversy around here, because they are POV, non-encyclopedic, etc. But I think they're just a fad. Yes, my user page is flooded with them, and I'm not ashamed to admit that. But who knows if they'll be there six months to a year from now. My point is some people just take them WAY too seriously, on both sides of the issue.

But moving on, I have never spoken with Ms. Martin before this issue popped up, but by looking at her userpage, she seems to be a very devoted woman, so

This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks.

. But that will be difficult for me to keep. You don't go deleting things without a consensus, and then blast those who have the nerve to reprimand you. That's the equivalent of Communism, ironically. About the image issue, one userbox I created was brought up for deletion due to non-free image use. After they were removed, the tfd was taken out. Images shouldn't be a reason for deletion since they are easily fixable. My recommendation is this, a definite stripping of Admin duties, and should this behavior continue by any chance(Gad, I hope not), then a block from editing should be put into place.

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

  1. D-Day 13:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. User:Noisy | Talk 14:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) — WP:RFDA
  4. People do make mistakes, but Kelly's endorsed dysopping people for mistakes in the past[17]. karmafist 21:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. This is not a mistake, this is an ill-conceived attempt at unilateral control of userpage content. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Stripping out of adminship is way too harsh. We all make mistakes once in a while. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 18:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
If she had only deleted a couple of userboxes and didn't bite people who tried to reprimand her, than I would agree with your logic. Her behavior and subsesquent behavior has been disgusting, andcan almost be considered vandal-like.(Ignoring repeated warnings, rude behavior. Trust me on this. I'm an ex-vandal myself.) --D-Day 19:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) I think this may be overstating things a bit.
  2. Removing adminship is an inappropriate overreaction. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Snowspinner

I am appalled that this RfC was conducted with talk page spamming using a template. RfCs are not a place to try to attack good faith actions with overwhelming force, and are not a place to gather "me too" signatures. Frankly, this entire RfC ought to be speedied as an out of process abomination. I have never been this wholly disgusted at elements of the community. Every single person who was involved in the use of that template should seriously rethink their priorities in using Wikipedia.

  1. Phil Sandifer 17:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Monicasdude 18:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Amen. --Wgfinley 20:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Anyone who doesn't think Kelly was acting in good faith needs their head examined. Maybe she was misguided (I'm not sure, though I know I wouldn't have done the same) but to say that she was acting in bad faith is just plain wrong. [[Sam Korn]] 20:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The last thing we need now is more abuse. Telling people they need their head examined isn't helping. - Synapse 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. This has become a witch hunt by members of the Userboxes Project, without thinking that the most important aspect of Wikipedia is writing an encyclopedia, and Kelly is one of the finest at doing this. Harro5 21:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ms. Martin's skill at editing strikes me as beside the point. Being a valued contributor does not excuse anyone from responsibility for ill-considered actions, and no one has suggested that Ms. Martin's contributions on the whole aren't valid, merely that she acted inappropriately in her capacity as administrator, in a way that was ultimately detrimental to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. – Seancdaug 23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Even if I did agree, which I don't, those taking issue with Kelly's actions effectively shot themselves in the foot the minute they went out and whipped up the digital lynch mob with their previous actions and continue to do so as they populate this RfC, which has turned into a complete meltdown, with nonsensical troll-like punitive measures in response. They impugned any credibility they might have had by their deliberate attempts to use templates to crucify another user and if that isn't detrimental I don't know what is. --Wgfinley 01:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • A select few of the people involved in this RfC did that. As the original starter of this RfC, I recognize that a number of users have gotten way out of hand here. But even though I disagreed with Kelly's actions, I have not been a part of this lynch mob, or as I prefer to call it, witch hunt. Labeling a group (of 76 people, no less) based on the actions of a few radicals within it is bad. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You'll notice, Mr. Finley, that I have spoken out repeatedly against any attempts "to crucify another user," and I know for a fact that I am not the only one (see BorgHunter's comment directly above mine). While I am ashamed of the actions of a number of contributors here, I find your inability to distinguish between the actions of a few overzealous fools and the overwhelming number of editors who have come here with a legitimate complaint to be disheartening. – Seancdaug 01:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • There is a very legitimate complaint, and it is unfortunate that the bad behaviour of some of those who were opposed to Kelly's action may have led to a certain loss of credibility for the entire group. AnnH (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. — Dan | talk 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Well put. Soltak | Talk 23:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. 172 01:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Rob Church Talk 09:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. netkinetic 04:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. It's hard to believe that Snowspinner and I agree about anything, but this ridiculous witchhunt over a perfectly legitimate action involving copyright violations on silly little pictures needs to end, now. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who oppose this summary

1.    Looks like you don't have a clue what's going on:

  • The template made about the RfC was ONLY placed on two pages: Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes and Wikipedia:Userboxes - by members of the very WikiProject involved. That's not "spamming".
    • It was not an "attack", it merely mentioned that many templates had been deleted and provided a link to this request for comment (I didn't make this by the way, but I saw it). I thought it was very useful myself too, as I had no idea what was going on until I saw a message on someone else's talk page. There's nothing wrong with bringing attention to such a blatant abuse of admin powers like this, and there were definitely no rules broken, unless you're going to say that no one should be allowed to mention that RfCs are in process..
    • As a matter of fact some of the things that occurred after in response to that were quite chilling and much more serious: People mentioning the RfC were banned from Wikipedia indefinitely (e.g. God of War, User:Saveus)
  • Kelly Martin was acting very much out of process herself. Mass-scale, non-consensus deletions of material from userpages without applicable support from policy is pretty serious, and deserved to be brought attention to.
  • It was hardly a "good faith action".:
(From Wikipedia chat room, this was spotted by User:SPUI who posted it on the talk page here and was promptly banned. The reasons for this were described as "we should be able to say what we want without it coming back to haunt us.":)
[19:03:53] <karynn> i deleted a bunch of useless shit, and the people in love with it whined.
[19:18:34] <ambi2> meh, I'm all for deleting them now. It's interesting that basically all the people who voted against you on that RfC were newbies irritated that their l33t toys had disappeared.
[19:18:55] <karynn> yeah, pretty much. along with a handful of process wonks
[19:20:24] <karynn> by the way, i'm just loving this. i should get RfC'd more often.
[19:43:19] <karynn> i peed on someone's playground, i guess."

          Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 16:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, that's a perfectly valid rationale for not wanting the chat log posted. Furthermore, it's external to Wikipedia itself, and is not strictly relevant to this RfC. Posting this here, despite the clear disapproval of the participants, is unconscionably rude and degrades this entire procedure to the level of witch hunt. – Seancdaug 19:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It's on the Wikipedia computer servers, paid by the same Wikimedia Foundation, about the same encyclopedia: I think it's relevant. --20:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no, the #wikimedia channel is hosted at the Peer-Directed Projects Center (also known as freenode), receives no funding from the WMF, and makes use of none of their servers. Next time, check your facts before you spout. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen irc logs forged before.
[21:13] <spectie> I saw a man eat a bicycle :(
- FrancisTyers 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


2.    It's hard to assume good faith in the case of a mass, out-of-process deletion. The unique nature of the situation made it difficult to follow the usual protocol. It seems a bit hypocritical to condemn this RFC for being "an out of process abomination" when Kelly showed a blatant disregard not only for process but for community consensus when she mass deleted legitimate templates that were in widespread use. Frankly, I think Kelly should have been immediately desysopped as a temporary emergency measure to stop the administrative vandalism, just as Aevar once was when he mass deleted various images from Wikipedia. The issues then could have been sorted out later. But you can't go around mass deleting stuff and then complain when people react quite vehemently to that. Firebug 16:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

3. karmafist 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Looks like the guilty parties want to cover up any opposition to their actions. Perhaps this RFC should be moved to a Free speech zone? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

5. AnnH (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Thankyou for bringing this into the light. I still haven't heard a single word from neutrality on why he banned me forever. Only after I sent out lots of emails to admins was the the ban suddenly lifted without a word.--God of War 04:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

7. Silensor 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Firebug

I am appalled both by the grotesque defiance of community consensus embodied in the original deletions, and the defense of these actions by User:Snowspinner and others, their mocking tone, and their utter refusal to take good faith complaints seriously. I have already notified Jimbo of the ongoing situation, and I hope that we can receive some clarification on this issue soon. If not, then it is clear that a request for arbitration will have to be filed regarding this issue. User:Kelly Martin and User:Snowspinner should both lose their administrative powers for flagrant contempt of the Wikipedia community.

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

  1. Xoloz 18:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) God help Wikipedia
  2. karmafist 18:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Ditto.
  3. Mistress Selina Kyle 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) — The fact that stuff like this is allowed to happen shows that something has clearly gone wrong in the administrative workings of Wikipedia.. — WP:RFDA
  4. Ian13ID:540053 18:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry, but how can we have a sence of trust, when the people empowered go against the community policies.
  5. rst20xx 18:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Dan100 (Talk) 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC). Yes. It now seems that admins now think they can get away with anything; this should not be the case.

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. While I don't suport the way she handled it (I recall once she criticizing some user for not discussing things when requested), I don't understand why everybody is going for too harsh penalties. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 18:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I would say it is because they are administrators, and they have power to do community decided tasks, and not to use their own discression when approiate actions could have been taken (image removal, TfD ect.) Ian13ID:540053 18:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I support de-adminship not because of the original deletion (anyone can do rash things occasionally) but because of the utter lack of any remorse, and the contempt for the community exhibited after the fact. Firebug 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As Ian13 says, it's a matter of trust. According to Wikipedia:Administrators, a sysop is supposed to be a "trusted member of the community." Ms. Martin's contemptous disregard for process, and her refusual to accept that one of her major jobs is "carrying out the consensus of the community," suggests that she lacks the temperament to remain in her current position. This is a simply a recognition of her actions, and a recognition that Ms. Martin, while no doubt an upstanding editor in her own right, is not suited to bear the additional powers of a sysop. As far as I'm concerned, it's not even that punitive: adminship isn't a badge of honor, it's a job. Almost everyone agrees (in theory, at least) that adminship does not confer an elevated social status upon the recipient. So the only thing at issue should be whether or Ms. Martin has demonstrated herself capable of carrying out the requirements of her job. Please note, I am not calling for her removal at this juncture (and it is not really an appropriate discussion for an RfC, anyway). As you say, Drini, occassional lapses are to be tolerated. I am not, however, convinced that she has indicated any regret or remorse at her actions, and her earlier statements indicating that she would not hesitate to repeat her deeds do give me pause for thought?: would a candidate for adminship who openly admitted that s/he would misuse the powers of the position and refuse to be held accountable to the community be promoted in the first place? – Seancdaug 18:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. No harsh penalties, eariler you wanted everyone who supported her also to have their powers taken away from her, to the point of filing another RFC against another admin, this conduct from both sides is unacceptable. --Jaranda wat's sup 19:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kelly Martin was acting in good faith, and I might note that she hasn't deleted any templates since the RfC was filed. Besides the fact that only an ArbCom decision can remove a person's privileges, I don't think that one incident is enough to even contemplate a revocation of someone's rights on this project. When the ArbCom election comes up, I'll certainly have second thoughts about voting for her, but to consider removing her adminship smacks of revenge and retaliation. This RfC has become something of a witch hunt, and I for one do not condone this. RfCs are about gauging community consensus, and I doubt Kelly will go around deleting more things without discussing it first. Calling for a revocation of her adminship is extremely inappropriate in this forum and at this stage. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So do we sit back and see if the going against the community which she claims she will do (through mass deleting again), and then file a RfAr if people who confront her face the same fate? Ian13ID:540053 19:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sit back? Absolutely. There's no need to go further than a RfC if Kelly doesn't continue with the same behavior. Personally, I don't see you and Firebug as trying to resolve this dispute...rather, it seems that you're trying to escalate it. Please don't. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry if it is viewed like that, it is not intended. I am trying to voice my views in the best manner possible, however I feel I should voice my comments, since that is the purpose of this RfC. I am trying to make it clear in my comments that she shows no remorse and comments that she will do it again. Ian13ID:540053 21:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Agreed; A simple "Sorry about that, I'll try not to do it again" would go a long way in this dispute - [User:Dleigh|Synapse]] 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. No. Kelly Martin and Snowspinner are both administrators who usually act in a responisble manner. We can be strict with admins who make out of process image deletions (since they are irreversible) and out of process blocks (reversible, but the damage to the user's feelings are not). Out of process deltions and undeletions are annoying but need to be really disruptive before desysopping becomes an issue. Kelly and Snowspinner both deserve criticism for their actions here, but taking away their adminship is way too harsh. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I personally feel the lack of remorce and disconsern for the community is the issue. Ian13ID:540053 14:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I have no idea what Kelly should express remorse about, since what she did is not only appropriate, but required to keep Wikipedia legal. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    LOL Dan100 (Talk) 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    How many times, she could have removed the images not deleted the whole template. the wub "?!" 00:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Intentionally or not, you are confusing a template, made up of text licensed under the GFDL, with a (potentially) fair-use image. It is not necessary to entirely delete a template in order to remove a fair-use image used under non fair-use conditions. How does deleting a GFDL babelbox keep Wikipedia legal? Silensor 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Xoloz

Time for a touch of drama, folks. Ms. Martin's act here is symptomatic of a certain unilateralist attitude that I have noted among several WPians self-classifed as "elite." These users seem content to disregard, ignore, or neglect even to consider having discussions over the use of their admin power, and are known for the refrain, "This is ridiculous" to characterize those who urge a more deliberative course.

I'm a calm person: I believe in discussions, I believe in consensus, I enjoy reconciling differences with others by open dialogue. WP is an encyclopedia first, but an encyclopedia is made by groups of honest people, not by the whims of one person's (or one elite's) ego. Mr. Wales (Wiki-king) seems to understand this, and rarely asserts himself. Ms. Martin, it seems, does not -- and she is a public face of WP, as a member of Arbcom, and an admin.

I have curtailled my involvement in WP lately because I have become exhausted seeing "elite" users defy consensus, and hold discussion in contempt. Frankly, I have no interest in aiding a project which endorses open discussion in policy, but seems plagued by some leaders who demean it de facto through their actions.

If the WP "elite" cannot make peace with their egos, and learn to consider the opinions of others' before acting, I have no desire to work here any longer. If unilateralism persists as a mechanism of leadership here, I am sure others will join over time, and the encyclopedia will fail. I want these elite users to understand -- to learn good judgment -- and I want the encyclopedia to thrive. Increasingly, I fear this will not happen. Xoloz 18:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Firebug 18:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) What's the point of participating when you repeatedly get spit on and slapped down by a handful of users who think they're above everyone else?
  2. WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. A touch more dramatic than I would have put it, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. – Seancdaug 18:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. karmafist 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mistress Selina Kyle 18:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) — WP:RFDA
  6. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Synapse 01:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. AnnH (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. →AzaToth 02:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. While I do not intend to leave over this, at least one good editor has said he will leave, and I can understand why people feel that way. DES (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Especially if these elite members don't offer any apologies or concerns . PeregrineAY 19:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Babajobu 23:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC) To me, the concerns Xoloz expresses are really the nut of this whole affair: if Wikipedia feels like its administered by an elite that's contemptuous of "wikiproles", then new users won't stick around and experienced users will leave, and Wikipedia will have jumped the shark. Not consulting on a mass-deletion of templates that people had worked hard on, or even discussing it with the sixty-one Wikipedians who joined the project to manage those templates, was thus very bad for Wikipedia.
  14. Insofar as this deals with "talk about it first, especially when you can obviously expect controversy" this is quite correct. Is there an elite? There isn't if you simply refuse to accept the concept of such a thing, beyond the hierarchy of the software. -Splashtalk 00:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strongest possible endorsement. PurplePlatypus 06:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Dan100 (Talk) 21:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC). Yes, too much silliness recently. Are older admins feeling that their voices are being drowned out by newer arrivals, and are losing their personal control?
  17. Very well said. Silensor 20:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary

  1. I have yet to see single person on Wikipedia who "self-classifed as "elite." " User:Zoe|(talk) 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    User:Tony Sidaway, User:David Gerard, and the departed User:Ed Poor spring immediately to mind; I consider declaring, "I been around here so long that I can get away with this", or similar words, to be such a self-classifying statement. Xoloz 19:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    Could you give examples where someone has claimed that he has been around so long that he can get away with something? Since you have named three editors, three examples might be in order. On Ed Poor, as far as I'm aware he hasn't departed, but he's taking a wikibreak. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    Evidence for Mr. Sidaway's alleged self-classification is at his talk; evidence for others will provided at that individual's request, only because I'm busy, and this RfC is moribund. Xoloz 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by the wub

There is a difference between actions that conflict with the building of an encyclopedia, and actions that can happily run parallel to it. Ironically Kelly Martin's unilateral actions and refusal to apologise have led to this massive arguement, which itself is "wasting time" and in no way helping build an encyclopedia. Why not just leave the userboxes alone?

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

  1. the wub "?!" 18:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. karmafist 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Xoloz 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. AnnH (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Remember, this is all over userboxes. Let us continue making a free compendium of knowledge. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Cryptic (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another outside view by Aranda56

Let me make this clearer, I noticed the worst in both sides of this RFC, personal attacks, more random RFCs, and other conflects. Kelly Martin did wrong and everyone knows that. But that doesn't mean that she and EVERYONE who defended her should have their powers removed or play the riot game which in my opinion, it's about to become. This RFC is without a doubt breaking the community apart, all for a few wrongfully deleted userboxes. Lets try to find a solution for this debate. Fair and simple. Why not let another admin restore those userboxes and have a simple community debate on it. It's that simple, and it would end this conflect once and for all. Thank You

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

  1. --Jaranda wat's sup 19:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Agreed. Let cooler heads prevail. This isn't an RfA, and the focus of these proceedings should be on resolving the issue at hand, not punishing anyone. – Seancdaug 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Extraordinary Machine 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Xoloz 01:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Partially -- I'm all for healing, but I'm far, far from convinced that Ms. Martin understands why what she did was horrible. Xoloz 01:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Again, I agree with Xoloz. I endorse this statement apart from the bit that says "everyone knows" that she did wrong. AnnH (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. It seems like the userboxes are being restored. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. CastAStone 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by WAS 4.250 20:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, a member of our highest court ArbCom, the interpreter of the words and will of our beloved founder, said "Screw process." Its clear we must all conform to to the latest revelation and teaching of Kelly Martin and obey her injunction to "Screw process." She has set a fine and noble example. Let us follow it.

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

  1. WAS 4.250 20:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mistress Selina Kyle 20:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Verily, and let us point-and-laugh at the heathens below who do not endorse this gospel. Or at least sympathise with their poor irony detection powers. --86.132.93.86 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. A mistake is no justification for further mistakes -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. No way, we need to follow process. --Jaranda wat's sup 20:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. (Although I'm assuming the OP was being somewhat sarcastic to prove a point) - Synapse 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. I interpret this as either a sarcastic remark or as an invitation to treat Kelly Martin with the same lack of consideration that she used in this debacle. While it is just that Kelly Martin reap what she sows, we can afford to be merciful and have more respect for our fellow Wikipedians than Kelly did. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strongest oppose. Ms Martin's lack of respect for the community is no justification for us to do likewise. Once again I quote: А у вас негров линчуют. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Absolutely not. Two wrongs don't make a right. – Seancdaug 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Most emphatically no. It is vital that all editors use their own judgement to decide when Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is applicable and when it isn't, and to do their best to "gauge the waters" of Wikipedia before carrying out action without debate. The day we start blindly accepting past users' actions as a carte blanche to do whatever we wish is the day that we become a herd of mindless idiots, and the day our project fails resoundingly. One should never "screw process", just as one should never "screw" the opinions of editors; one can, however, use ones judgement, but there is a certain "fine line" between reckless abandon and valid discretion. I don't personally think Kelly crossed that line; others beg to differ. However, we must absolutely not take it too far. "Ignore all rules" does not mean "Ignore all editors", or, worse still, "Fuck the whole of Wikipedia, I'm going to do what I like". It means being clueful and applying judgement. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. No. Soltak | Talk 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Heck no. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I can only assume that this was a sarcastic statement made. It's quite humourous, but I cannot in my right mind actually proceed to sign it. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Extraordinary Machine 00:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. View is horribly troll-based. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Sarah Ewart 04:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. ++Lar: t/c 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 3 lefts might make a right, but 2 wrongs certainly do not.
  15. Yuk. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. "An eye for an eye" and "two wrongs make a right" as proposed in the above statement fragment the respectibility of this resource. netkinetic 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by rst20xx

I'll keep this short; As can be clearly seen, many of the Userboxes Kelly Martin deleted have been restored by a wide variety of other users. If she attempts to delete the userboxes again, I see no reason why this restoration wouldn't happen again too. So I put it forth that no matter what your opinion is on whether the boxes should be deleted or not, you should agree that her attempts to continue deleting them are ultimately futile and a waste of time for her and others. Especially this method of deleting them without proper discussion first, which is likely to cause a knee-jerk reaction (and indeed has).

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

  1. rst20xx 20:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Herostratus 09:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Blu Aardvark

I, believe that Kelly acted in good faith. I also believe that there was some support for the decision (ie, it was not necessarily unilateral) to remove templates, although this occured in the IRC and may not be relevant to this discussion. I feel that the deletion was ill-advised, but don't feel it was done with ill intent. I also feel that the fact that she has not deleted any more templates since this RfC was filed, and the fact that she has not opposed the restoration of the templates in question helps to give credence to this viewpoint. I do recognize that she did not initially conduct herself appropriately during the first few hours of this RfC, and also in the IRC chat, but feel overall that this can be overlooked in good faith. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Jaranda wat's sup 22:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Drini

Well she stated on IRC that she'll wait for the RFC to finish befre resuming the deletions. However, that is totally irrelevant as IRC is NOT Wikipedia, but it also applies both ways... some irc quick poll isn't substitute for a little talk here on wikipedia. So I don't endorse this statement but I don't oppose it either. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 09:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RfCs don't 'finish' as such. They just sort of go quiet. -Splashtalk 00:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Evilphoenix

Administrators have an obligation to uphold policy, to encourage discussion and consensus, and to work to improve the community of Wikipedia. Using Administrative powers is something which must always be approached with caution and consideration for policy, procedure, and the consensus of the userbase. This is especially true in issues that are controversial and where there is not a clear consensus or policy. Deleting a userbox is bound to be controversial, since presumably somebody wants it and bothered to take the time to create one. Mass deletions of userboxes is therefore going to be even more controversial and disruptive. Administrative privileges are given to users with the intention that they use them to minimise conflict and tension, not to generate it. Kelly Martin's action had precisely this effect. Kelly may feel that the current system in place to deal with deletion is broken, but that does not justify flying in the face of established policy. AfD and its brethren are certainly not a perfect system, but it is the system we have in place, and has been worked out over several years to the methodology currently employed, which is specifically designed to avoid the kind of chaos that will result from users employing their own personal standards to what is and is not proper on Wikipedia. Rather than working to achieve consensus and build goodwill, Kelly's action defied consensus, policy, and procedure, and damaged the Wikipedia community. That kind of behavior is not appropriate for an Administrator and member of the Arbitration Committee.

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

  1. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Xoloz 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC) I'm not interested in anybody losing adminship (unless there's no other choice) -- it is, however, an absolute MUST that this sort of behavior change. Xoloz 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely. The less respect given to existing policy, the harder it will be to enact and enforce positive change to that policy. It is vital that administrators, and especially arbitrators, be good role models and abide by the rules, otherwise we cannot realistically expect others to do so. – Seancdaug 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Hermione1980 01:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I think I might have said something similar in my own outside view, but as the old saying goes, every litle bit helps! :) -- Cjmarsicano 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Yes. Miborovsky -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Extraordinary Machine 01:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. AnnH (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. What a beautifully concise and rational expression of our grievances. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 01:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. With this said, I think we all should let the matter drop. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 09:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. rst20xx 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Absolutely. Very well put. DES (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. cj | talk 15:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC) While I believe Kelly has Wikipedia's best interests at heart, her methodology here was inappropriate and damaging and I'd like, at the very least, acknowledgement of this.
  16. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 20:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. —Guanaco 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC) If you know a templates for deletion vote will not pass, speedy deletion is not an acceptable alternative.
  18. Hear, hear! Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Let's hear for consensus.--God_of War 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. -Splashtalk 00:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Pilatus 03:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Well said.
  22. Cryptic (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Yes, yes, yes. Everyking 05:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Agreed. Kaldari 14:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Silensor 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:AzaToth

Per WP:DGFA it says:

  1. Whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved (see below)
  2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
  3. As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.
  4. When in doubt, don't delete.

§1 and §2 hasn't been adhered here at all, §3 is a gray zone (they weren't nominated at all). I think Kelly has stepped overt a bit to much here.

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

  1. →AzaToth 02:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Nice to have someone quote guidelines here. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. My biggest concern is point 2. I don't neccessarily have an argument with the odd out-of-process deletion (providing it is used sparingly), but respecting and working with other editors should be a requirement of any contributor. – Seancdaug 03:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Agree with Seancdaug - rst20xx 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. User:Noisy | Talk 11:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Wgfinley

I've heard some moves towards something that could be a consensus on both sides, let me be bold (and perhaps a bit crazy) and see if I can come up with something the majority can agree with.

  1. Kelly Martin believed she was acting in accordance with the criteria for speedy deletion by deleting user box templates she felt were clear copyright violations (CSD A8) as well as those she felt were insulting and/or attacks (CSD A6). We are assuming she was acting in good faith in making these deletions.
  2. It can be rather difficult for a person unfamiliar with the coding of templates to delete an image in one without harming the remainder of the template.
  3. Editors requesting an explanation should have done a better job of assuming good faith and asking for reasons for the deletions as opposed to demanding the deletions be restored.
  4. Kelly Martin should have done a better job of assuming good faith on behalf of those requesting an explanation and should have been more receptive to their concerns and not short and dismissive of their complaints. Admins are by nature held to a higher standard and, while only human, should do their best to be receptive to complaints regarding administrator actions.
  5. It is never acceptable to be a dick and use templates, RfCs, or even user space for personal attacks, character assassination, or the like. A simple notice advising of an RfC concerning the removal of some templates would have more than sufficed than what was originally posted and then reposted multiple times before cooler heads prevailed.
  6. Those on both sides of the user box issue should do a better job of assuming good faith and not turn RfCs about individual users into battles within the community where lines are drawn and sides picked. Wikipedia is constantly changing and it should be understood that while we should be bold or maybe ignore all rules from time to time sometimes it's far better to take a step back and try to let the community sort things out before forging ahead on one side or the other.

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

  1. Wgfinley 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) ... yes, let's all do the good faith shuffle. (seriously! I suspect almost everyone means well here.)
  3. Kelly was acting in good faith. If you don't agree, I suggest you look at the definition of good faith. It does not mean that she wasn't misguided. [[Sam Korn]] 12:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. I agree with your sentiment, Mr. Finley, but I do not think it really covers the entirety of Ms. Martin's actions. Many of the templates deleted were neither copyvios nor attacks, and were not presented as such in her delete summaries. Seventeen templates were deleted with some variation of the message "states a political or religious affiliation." I personally questioned Ms. Martin about these deletions, and her response was that she had "derived a policy" from one of Jimbo's statements, and promised to do so again. It is my contention that she has no right to unilaterally "derive" policy, particularly on matters as disruptive as the deletion of a page, and I would appreciate either clarification or a reversal of those earlier comments. I am far more bothered by the templates deleted that do not fall under any acceptable categories for speedy deletion than I am by her (somewhat unneccessary, but forgivable) deletion of templates containing non-free images, or by her (overzealous) definition of what constitutes incivility and personal attacks. – Seancdaug 04:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. A userbox template reading "This user is a Capitalist", with a non-fair-use-image, cannot even remotely be considered a personal attack, yet she deleted it out of process. Furthermore, Kelly Martin has admitted she was ignoring process. This account is oversimplified and wrong. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Xoloz 05:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC) I agree with Phil Welch: this account is so over-simplified, and apologist for Ms. Martin's brazen unilateralism, it must be considered wrong. Xoloz 05:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Xoloz expresses it perfectly. I am at a loss at how she did not realise what she was doing would cause community friction rst20xx 11:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Did not realize or did not care? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 11:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment by Seancdaug

I agree with the entirety of Mr. Finley's statement above. However, I would propose the addition of one further point, to address what has been my major concern throughout this whole mess.

  1. Whenever possible, when pages do not clearly violate user page guidelines, or meet any of the standards required for speedy deletion, it is in the best interests of all involved parties to engage in some level of communication before before any irreversible action is taken. Failing to open up the appropriate channels of communication beforehand, even when the action is carried out with the best of intentions, frequently proves counterproductive, if only because it alienates individuals who might otherwise have approved of (or been persuaded to consent to) the action.

Does this sound acceptable?

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

  1. Seancdaug 04:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Tufflaw

I wasn't planning on entering the fray, as I have no userboxes on my user page (or much else, my user page pretty much sucks), and I have no strong opinion either for or against them. However, I am curious about many of the comments about how most userboxes are not appropriate because they do nothing to further the writing of an encyclopedia. That's fair enough, but then why have userpages at all? For example, most of Ms. Martin's userpage would seem to have nothing to do with furthering the goal of writing an encyclopedia. How does a list of state flags from states she has been to help to write an encyclopedia? How do barnstars help write an encyclopedia? How does a link to her deviantART account help write an encyclopedia? I have no problem with people including personal information on the userpages, per WP:UP. If the removal of personal information is the theory that those in favor of the userbox deletions are basing their beliefs on, then maybe we should do away with userpages altogether, and just keep talk pages for people to communicate with each other by.

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

  1. Tufflaw 03:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Make it Wikipolicy. Ban user pages! -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 04:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. all this signing is such fun rst20xx 11:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I think we are beginning to have duplications of sentiments, in reaction to recent prior, which in turn trigger another reaction. I think WP:UP needs to be re-written to identify what CONTENT, whether in userboxes or in prose, is not wanted by Jimbo Wales and his administrators, and their needs to be improved how to develop the material for people who not know the relevant programming language, so as to avoid the server drain. User:AlMac|(talk) 14:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing View

Hey, why not just get rid of talk pages too? Why not get rid of the humans? Let's just have 500-1000 bots going at once and block every single user. Wikipedia is what it is because of the personalities involved with it, for better or for worse. Otherwise, we're just Britannica or Encarta or some other run of the mill encyclopedia. We're something unique here because we're not just an encyclopedia, we're a community. karmafist 04:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. karmafist 04:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Respectfully, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not advocating getting rid of userpages. I'm saying that if the community feels that userboxes are inappropriate because they espouse particular views or give "too much" personal information, then the userpages are also inappropriate for the same exact reason. You shouldn't get rid of one without also getting rid of the other. Tufflaw 04:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The community has a voice on article and project space. However, I have never seen User:Community or User Talk:Community. User space is unique to each individual, and the face to their identity on Wikipedia -- making it one of the few places where WP:NPOV and WP:OWN don't apply. If some wants to say they're a nazi communist puppy eating Nambla member on their user page, all the power to them. karmafist 04:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Um... I agree. I'm not sure why you wrote an opposition to my comment when we apparently have the same viewpoint. Tufflaw 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Because I was being sarcastic, chief ;-) karmafist 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree with this summary even more! -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I can disagree with the POV of someone's userbox. But I will defend their right to say it until I get banned from wikipedia.--God_of War 08:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Good point. We'd just turn into a boring encyclopedia, except with edit wars and vandals. PeregrineAY 19:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Assumptions (please correct me if I am wrong):

  1. Tufflaw's view was made tounge-in-cheek or sarcastically.
  2. karmafist didn't pick up the sarcasm, and therefore perceived a threat to userpages.
  3. Tufflaw and karmafist are actually making the same point.

- Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 20:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Tufflaw 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Philwelch

Kelly Martin and her loyalists Certain individuals who have independently taken it upon themselves to support Kelly Martin have repeatedly belittled those of us who continue to express concerns about her conduct. Terms like "troll", "lynch mob", and "witch hunt" add nothing to civil discussion and represent a significant violation of Wikipedia conduct standards. In addition, they serve as a red herring and ad hominem, serving only to distract from more important issues.

It is one thing for Kelly Martin to Ignore all rules and delete userpage boxes. It is quite another for her friends certain other individuals to "ignore all rules" when the rules in question are Assume good faith, No personal attacks, and Civility. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 04:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Miborovsky -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Xoloz 05:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Synapse 05:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. rst20xx 11:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. PurplePlatypus 06:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC) It never ceases to amaze me how so many admins who are ready, if anything too ready, to enforce (sometimes very broad interpretations of) these policies on others fall so easily into violating them themselves.
  6. the wub "?!" 01:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments I believe that I was the first to use the phrase "witch hunt," and it may be noted the I was the one who started the whole RfC. (Isn't "and her loyalists" a personal attack as well? Sort of implies that they're brainless sheep.) —BorgHunter (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my intention and I have no idea how that implication could be made. If you want to, substitute "supporters" and the meaning stays the same. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 04:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Calling "and her loyalist" a personal attack is rather odd, I think. The term "witch hunt" arose naturally and obviously from the "burning at the stake" metaphor used sarcastically by Kelly's loyalists above. Xoloz 05:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Expecting {{User loyalist}} to turn up soon... or maybe not. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Rx_StrangeLove

We're down to calling each other dicks on the talk page now. I think everyone's position is pretty clear and I'm not sure there's much left to say that wouldn't further divide the editors involved, and this is getting pretty divisive. How about we put a pause on this and let everyone take a break from commenting/responding? Maybe some reflection time might help? And then if people decide to take this to the next step at least the name calling will have stopped for a while. And who knows, maybe everyone will get what they want out of this if the shooting stops for awhile.

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

  1. Ashibaka tock 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Wgfinley 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Miborovsky

Get Jimbo here, dammit.

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

  1. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Partially agree. I don't feel we need Jimbo to settle the matter, I'd just like his opinion on it. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah. True. His opinion would be useful, but I still don't feel that we need to pester him about it. – [[User:Seancdaug|Seancdau--God_of War 08:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)g]] 05:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Get him over here! --Cjmarsicano 05:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jimbo isn't God (see below), but I wouldn't mind his opinion anyway. --Lukobe 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Although it's pointless, Jimbo IS the ultimate authority in wikipedia (even above ArbCom). But, since some users did call for more dictatorship , it's sensile to bring Jimbo, although, Jimbo created Arbcom to lessen the burden, and who else but he could hold the dictator position? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 10:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. User:Noisy | Talk 11:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC) The sooner that Jimbo formally adopts the role of editor-in-chief, the better.
  7. Terence Ong Talk 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Per NSLE. Jimbo can't resolve this unilaterally, unilateral actions are what started this. If Jimbo wants to turn this into Jimbopedia, that's his right, but I think he wants something greater than that for this project. karmafist 15:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. I don't think we need Jimbo's opinion on this issue, but I do think it would be useful to ask Jimbo for an explanation or an elucidation of what he meant with the statement Kelly Martin quoted and seems to have used as an inspiration for the actions she is now being rfc'ed for. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Certainly not. While a dictate from Mr. Wales would almost certainly settle the matter, he's a busy man, and if we can't come to some sort of consensus without divine intervention, then there's something fundamentally wrong with us. – Seancdaug 05:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Partially agree, although since Kelly justifies her actions by invoking Jimbo, Jimbo's intervention may be necessary for that reason. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. It'll be much better for the community if we don't rely on divine intervention to settle the issue. – ClockworkSoul 05:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ms. Martin invoked her own self-professed divine intervention in her heavy-handed, consensus-free deletions. Only Jimbo can knock her down a few pegs. Preferably a few hundred. --CJ Marsicano16:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Invoking Jimbo is no justification at all. Wikipedia is supposed to work through consensus to decide what is best. I am deeply disturbed by the level of oligarchy here.--God_of War 08:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Zordrac

With regards to User Boxes, I only recently discovered them, and quit Wikipedia just days after adding them. I think that they provide an avenue for people to state who they are, and to demonstrate what their true biases really are. I think that this is important in trying to maintain the WP:NPOV policy, since we all have biases, and no individual person can ever be truly neutral. Whilst some people think that User Boxes in fact promote POV pushing, I do not think that unilaterally deleting them is the correct way to go about making that point. I think that the deletions, both by User:Kelly Martin and User:Snowspinner (i.e. I think that the two RfCs should be combined) demonstrate a WP:POINT violation. However, in my mind the biggest concern is not the deletion, but rather the methods that they used to hush up opponents. I was recently involved in a similar case of silencing which I detailed here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister, which also involved Kelly Martin, and I became aware of similar cases involving User:Marsden and User:FuelWagon recently that worked in a similar way. I think that it is very troubling that we are trying to silence the truth of what is going on. Yes, Kelly Martin and Snowspinner are loyal Wikipedia users. But what we need here is transparency, not secrecy. We need people like Poetlister and Marsden to go through a full public review before being banned on a hunch. And what we don't need is to have people go around threatening and even banning people who dare to question them. I note that User:Mistress Selina Kyle got banned for daring to suggest that there was something wrong with this, as did User:Firebug. Transparency helps Wikipedia. This is why we keep edit histories of old edits, and archive talks and so forth. When there are disputes, this is the most important time to be transparent. The fear of things becoming too legal is unwarranted. If Wikipedia is to survive as a law-abiding respected entity, it must become more legal, not less. If it becomes less, then it will have the amount of respect devoted to tabloids. We need more process, not less.

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

  1. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. --Peripatetic 17:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Mailer Diablo

There may be legitimate concerns about Kelly's actions, but this RfC and the issue of Userboxes have certainly been blown out of proportion.


[edit] Users who endorse this summary

  1. Get over yourselves. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who do not endorse this summary

  1. That's probably true, but Ms. Martin could have easily stopped this with a simple apology (or even a level-headed argument); her dismissive comments are the prime reason this is inflamed. Xoloz 19:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. The fact is that this is the part of a far larger problem, and the fact that so many valid templates not in breach of any policies other than Martin's own personal Wikipedia ideologies were deleted is serious regardless of whether they were userboxes or not: It's not the kind of thing admins should be doing... And then the comments afterwards insulting people show no remorse and lack of respect for anyone in the Wikipedia community except her personal clique of admin-friends. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Ms. Kyle. --CJ Marsicano 22:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. This is a legitimate and serious issue which needs to be addressed. Silensor 20:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Agree as per Silensor. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Jayjg

I feel there weren't enough outside views on this RfC, so an additional one was required.

  1. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. karmafist 23:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - there are too many outside views already to make any sense of them. Er, wait, that was sarcasm, wasn't it Jayjg??? ...This seems to be degenerating into a slagfest, and that doesn't seem good to me. To those piling on nasty comments: I don't agree that Kelly did the right thing but I think she felt she had good reason to do it, and that she felt she was acting for the good of the encyclopedia and even if you don't think she acted civilly that's not a reason to be incivil yourself. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support The Literal Interpertation, not the sarcastic one. Allowing more views help users form a better consensus. Don't stop now.--God of War 00:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - Firefox tells me this would be 55 pages if printed - Mr. T pities the fool who has to read this whole thing.--God of War 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Quite my sentiment exactly. :-) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. "Humor is the best medicine". WAS 4.250 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing view by PurplePlatypus

The biggest problem here is that an Arbcom member and generally important Wikipedian made snide, dismissive and arrogant comments about other users. Another one doing so does nothing to help matters, even especially if he thinks he's being funny.

While true as a statement in general, your statement is misapplied here as anything "snide, dismissive and arrogant" in this harmless joke is entirely in your own mind. A little calming down is useful at this point. A joke helps in that regard. WAS 4.250 12:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Only if it's actually funny. PurplePlatypus 21:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outisde view by Mark

I think everyone should quit jerking off and get back to writing an encyclopedia. An RfC about deleting userboxes, indeed. I hope you all feel very very stupid for this immense waste of electrons.

  1. Mark 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. And not to mention the gazillions of ATP molecules that have been wasted by our fingers and brains to type scathing diatribes, attacks and rants. Bajillions of photons were needlessly emitted by our monitors. Thousands of tonnes of coal, hundreds of barrels of oil, and milligrams of uranium. And most infuriating of all, RESEARCH PAPERS UNWRITTEN THROUGH THE HOLIDAYS! :p -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. As I haven't got a clue which of the many positions, counter-positions, and counter-counter-positions above that I might want to support or oppose, I'll have to side with this one too. *Dan T.* 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. 172 06:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Calton | Talk 08:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC) And as for Synapse's comments below, saying don't make it so.
  7. I'm with Mark. Collosal waste of time. It's about use of admin powers yes, but honestly, what it's about is important as well. Do you really think that Kelly would've deleted the Album infobox template? No. There is a hierarchy of importance here and that is a factor. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing views

  1. For the last [something] time.... the RfC is NOT ABOUT USERBOXES. It's about admins not following Wikipedia policy. - Synapse 02:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. The fact that after all this time someone (on either side of the debate) still thinks this RfC is just about "Userboxes, yea or nay"...I find that absolutely astonishing. Babajobu 02:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. See Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes for discussion about what to do with userboxes. That debate has stemmed from this RfC, and seems to be saying that we should try to reform the way userboxes pop up around the place. Please join in the discussion if you have a view. Harro5 02:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Per Dleigh/Synapse. Userboxes are to this the same way Archduke Ferdinand was to World War I. karmafist 12:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. This RfC is not about userboxes, it's about the authorities and powers of admins, and their relation to (and in this case friction with) established deletion processes. It's about where normal deletion processes end and the speedy deletion criteria begin. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. As per Dleigh. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Enough people have explained, in a wide enough variety of ways, that this is not about userboxes that there is really no excuse for continuing to hide behind the claim that it is. I don't understand this resistance to a bit of accountability on the part of administrators. PurplePlatypus 21:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Dan100 (Talk) 21:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC). It's about rather more than user boxes.

[edit] Suggestion of RfC closure

Ladies and gentlemen: It strikes me this RfC is not yielding further productive comment, and has degenerated into a pile of wasted time, vitriol, and general argument; none of this is helping us get our encyclopaedia written, nor is it assisting us in determining opinion on Kelly's conduct. I think euthanasia of this ghastly monster is probably the best plan; perhaps we might be able to draw a close to this voluntarily immediately. Let us place all this evil, regardless of who created it, behind us. I would like to recommend closure if this RfC and, if people would consent, its deletion, although I can see that some may not wish this.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
— Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violence in Peace and War

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree with closure, not deletion. Let this stand as an example of collective stupidity on all sides of the issue. --FOo 05:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    In all seriousness, how exactly has the majority side here done anything stupid? Everyking 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    The majority side, defined not as people who agree, or disagree, but people who are using the RFC as rant space (see the multiple opposing/outside views, suggests that the majority of people on both of the agree/disagree sides have better things to do.--Tznkai 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. No one here has done themselves any credit. I think it's about time this shameful behaviour ended, and the discussion started somewhere anew where the parties can resolve their differences civilly, instead of trying to burn the other party at the stake. Ambi 07:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Not that it makes a difference. The poor fools who think that the community is more important than the encyclopedia are, I'm afraid to say, beyond help. Those who reasonably requested some justification are now having their reputations tarnished by a pack of infants making personal attacks, being disruptive and in some cases, downright childish. This might as well stop here, and we can clean up the rest of the rabble in short order. Rob Church Talk 10:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. This incident has brought into the spotlight two very important issues that must be dealt with (1.arrogance, 2.community as object (ends) vs. comunity as tool (means)) but this venue appears inappropriate for either. WAS 4.250 12:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. This RfC has done nothing but create unnecessary strife and lead to a lot of people behaving in a very unfortunate fashion. It's high time to put this behind us. Soltak | Talk 17:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. David Levy 05:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC) I'm sickened by the efforts of some to sweep this issue under the rug, or to shift the focus toward Kelly's critics. This is precisely the sort of behavior that fuels talk of a cabal, and I won't stand for it. Well over 100 editors have expressed legitimate concerns, and the RfC should not be cut short simply because of its subject's elite status, or the belief that an overwhelming amount of negative criticism automatically constitutes a "witch hunt" or "lynching." Maybe, just maybe, this is happening because Kelly is wrong.
    I don't think RfC is about the back and forth of a 100 editors, and this is clearly out of hand. Tell me, is anything going to progress by keeping this RfC active?--Tznkai 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    I don't know. Is Kelly going to start taking the community's concerns seriously? —David Levy 19:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree with David. Everyking 05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I agree with the sentiment, but this smacks of trying to sweep everything under the rug. No way. This needs to stay on Kelly Martin's record, especially with the upcoming arbcom election. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Nod nod -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Agree with David Levy and Phil Welch. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:40, Jan. 3, 2006
  6. No to stifling debate; no to smearing of anyone; no to the deletion of the record. Let the facts speak for themselves. Xoloz 07:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. The RFC isn't over yet. More may happen. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 10:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. The people endorsing the main complaint (who are still endorsing even in the last few hours), are tending to leave longer comments discussing their feelings on her action. Closing this would, as said above, stifle discourse and effectively shut people out from contributing their opinions. I say let it go for seven days then protect the page. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. If we close this now, this will come back to haunt us later. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Ditto on Phil and Aecis. This rfc is no longer about userboxes. It's about whether or not users are removed from following any process at any point if they have a whim. karmafist 12:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. User:Noisy | Talk 12:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC) At this point in time - having only been running for less than three days - 122 wikipedians think that this RFC is meaningful. Closing and deleting would be a slap in their face. Is that what you want?
  12. Per David →AzaToth 13:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Cactus.man ✍ 13:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC) - Fully agree with David Levy and Locke Cole. This should run its course.
  14. Agree with David. The concerns raised here are legitimate. Misuse of admin privledges is a serious matter. Kaldari 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. This needs to play itself out. Even when it does reach a point where it can be closed, I am firmly opposed to the suggestion of deleting it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Ditto david and noisy. i, for one, just came across this last night; with this many users weighing in, closing the discussion early or deleting it seems incredibly improper. --Heah talk 17:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. This forum should only be closed when the concerns adderessed have been answered satisfactorily--God of War 19:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Dan100 (Talk) 21:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC). If you don't like it, don't read it.
  19. This should remain open until the concerns have been properly addressed and resolved. Silensor 20:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Half and Half

The vote appears to be 4:1 against kelly Martin. So what happens next, does that mean he gets deleted? If so, then yes, that should happen now. I can't imagine why anyone would want this page deleted. It should be highlighted somewhere as an example of the danger of abuse of power. Sandpiper 19:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overall comment and view by NSLE

Both sides have legitimate concerns. Kelly has her reasons, and those who do not see wrong with her actions have their reasons, to support what she did. Similarly, the opposing camp has their legit reasons to be concerned about the failure of proper processes. However, this is quick becoming a farce. My main point is that incivility has been the general tone of this RFC, and unfortunately, no progress can or will be made if things stay this way. Both parties and all supporters should agree to keep their tone civil, or we'll never see/hear the end of this.

  1. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 07:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. —Kirill Lokshin 10:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. GTBacchus(talk) 10:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC) - in an RfC about respect (which I believe this is), it seems particularly counter-productive to be disrespectful. Everyone involved is a human being, and should be treated right; no policy ever trumps that.
  4. You can read below my attempt at penance below at "request for do-over". — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 11:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. NSLE needs a nobel prize, not a barnstar, for trying to make something productive here. It's unfortunate that if people don't listen to him, we'll look back on this rfc as quaint in just a few months since there will be much more ugly situations than this unless we can start respecting each other and respecting the processes of Wikipedia enough to reform them. karmafist 12:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Extraordinary Machine 17:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by -Ril-

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

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

  1. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for do-over

Allow me to state the obvious:

  • Kelly Martin went and deleted a bunch of userboxes.
  • Some people didn't like this, for certain reasons.
  • A whole bunch of unnecessarily uncivil behavior happened as a result.
    • People who didn't like what Kelly Martin did were unnecessarily uncivil, and needlessly activist in promoting this RfC.
    • People who did like what Kelly Martin did, or at least didn't like what the above did, were unnecessarily uncivil as per my above outside view.

For the record, I've been less civil than I could have been too, and I apologize. In fact, the main reason I'm writing this is to try and undo the damage I've done, as well as the damage that others have done, whether they agree with me or not.

So I propose that we settle down and have a quick do-over of sorts. Let's all reasonably list our concerns and see if there's some way to address them without any more incivility or ranting or raving about how the other side are all sorts of bad people. Anyone with me? — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 10:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Endorse double plus. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Not sure how to go about it, but this has been a rather shitty RFC. But don't delete this; just archive it or whatever if we do find a way to continue fresh. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. What they said. —Andux 11:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Fully endorse. Ambi 11:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. As with SPUI, I'm not sure how we'd do it without repeating this. But in any event, this should be archived and not nuked. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Ten pints for Slytherin. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Yes to ending this. Yes to dealing with the real issues at least two of which are: 1.arrogance, 2.community as object (ends) vs. comunity as tool (means) WAS 4.250 12:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Yes, do it over. Minus the incivility. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 12:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. That would be a good first step. The arbcom seems unable to deal with this, Jimbo seems reticent or uninterested, if we're going to have a civil war, we might as well be nice. It'd be nice to avoid a civil war altogether, but hey, one step at a time. karmafist 12:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    What a bizarre thing to refer to. What next, the Great Revolution of the Community of Wikipedia? Let's stop hinting at/spreading complete nonsense, shall we? Rob Church Talk 15:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Entirely agree. —Kirill Lokshin 13:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Endorse I've felt a need to comment, but didn't really want to jump into the mud, so to speak. However, some of the discussion that has taken place could yeild fruitful results, if separated from vitriol and posturing. I'm hopeful that further discussion will have the complaining parties come to some kind of agreement on the potential deletion of user boxes. Hamster Sandwich 13:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Indeed unless people still have vitriol left, in which case we should wait until it has all been fully absorbed into this page (which shall from now on be known as the "nuclear waste storage facility"). -- grm_wnr Esc 13:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Endorse. I have the firm belief that Wikipedia:Civility is one of our most important policy pages. --cesarb 14:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Endorse -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Endorse. *Dan T.* 18:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Endorse. Too much blood has been spilt here for this RfC to be a forum. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Endorse. It needs to be sorted once and for all without either party losing their temper or coroupting this. Ian13ID:540053 18:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing view

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)

  1. CastAStone 19:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I agree completely - The do-over is an attempt by admins to silence the overwhelming majority.--God of War 05:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. What was done here is a sick joke, and those involved should be punished. Sam Spade 07:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. This needs to be dealt with. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

(Mistress Selina Kyle block discussion moved to talk page) . -- Curps 23:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

(Various discussion moved to the talk page, where all further discussion belongs.) —Locke Cole • t • c 10:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some more threaded discussion. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)