Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin/original

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Initial comments 2 Comments by Drini 3 Mistress Selina Kyle block 4 Other discussion 5 What Wikipedia is, and what Jimbo said 6 Deletions highly opinionated 7 Assumption of bad faith and incivility 8 Confrontational Approach 9 Side Question 10 Another side question 11 Fuck it, I quit 11.1 Leaving in disgust 12 Statement 13 Request to the subject of the RfC 14 Completely Outside Comment 15 Waste of time 16 Well I Tried 17 $0.02 18 Record number, hmm? 19 An image to help calm everyone down 20 Crisis management 21 Having had my say... 22 Wikipedia's Falling Down 23 Guess who said this 24 A bystander's comment 25 Wikipedia politics 26 Archived Original RfC

[edit] Initial comments

Could a link please be provided to Jimbo's comments? Kelly is referring to a conversation I'm sure many of us haven't read, and it would make following this RfC a lot easier. Thanks. Harro5 23:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the text: (from the mailing list)

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

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

I don't think there were any others but I might be wrong. Rx StrangeLove 23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"A mood of kindness and love. A mood of helpfulness and productivity."

The sweet irony. Oh how kind and lovely, how helpful and productive Kelly Martin's actions have been!

-- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin should have had a disscussion before such action was taken.

She may be an admin, but she should find it reasonable to disscuss such a big change.Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to ask Ms. Martin if that is indeed the quote she was referring to. Because all I see is a statement of personal attitude and practice by Jimbo (one I happen to agree with, no less). I'm not sure how this was blown into a massive policy statement. – Seancdaug 23:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If it is, then I'd love to see how merely stating one's political affiliation constitutes "massing together in groups". Kurt Weber 03:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Drini

From WP:UP:

What can I have on my user page?

Whatever you like, within some reasonable boundaries.

A good start is to add a little information about yourself, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, your real name, your location, information about your areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, other homepages, and so forth. Obviously, this will depend on how comfortable you are with respect to privacy.

The bold is mine -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Drini you really need to put that in the main article. That is strong evidence. It needs to go in an outside viewpoint section.Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:UP is not policy. It's not binding. Stronger, I think, is WP:DP and WP:CSD. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then I fully suggest that these be mentioned somewhere. What Kelly did was WRONG.

• I also admire Mistress Selina Kyle for getting the word out, at the cost of a 24 hour ban. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle was trolling with it, so how can you admire it?. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh puhleeease.

"Trolling". If you're saying I was trying to get a reaction from people, yes: I was getting people to sit up and take notice about the corrupted admins around here - I'm not ashamed of that at all..

More often than not though, from the various bans by people for "trolling" recently (people on the userboxes page daring to resist the jackboot of the admins by the obviously-heinous-crime of.... linking here.), it seems to be a catch all personal attack, and a pretty cheap one, used by internet geeks against anyone that doesn't agree with the person saying it. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Jackboot? Our admins are corrupt, Communist, Fascist, Nazi (a subset of one of the previous two, depending on the intelligence of the person you ask), a cabal ... anything you lot can dream up, except a corps of human fellow editors trying to do the best they can for the cause of the encyclopaedia. Grow up. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistress Selina Kyle block

Mistress Selina Kyle has been blocked 24 hours for disruption (as in don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point), by replacing the deleted templates with versions that link to this page and contain anti-Kelly Martin advocacy. These new entirely different templates are in some cases now displaying on various user pages without the prior consent or knowledge of the users who placed the original templates on their pages but don't necessarily wish to get involved in or advocate any position on this RfC.

Click on "What links here" on the left-hand side of the RfC page to see this (for example, Template:User Coca Cola. -- Curps 23:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I had warned her prior to the block. In fact, I was just about to give her a 24-hour block when I noticed that Curps had done so already. Good eye. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of my disagreement with Ms. Martin's actions, Mistress Selina Kyle's activities were uncalled for. – Seancdaug 23:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I also entirely agree with the block, and would have done so myself. Ambi 23:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what will happen with a template like Template:Help Wikiboxes? While we all could debate on if this template is misleading, this is not called for, IMHO. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 23:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

А у вас негров линчуют! I fail to see how this relates in any way to User:Kelly Martin's behaviour. Two wrongs do not make a right. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That being said, WP:POINT has been violated here. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

How did WP:Point been violated on that block, she deserved it. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

He meant WP:POINT had been violated by Kelly Martin I suspect, not anyone involved with Mistress Selena Kyle. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think he meant that WP:POINT had been violated by Mistress Selena Kyle, but this did not reflect positively or negatively on the actions of Kelly Martin. See And you are lynching Negroes. - Synapse 02:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Synapse/Dleigh got what I was trying to say. Avoided the n word on the discussion proper and used Russian instead. Heh. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, a member of our highest court ArbCom, said "Screw process." Mistress Selena Kyle was simply obeying Arbcom thru its esteemed spokesperson, who has let us know she is also the interpreter of the words and will of our beloved founder. I think 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. WAS 4.250 19:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's all keep WP:POINT firmly in mind. We're not going to get anywhere by running around breaking things. —Kirill Lokshin 20:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an absurd amount of irony in that Mistress Selina Kyle was blocked for following in the footsteps of Ms. Martin. For the record, I disagree with the actions of both individuals, but can appreciate Kyle's motive to defy authority here. Silensor 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Kyle was of course, wrong in her actions, but the irony is a wonderful thing. - Hayter 20:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Silencing users to fullfill POV, however, isn't. Fairness is becoming a rare tresure in wikipedia now-a-days, which is very dissapointing... -MegamanZero|Talk 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other discussion

I moved the discussion on my user talk page off of it to try to get my talk page to calm down a bit (as an Arbitrator with CheckUser rights, my talk page is already a very busy place). Interested parties may view this discussion at User talk:Kelly Martin/Deletion of userboxes. I ask that you refrain from making further comments there, and instead direct any comments you have to the RfC or its talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Wikipedia is, and what Jimbo said

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But are you forgetting something else? Wikipedia is a community! What Ms Martin did directly jeopardises the spirit and unity of this community. Can Ms Martin write an encyclopedia on her own? Or with just her group of admin friends? Where would her vaunted encyclopedia be if not for its community?

And something else... Besides what Jimbo said that prompted Ms Martin to delete these templates, there is another Jimbo quote that I think is relevant here.

"We make the Internet not suck." -- Jimbo Wales

That quote, I think, carrys more weight than anything else. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Note the use of the word "we". He founded it, yet he uses "we". I think the use of that one word carries more weight than anything else. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a community, actually; nor is it a democracy, an anarchy or an experiment in micronationality. It's an encyclopedia; the only reason the community exists is likely a mixture of human nature, and that talking and being reasonable are probably the best ways to reach the goal. Rob Church ^Talk 01:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is precisely the point, isn't it? The reason we have community-based procedures like Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is because having them serves the goals of producing an encyclopedia better than letting sysops arbitrarily remove content they do not approve of. – Seancdaug 02:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are an encyclopedia, but we are an encyclopedia built by a community. There is no need to dehumanise things; we are a community by definition of the word. Hall Monitor 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions highly opinionated

I find several of Kelly's deletions extremely opinionated (one ex: deletion of user:antimonarchism but not user:monarchist). She has strongly refuted this but in the same post, she says that other userboxes are "awaiting evaluation". Evaluation by whom? Her? I have seen no sign that these deletions were anything more than an independent crusade. She points to a few department of Wikipedia saying this this this and this but I've scanned every word of those policy statements and have found nothing to support her claims. Am I simply missing something? If so, I'd appreciate it if someone would point that out to me, because I sure don't see it. Her attitude seems to be: anything that goes against her opinion must be wrong. To her, if she doesn't think it's fit for Wikipedia, then it isn't fit for Wikipedia. It's the kind of self-minded thinking that I am strongly against and I believe that Wikipedia is strongly against it too. Perhaps our good friend Jimbo Wales could speak to that. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

She said she was going through them alphabetically and got to C, that would explain why antimonarchism was deleted and monarchism was not. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you can't just write your views (the ones displayed in these user boxes) in prose? We do love prose here at Wikipedia. elly's actions don't seem POV to me, nor is it an attempt at censorship. Instead of a box, just write, "I'm a communist who supports antimonarchism" and have your hammer&sickle image alongside it. This seems like a highly charged debate about a minor issue when you think rationally. Harro5 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm here because of her actions not her justifications. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've redeleted the Nazi one. El_C 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If she went A-C, explain {{User-grammar nazi}}. (Which is now restored.) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen comes before A in the ordering used here—I suspect this is the list in question. —Kirill Lokshin 00:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I was working from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=User&namespace=10, which lists all templates starting with "User". I skipped the ones that appear to be personal signature templates, although those should probably also be deleted. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is the third time I've made this explanation. Please make more of an effort to be fully informed before leaping to conclusions in the future. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The first time you told us you worked from a alphabetical list. The second time you told us where the list is. The third time, I accept that it's my bad for not realising that - comes before a! -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assumption of bad faith and incivility

I probably shouldn't put this in my statement, as people have already signed it, but here it is: (karynn=Kelly Martin)

[19:03:53] <karynn> Phroziac: i deleted a bunch of useless shit, and the people in love with it whined.

[19:18:34] <ambi2> karynn: 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> ambi2: yeah, pretty much. along with a handful of process wonks and stephanine, who is just being silly.

[19:20:24] <karynn> by the way, i'm just loving this. i should get RfC'd more often.

[19:43:19] <karynn> bishonen: i peed on someone's playground, i guess.

--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You were wise not to put that snippet into your statement, since off-site discussion have zero bearing on this. You might also already be in trouble for posting chat logs, and should consider removing that. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

m:bash --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

m:IRC channels, though disallowing public logging is, IMO, BS. I think the justification is a legal one (that is to say, I believe there are legal concerns with public logs; not that I think banning public logging is legal). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so we basically have yet more confirmation that Kelly Martin is an elitist who has no business being a sysop. We already have that in abundance. And I've got to say, when it comes to mass deletion in direct defiance of established rules and procedure, bad faith is simply the most natural thing to assume. Rogue 9 05:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

And now I've been banned from #wikipedia by ambi2 for posting the above here. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that. Like I said, disallowing public logs is BS (and so far against what we do on Wikipedia as to be ridiculous; we GFDL even talk pages, but things said on IRC are protected at length?)... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

From the bottom of the page, it said that logs could be published "if it is related to a discussion elsewhere, you may quote small sections of the channel log. If you wish to do this, you should delete any lines which are not related to the topic in question. You should also seek permission from the participants in the discussion before publishing their words." While SPUI quoted sections that are relevant to this discussion, he might not have received permission to reprint the words ambi2 and karynn said. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 06:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in the context of this larger discussion. People posting logs on m:bash don't get permission from everyone; I have certainly never been asked (though I don't care). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now asked for clarification on m:Talk:IRC channel quotes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand the language used, I just disagree with it. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently "Bash is, and has always been, an exemption from that. What you did, on the other hand, was the precise reason the policy exists in the first place." Bullshit. ambi is just seeking vengeance for karynn's bias being made clear. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask everyone to please tone it down a notch? Personal attacks are uncalled for, and, as Wikipedia editors, it's our responsibility to assume good faith. – Seancdaug 06:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, in a situation like this personal attacks are called for, because the problem is a person. And that Kelly Martin was acting in bad faith is manifestly obvious; to assume otherwise in the face of the evidence is simply foolhardy. Rogue 9 20:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm just applying logic. The only reason to ban LONG AFTER I post those lines is for revenge. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's just keep things in context here: given the pace of this debate, "long after" is approximately five hours. Ambi might not even have been aware of the infringement until later. In any case, it's kind of outside the point of this RfC (if only because it's kind of outside Wikipedia itself :-) ) – Seancdaug 07:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That's my point - banning had no effect on whether I actually posted the lines; it did not prevent anything. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it prevents you doing the same again (ban evasion aside) -- sannse (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no current plans to do so - I think the RFC here is clearly leaning against Kelly. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "I have no current plans to do so" and "I won't do it again". If you are willing to say that you will follow the channel policy, then I for one would be happy to see you back in the channel -- sannse (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So the policy exists as a blatant attempt to censor Wikipedians, silence critics, and protect admins? That's... nice to know. I thought it would be something a bit more reasonable and more conducive to a collaborative work. Perhaps the accusations of a cabal are not so far off after all? (User:Blu Aardvark - I can't be bothered to sign in right now...) 09:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the policy exists because it's damn rude to post casual, off-the-record, and often irrelevant chatter into a permanently archived format. I've used the analogy before, but it seems to explain the principle well - it's like taping a dinner conversation between friends and playing it over the radio without permission. Sure, anyone in the restaurant could have heard the conversation - but that doesn't make it OK to play a recording to people who weren't there -- sannse (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

To put it in a more ornery fashion, the policy exists so admins can't be held responsible for comments they make. -- Synapse 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

(From private message, not the channel)

[01:48:31] <ambi2> that's why we have that policy

[01:48:46] <ambi2> so people are free to speak at will on the channel without their words coming back to haunt them later.

In other words, so they can be as dickish as they want. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If this shabby karynn-character really is Kelly Martin, then she is a troll and should be stripped of her admin powers! She gives all hard-working and decent sysops a bad name! Probert 19:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confrontational Approach

(Re Outside view by Hermione1980 [1])

• Threatening another admin (and being scarcastic about it) [2]
• Scathing on the RfC itself "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not LiveJournal.", "If you want to make cute webpages, get a webhosting account.", "don't worry, I'll get to the rest soon enough"
• "I've done this before, and I'll do it again in the future" (On talk page) [3]
• "And I have the utmost of respect for the spirit of this project, far more than do the people who create this pox of stupid and useless userboxes. I have long been on record as willing to disregard the formal written policy of Wikipedia when it gets in the way of doing the right thing." (On talk page) [4]
• "Screw process. Those templates are crap and should be deleted." [5]

- Synapse 01:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - This is from someone complaining that the userboxes in question are "divisive". This sort of borderline-ad-hominem is not something I expect from an editor, let alone an admin.

If my comments were "ad hominem", you should be able to identify the person I was purportedly attacking. Please do so. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Note the word borderline, Ms. Martin. Please read more carefully; please think more carefully; please act more carefully. Xoloz 17:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The people in love with userboxes, process wonks and (maybe?) stephanie. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm the one that was referred to as Stephanie. I don't consider "being silly" a personal attack. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh... Well, I've always thought that you were male. Until I saw your userbox... hehe. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This borders to childish demeanor, not expected from an admin at all. Honostly, when I saw all the deleted templates, I initially thought there was a hacker or a badly written bot at work, not suspecting an admin at all. TCorp 02:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does NOT need this unpleasant and disruptive behaviour from an admin! Probert 02:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, let alone an Arbitrator. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Side Question

I've never dealt with rfc on an admin before, so I have a few questions. At what point is Kelly Martin, or any other admin, punished or left alone for their actions? Are they removed as admin? Are they given some sort of demerit? For how long does an RFC remain open until the matter is concluded? Thanks. MSTCrow 08:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a request for comment. It gives Kelly the opportunity to see what the community thinks of her actions, and the chance to make decisions about her next actions based on those comments. It takes arbitration to de-admin, and that should only be attempted if discussion fails. This shouldn't be about punishment, it should be about community mediation. -- sannse (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

At what point does an Admin screw up so badly that their judgement is clearly so erroneous that they have no business being an Admin? Even if this is successfully "mediated," I have no reason to think that Kelly won't do something similiar again. MSTCrow 10:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If the outcome of this RfC indicates consensus is against what she's done, and she does it again, the next step is an RFAr. So far she seems to be taking this seriously (she's commented at the WikiProject Userboxes talk page), so hopefully it won't come to that. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[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.

Yeah. serious. very "serious". -_- --

She hasn't said she's still not going to delete many templates, including any that she deems "offensive" (ridiculous: ANYTHING offends somebody out there)

And from her behaviour I doubt anything will change:

• "I've done this before, and I'll do it again in the future."
• Threatening other admins who don't agree with her

I really think this kind of person shouldn't have become an admin in the first place: obviously doesn't care about what the community thinks, just herself.. Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing will happen, as none of the good upstanding admins care. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the issue, good upstanding admin or no, admins don't have the power to de-sysop, and neither do Bureaucrats. Only a Steward (or higher) has the rights set to do so. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins do not punish. The ArbCom does not punish. What they do is make sure that bad behavior does not happen again. The word "punishment" should be avoided. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another side question

This RfC seeks comment on Kelly's deletion action of userboxes, but not on userboxes themselves. Can someone give a pointer to where that discussion is best suited? It does seem like something that might need working through, as individual TfD discussion has not been conclusive yet, there seems to be a need for a consensus on a policy (fearing instruction creep of course!)... I looked at the talkpage for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes which seemed a logical place for it, or at least for it to be signposted, but didn't see it clearly being there. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 09:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Userboxes seems like a logical place, or the WikiProject talk page. I'm not sure that there really has been a concerted discussion on the topic yet, though, merely a number of disparate TfDs and the storm over this RfC, so that's probably why you couldn't find it. It's certainly a discussion worth having, though. – Seancdaug 09:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It is queued for discussion at the WikiProject. We are working on clearing meta templates at the moment. Ian¹³_ID:540053 10:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to push it up the queue. The copyright infringement issue, especially, is very serious. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think images are potential copyvios, then you can remove them. That in no way justifies deletion of the entire article. That has never been accepted in any way. Firebug 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think even more important is that corrupt admins should be desysopped as soon as they do such a blatant abuse of power as has been shown.. or at the very least removed from the Arbitration Committee.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You can withdraw that accusation of corruption immediately. Kelly may have done something that you disagree with, but to accuse her of corruption is completely off the mark and hugely unfair. Please do not make foundless and personal attacks. [[Sam Korn]] 20:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Many of the editors complaining here see wide scale, unilateral action by an admin as a form of corruption; at the least, an abuse of power. -- Synapse 21:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you must all either be blind or misunderstand corruption. Kelly's actions were so clearly in good faith that I must assume it's the latter. [[Sam Korn]] 21:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK has accused so many people of corruption that the word is meaningless when it comes from her. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has no right to comment on that: she's got her own bias on the issue since one of the people I've said before engages in cliqueish behaviour and nepotism is her.. Including POV-pushing and support of others' edit wars for the same.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Judgging from MSK's history and attitude, she has a whole hell of a lot more respect for Wikipedia and its users than the admin currently in dispute is. -- Cjmarsicano 00:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the second definition you linked to fits perfectly; second, slinging insults isn't helping anyone - Synapse 01:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Firebug, you're wrong. We always delete copyvios, unless they are inserted in the middle of already-existing articles. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We're discussing images that are copyvios. Do you routinely delete pages containing copyvio images (rather than simply deleting the copyvio images and removing them from the pages)? That's what Kelly did. —David Levy 19:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck it, I quit

Well, if you hoped to drive off Wikipedia contributors with your three-ring circus, you've succeeded. I will not be editing here any longer. Enjoy your little circle jerk; no person of stature or dignity could abide such disrespect and remain. Firebug 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving in disgust

From RFC page itself

I'm sick of this whole goddam circus. I had hoped that I was doing something of lasting value on Wikipedia - that I might actually be making a difference. More fool me. This is like goddam high school all over again and I've fucking had it. Until and unless the project starts treating contributors with respect rather than contempt, I'm outta here. Firebug 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Best wishes for the future, User:Firebug. Rob Church ^Talk 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly seems like we've built a goddarn brilliant encyclopedia today haven't we? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope Kelly Martin is proud of herself. -- Cjmarsicano 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Gnothe seauton. Know thyself. [[Sam Korn]] 00:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Run that by me again in English? And not the Olde kind. --Cjmarsicano 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

None of us have clean hands in this affair. Not Kelly, not Firebug, not you, not me. [[Sam Korn]] 12:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a sad day when we lose such valuable editors who leave with obscenity laced temper tantrums. --Wgfinley 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Make that "got so frustrated that the only thing he/she could say was fuck it" --Cjmarsicano 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

But you're leaving out the very polite and savory "circle jerk" a term certain to endear many people to his cause. --Wgfinley 02:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How did The Circle Jerks end up in this discussion? --Cjmarsicano 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

He's referring to this kind of circle jerk. Rob Church ^Talk 09:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How many editors have given up and left in silence? - Synapse 01:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Firebug, I'm sorry you've been driven to this, but your actions (and ad hominem attacks against Ms. Martin and others) hardly qualify as "treating contributors with respect." I understand your frustration, but your methods have been questionable, at best. – Seancdaug 00:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Firebug, I disagree with you on the template matter; but I have always respected the high volume of high quality work that you have long contributed to Wikipedia. I hope you some day reconsider your choice, as I did each time I left Wikipedia. Best wishes and happy New Year! 172 01:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement

I serve on the Arbitration Committee at Jimbo's pleasure, and will do so until such time as he asks me to stop doing so. I have no plans to resign. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, Ms. Martin. While I am sure Mr. Wales believes in your worthiness for the post, I hope you understand that your actions have indicated to a great many more users that you are ill-suited for it, and potentially seriously compromised your effectiveness in that role. Still, if that is your decision, so be it. – Seancdaug 00:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be flippant about it, but unless she resigns or Jimbo removes her from the Arbitration Committee, she stays on it; and if he re-appoints her, she's on it. The community doesn't have any say over the ArbCom, or its policies. There's a reason for that. Rob Church ^Talk 09:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's... fine. I'm not sure what you were responding to, however. I thought I was fairly explicit in stating that I have no intention in taking this appeal to step down any further than Ms. Martin herself. I worry that, because there now a seemingly large number of editors who doubt her suitability as an arbitrator, it will be that much more difficult for her to retain the respect necessary for her to best function in that role. Arbitrators are, after a fashion, leaders, and leading is much more difficult if you don't at least have the grudging respect of the mob. But I honestly was only stating fact as I saw it: in no way did I mean to imply any sort of threat, and I apologize without reservation if it was taken that way. – Seancdaug 09:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. Trial by lynch mob is never nice, and I'm glad you've withstood it. [[Sam Korn]] 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Korn, I would ask you to please specify what "lynch mob" was targetting Ms. Martin. The four responses to the ""actual request (not demand) were all neutrally written and repeatedly emphasized that it was a request being made in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and that there was no expectation to pursue any formal "punishment." She is certainly within her rights to deny the request, of course. I am curious, however, as to why you have taken on such a confrontational approach, and been so disrespectful of those of us who have been trying to present a balanced argument. – Seancdaug 00:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Sam will do fine! I cannot bear being Mr Korn; it brings out all the worst things in me. As to the rest of your point, I am not saying that everyone who signed on the page was part of a lynch mob. I signed the bally thing myself! However, I don't think you'll disagree that there have been some gross violations of civility and basic (not just Wikipedian) politeness directed towards Kelly. It was this behaviour that I was characterising as like a lynch mob. I most certainly am not suggesting that I have clean hands (I know I don't), and I apologise for the excessively confrontational tone and ambiguity of my original comment, which I now recognise as such. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 13:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I know what it's like to face a lynch mob on Wikipeida. It happens when a large number of users are very bored and have nothing better to do all at once. Ignoring them is the best course of action. 172 00:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's too late for her to ignore what she started. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SPUI. Methinks the bell tolls for Ms. Martin. --Cjmarsicano 01:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want the bell to toll for anyone, but the attitude of Mr. Korn and 172 is depressing; they cannot distinguish lynch mobs from the loyal opposition, angered quite legitimately, and so they dismiss it. Xoloz 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So 172, are ALL of us here very bored? Are you suggesting that this RfC should just be ignored? If so, and if Ms Martin thinks the same way, I fear arbitration is the only recourse. But God help us if all arbitrators are like Ms Martin. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. Not everyone. For example, I happen to have long respected the work of the main antagonist here, Firebug. I'm not saying that all of the users signing the RfC against Kelly Martin and Snowspinner are acting in bad faith. Still, the collective response is sort of a sui generis, in much the sense that Durkheim calls "society" a "sui generis." Now, speaking of this collective response, as a subject, it is quite overblown. Everyone should put this incident in some perspective. Some agreed with the actions of Kelly Martin and Snowspinner. Others disagreed. In the end, a clearer consensus will emerge regarding whether or not they took the right course of action. Even if they were wrong, they are still good contributors. 172 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But therein lies the problem: Whatever Ms Martin did, she will always be seen most as a great editor, etc. But the same people who are respected on Wikipedia have callously and dismissively called us normal editors (I may be an admin but I still consider myself just a normal user) "process wonks", "vandals", "lynch mob" or inserters of shitty material (paraphrased). So even if Ms Martin is wrong, she will still be a good contributor, but once someone endorses our RfC, he is automatically one of the several perjorative terms above? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I am hardly an elite user myself as well; and I have at times lamented the lack of respect users who are just content editors are given on Wikipeida. Still I do not think that the users who have criticized this RfC, such as myself, are dismissively calling all of you guys who have signed the RfC those epithets that you are citing above. Nevertheless, to many editors it seems as if a disproportionality high share of the users who support userboxes appear more interested in using Wikipedia as an outlet for socialization than writing an encyclopedia. (This is what explains the tone, I think.) Still, I admit, some others signing the RfC, such as yourself, are respectable editors. At any rate, I am sorry if you took my comments the wrong way. I should have been more clear. 172 04:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. We say and do stupid things when upset. It's been my observation that many, if not most, of the editors who supports Ms Martin's actions, who are actively arguing on his RfC, are taking an extremely condescending tone and attitude. It very well may be that many editors signing the RfC are not "veterans", but they are editors and contributors nevertheless. It would be anathema to the spirit of Wikipedia if we start getting exclusionist and gerontocratic. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The lesson we all need to follow is the need to avoid sweeping generalizations. Now just because all of the people here are not problem users does not mean that many of the users signing against Kelly don't help write the encyclopedia, but instead spend a large part of their time on this website stirring up trouble and socializing. The user templates seem to be a part of the sub-culture of these less-than-productive users, which is a matter that deserves serious consideration if we are to effect an organizational culture on Wikipedia that conforms to its goal of writing an encyclopedia. 172 04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well put, 172. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree (even though it should be obvious by now that I disagree that the actions being debated constitute "serious consideration"). Are you aware of this policy proposal discussion? Your input there, I'm sure, would be greatly appreciated. – Seancdaug 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The dismissive replies here demonstrate exactly what is pissing off the people who started these RfCs. Admins who say "I will do this no matter what". Perjoratively dismissing a large group of editors as a "lynch mob". Claims that you know better than anyone else what Wikipedia is about. Admins who hold editors bound to policy but don't follow it themselves. Self-righteous statements like "Anyone who does not understand this is a detriment to the project." This "Lynch Mob" of "noobies" that you're giggling at writes a lot of wikipedia, and they don't like seeing the "elite" backslapping each other for their right to delete material without discussion or even warning. - Synapse 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Synapse, it's true, as you say, that some of the users signing against Kelly write the encyclopedia, but it's also true that many of them don't, but instead spend a large part of their time on this website stirring up trouble. In the end, it's not the number of signatures that count in either direction, but who has signed. All that happened here is that Kelly did something you disagree with, but bear in mind that she clearly acts in good faith and contributes a lot to the workings of Wikipedia, so criticize by all means, but it's important to be respectful, not let group think take over, and resist those users who are only out to cause trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The key issue here is respect. The actions of Kelly Martin were not repectful, she was insulting and scornful when discussion began. Other "senior" users here such as Sam Korn have been insulting, calling users ignorant, blind, stupid, useless and claiming they needed their "head examined". While admonishing others for making personal attacks, they were making them themselves. Many of the users signing against Kelly Martin only want an apology and an affirmation to avoid personal attacks and remain civil in the future. - Synapse 02:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Claiming to serve "at Jimbo's pleasure" is comical. You cannot be an arbitrator in a state of opposition to the community. The ArbCom cannot exist in a state of opposition to the community. The whole relationship and structure will erode and collapse. Everyking 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of all the mouthing off back and forth - I just want the templates restored so that they can go through a proper deletion process. Arbitrarily deleting the work of other Wikipedians without comment during a holiday period is most uncivil. I was away from my desk for less than three days, and hours of work has been deleted without warning. I would like to see all of the deletions made by Kelly reversed, and then each of the userboxes can be nominated for deletion, and the process that exists can be used to solve this problem. As I am not an admin, I am unable to restore the boxes myself without considerable effort. Somebody please help me! --Dschor 10:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that many of the userboxes deleted by User:Kelly Martin have been restored. Missing userboxes on your page are likely due to the more recent speedy-deletion carried out by User:Tony Sidaway. (Deletion log, asserted rationale). — Jeff | (talk) | 10:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to the subject of the RfC

De-adminship may or may not be an appropriate response to what has happened here. I, for one, believe that Kelly Martin was acting in good faith. But it's all too easy to do bad things in good faith. Kelly Martin has lost perspective. She's forgotten that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, she's forgotten consensus, and she's even forgotten civility. How she even came to the idea that she can "pull rank" on the rest of us and bypass TfD for her own pet purposes is beyond me, as is her sheer arrogance over those she considers to be beneath her. These are not insolvable flaws, and I do recognize the good that Kelly has done for this project. However, she must be held accountable for this gross abuse of power.

As perhaps a compromise measure to save Kelly's adminship, I must ask Kelly Martin to resign from the Arbitration Committee. She no longer has any authority to judge other Wikipedians for their incivility, or other admins for their abuse of powers. Upon Kelly's resignation from Arbcom and apology to the Wikipedia community, I, and all who endorse this request, will join Kelly Martin in opposing any request for arbitration or further attempt at disciplinary action.

— Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

1. I'm of two minds regarding this proposal. On one hand, I agree with Mr. Welch that Ms. Martin acted out of line, and conducted herself in a manner that draws serious doubt upon her fitness to be a part of arbcom. All told, I would be comfortable if she willingly stepped down from that role. That being said, that is as far as I am willing to take the matter at this time. All this talk about pursuing further disciplinary action against Ms. Martin at this point is counterproductive. – Seancdaug 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Firebug 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I want to see some level of actual contrition. The exact punishment (if any) isn't as important as that.
3. I'm not interested in any "punishment", but I agree that she should step down as an arbitrator. Friday (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Partial endorsement. I don't even care about punishment, all I want is a sincere apology to Wikipedians and specifically the Userbox Wikiproject. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Full endorsement. Leave now and everyone involved and concerned can save face. --Cjmarsicano 03:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

1. Good grief no! Even those who feel that Kelly did the wrong thing by making those deletions, I would have thought, would have little grounds for claiming the deletions were in bad faith, as Blu Aardvark pointed out above. What has happened here has no bearing on her actions as an arbitrator - none whatsoever - regardless of whether you feel her actions were inappropriate or not. As a number of users point out above in defence of userpage boxes, Wikipedians are after all human, and so I aver that even those of us who consider that Kelly has done the wrong thing (whom I am not amongst) should assume good faith and not permit usual editorial actions to colour her career as an arbitrator. Indeed, Kelly's work on the Arbcom has been of great service to the community, and even if one was, for the sake of argument, assume misadventure on Kelly's part I cannot see any ends which would be justified by the means of Wikipedia permanently losing an exemplary arbitrator. (And since the Arbcom elections are about to begin, all of you who think she should not be an arbitrator can simply not vote for her!) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
   • What does have bearing on her role as arbitrator is the fact that she mocked and ignored all requests to discuss her behavior before the creation of this RfC. Under no circumstances can she be realistically portrayed as a victim here. Numerous people asked her to stop her mass deletions, and her response was both crude ("screw process") and uncivil. Since tact and the willingness to mediate are inarguably the most important qualities that an arbitrator can possess, I think her "exemplariness" is very much an open question. And the point of this request would, as you say, be essentially symbolic, in that it would illustrate that Ms. Martin is aware that she has crossed a line. After all, since the arbcom elections are beginning, there's no reason she cannot stand for election afterwards. – Seancdaug 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Arbitration is essentially a euphemism for formal disciplinary action. Kelly Martin has breached Wikipedia's standards of conduct—she is ill-fit to enforce them now. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Good faith can only be assumed when being civil. Kelly Martin did not (initially) respond civilly to discussion about this issue, and has demonstrated contempt for Wikipedians and Wikipedia policy. - Synapse 00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Well said, Nicholas. Arbitrators are in position to be fair, not to be shining examples of Wikipedian virtue. [[Sam Korn]] 23:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
   1. A newbie with 1 edit, then, can be extremely fair. He might also be vandalising pages. Please make him part of the ArbComm. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
   • And possibly the largest part of fairness is a demonstrated willingness to apply the rules equally to all users. Ms. Martin has shown that she has little regard for the rules when she finds them inconvenient, but is more than willing to hold those rules over the heads of others with those same rules when it suits her purposes. This is not the behavior of an editor dedicated to fairness and impartiality. – Seancdaug 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
     • Dear Seancdaug: Disregarding one rule does not mean one disregards all rules. Even if you consider Kelly's actions as improper, one cannot say she has little regard "for the rules", or "hold[s] those rules over the heads of others", with the implication of her showing disregards for all rules; that is a logical fallacy. She has ignored one rule, but that does not mean that she ignores rules in general; making exceptions under some circumstances does not translate to making exceptions under all events. And indeed, applying policy to users does not mean that one is in the wrong by failing to except all conduct relating to that policy. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
       • Mr. Turnbull, this is something of a straw man. I did not say, nor did I imply that Ms. Martin has any intention of "disregarding all rules." The issue is trustworthiness. She has shown a willingness to engage in selective enforcement, and (far more importantly) was combatative and abusive when her behavior was questioned. Her failure to go through proper procedural channels is one thing, and, in and of itself, not really an issue. But her behavior afterwards is what concerns me. She was flatly unwilling to engage with any of the large number of people who contacted her about the deletions. I urge you to review the evidence section of this RfC. Ultimately, the impropriety of her actions has consequences. For her to be an effective arbitrator, she cannot afford an image of incivility and arbitrariness. – Seancdaug 02:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
3. No. This dispute is about actions taken as an administrator, not as an arbitrator. Of course, Kelly should recuse herself from any arbitration request stemming from this dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No. That's going too far. Her ArbCom status shouldn't enter into this. Herostratus 09:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Absolutely, utterly not. Philwelch should be ashamed of himself. The problem here is that we have a most recent generation of newbies who manifestly misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Calling for blood is not on. Ambi 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Another display of gross incivility. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Strongly, vehemently oppose!. Get enough people riled up about something as trivial as what pretty pictures people put on their User pages to get somebody removed from the ArbCom? How utterly absurd. Kelly, illegitimi no carborundum. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

   I don't particularly care about these userboxes, most of which I agree probably should be deleted. I do, however, care when an ArbCom member decides to "screw process" by unilaterally deleting content that she deems unsuitable, describes her opponents (whose work she destroyed without discussion) as childish "process wonks," and proudly proclaims that she intends to continue, regardless of the community's stance. —David Levy 19:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Completely Outside Comment

Don't mean to interrupt the dispute here. I believe the original intentions of the reporting of the problem have been lost. Seems to me that the problem in the first place was the fact that there were no discussions or warnings about the removal of the pages. Everything else seems to have developed from that complaint, and thus seems even less relevant, e.g. the comments about the state of the users' use of the boxes to express political, religious, or otherwise useless ideals. I, the anonymous coward, recommend the discussion shifts back to the question of whether or not the adminastrator should have used the discussion pages, and whether or not the users should be told about any drastic changes in content. --66.68.138.69 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (not that that is any help ;))

That's what I've been trying to tell everyone. Unfortunately, nobody listens. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This has spiralled down too far to get back on track. Basically, it's a game of survival now. Firebug was the first to crack, and it's often surprising how quickly these RfCs fall apart because those being criticised end up having the stronger will. So basically, this is the Royal Rumble. Last man standing. Harro5 04:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hail Jimbo! We who are about to die salute you! ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 04:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Stronger will does not mean you are in the right. The fact that editors are leaving because one admin won't admit they were wrong or uncivil is a damning indictment of the administration of this project. - Synapse 04:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Synapse is right. --Cjmarsicano 04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Synapse is very right, and that's why WP's doomed if some elite leaders don't mature a tad. No one will want to play them, and the ten or so of them alone will have a hard time maintaining this joint. Xoloz 05:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waste of time

This whole damn process is a ridiculous waste of time. For those who don't know, please read WP:ENC. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 02:11

• As has been said ad naseum, the policies and rules which serve to enable the composition of an encyclopedia are important. And those issues are what is being discussed here. – Seancdaug 02:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So are we the People's Front of Judea, or the Judean People's Front? :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 03:38
    • I'm from the Judean Popular People's Front, myself ;-). – Seancdaug 04:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) and by the way, {{user messiah}}
      • I'm with the Romans. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Can Brian0918 write the entire Wikipedia alone? If so, I agree that Wikipedia is not a community. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the straw man argument. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 03:15

Thank you' for your numerous straw man arguments, as well. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, list them for me so I don't make the same fallacies again. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 04:24

Well, I asked you a question and you avoided that question and attacked me for asking that question, substituting the actual topic at hand. Straw man or not? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

With rather less flair than all of the funny banners above: This little page is, I think, central to what's going on here. Some of us, at least, would prefer not to be treated like scum here, regardless of whether there's any specific rule against it. —Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

For those who don't know: WP:DICK --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well I Tried

I tried to do something that would build a consensus [6] but it appears that some want their pound of flesh, very well, did all I could.

--Wgfinley 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the "discussion" is rather heated at the moment. I hope this can simmer down and cooler heads can prevail. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If we're not able to bring home the bacon, we may be waiting around till the fat lady sings, or at least till the cows come home. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 04:27

I hope you're not suggesting that Ms Martin is fat because she certainly doesn't look fat! ;) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that you could tell, since someone decided to delete my photograph. Oh well. (You may note that I haven't gone on a screaming rampage over it....) Kelly Martin (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"You may note that I haven't gone on a screaming rampage over it." Was that really necessary? —BorgHunter (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, since you've set a perfect example for us. ;) Can't really blame anyone... -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, Kelly Martin gives us a characteristic show of incivility. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 04:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of.... Mr. Finley, I tried to be civil. I tried to point out how your summary ommitted several key elements of the original complaint. I even stated that I agreed and approved of your attempt. I am not interested in a "pound of flesh," and I am frankly upset that you seemingly disregarded my (and Mr. Welch's) comments entirely. The simple fact of the matter is that your statements, while all true, did not address my concerns. If you had actually, I don't know, bothered to engage me on the topic you might have found that such insults were unnecessary. – Seancdaug 04:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a couple of Finley's statements were untrue. A fair look at the evidence shows conclusively that Kelly Martin did act outside even the loosest possible interpretation of our policies. The central question is whether it was appropriate for her to do so, and especially whether it was appropriate for her to do so in the way she did. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 04:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] $0.02

I'm ambivalent about this whole fiasco.

For one thing, I think userboxes are a nice way to add some color and vividness to the userpages of those users (such as myself) who are utterly code-challenged and graphically clueless. I welcomed their arrival because I had lived with a dull-as-dishwater userpage for as long as I've been a Wikipedian (a little shy of a year now).

So after looking through the choices, I put in a few userboxes in my page, and created two myself: the Proud Commie Bastard userbox (as a humorously exaggerated reflection of my politics) and the More Cowbell userbox (cos like many others, I swear by that SNL skit). And that was the end of that -- I don't go through new userboxes daily, and I don't add more and more to my page all the time.

Most importantly, I do not think that my role as a Wikipedian is compromised by any of this. I take delight in creating new articles that no one else has considered, and this is relatively easy given my origins and personal likes (Bangladeshi, keen on literature and the arts etc). And I will hopefully continue to add new articles on obscure topics for as long as I am a Wikipedian.

However, I am beginning to see that such is the attractiveness of userboxes (and so large the room for showing off one's creativity and personal quirkiness) that some users at least may be devoting a, shall we say, exaggerated amount of time and effort in creating more and more jazzed-up userboxes. The whole thing may or may not have gotten out of hand. Personally, this is where I reached my limit. [7] No disrespect to the maker of these - I don't know who they are - but the fact that someone would go to the trouble of creating 10 different userboxes to cover all the terrestrial TV options that are available to UK viewers - this for me is the point where the entire project is in danger of jumping the shark, and has become not so much a quirky addition to WP but an exercise in extreme triviality that may actually distract from the actual Wikipedia project itself.

That said, I still don't think that Ms Martin has any business doing what she did. But the time may soon be approaching when userboxes may need a closer look. The following may be steps to consider:

1) Putting a stop to Categories based on Userboxes, because that does interfere with the Encyclopedic-ness of WP categories

2) Subject to discussion, putting a moratorium on further userboxes. The community has gotten along fine without them so far, and I am not sure that they are not in danger of becoming more of a distraction. --Peripatetic 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we live and let live? The userboxes aren't running out, beating you up, and taking your lunch money. You're still free to make valid contributions despite their existence. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 07:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we need so many. People wonder why Wikipedia always want more money from donations; well, using up server space with boxes declaring you like chocolate and support an obscure sub-branch of a political ideology probably aren't the best use of that space. I hope this RfC develops into a meaningful and, yes, heated debate about the warrants of having so many userboxes. We should decide on a policy about what warrants inclusion (I'd keep it to useful stuff - languages, Wikipedia involvement areas) and actually use this platform to stop the spiral. Am I way off the mark here? I'm not talking about the reasons behind this RfC, but the reasons behind why this debate matters so much from the userbox angle rather than the admin powers angle, as this seems to be being debated too, albeit without it being the proper forum. Harro5 07:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the fad was this close to becoming old anyway, except now it's been reinvigorated with this "stick-it-to-the-man" rebelliousness. Even though Kelly Martin isn't a man. I meant "the man" in the abstract. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 07:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point regarding the server space. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing WP-irrelevant userboxes disappear entirely. However, admin powers is arguably an even more important issue in WP, because some of the bullying and gloating and downright nastiness coming from those in high places (e.g. Ms Martin) is totally out of line and should not be abided by any self-respecting Wikipedian. End of the day, Wikipedia exists because of the community that built it, and no admin or arbitrator should ever think of themselves as bigger than the most ordinary editor. --Peripatetic 07:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This RFC ought NOT to be about userboxes in general, in my view, or what policy toward them ought to be, in my view. But you raise some good points that are worthy of being thoguht about. May I suggest that you take them to Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes? It was suggested that the discussion of userboxes and their policy be held there. Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 08:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. These quotes are from Kelly Martin (italics mine)[8]:

"The community has been overrun by a large number of relatively clueless people whom we have failed to effectively indoctrinate the spirit of Wikipedia. They have become large in proportion, almost a majority if not in fact one, and are causing all sorts of trouble... I think it's important for those of us chosen to lead this community to take decisive action to restore the focus of all Wikipedians to our goal of writing an encyclopedia, and to purge from our midst those people whose prime purpose for being here is something other than that goal."

How exactly does she divine our "prime purpose" for being here? Frankly speaking, the lady is suffering from delusions of admin-induced grandeur. Who died and made her Torquemada of Wikipedia? We can "unchoose" her any time we like. I find her attitude repulsive, and her language - with its determination to "indoctrinate" and "purge" - speaks volumes. We don't need any thuggish admins enforcing - without any discussion or consensus - their personal brand of doctrinal purity on Wikipedia. --Peripatetic 08:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I really wish you would tone it down a little, I don't think this is very helpful and claiming that someone is delusionial and thuggish is not civil. By the way, it's very easy to "divine" our purpose of being here. Perhaps you could start here: WP:WELCOME. And frankly, we can't unchoose her anytime we want. That's reserved to a small group of people, Arbcom/Stewards and Jimbo. Rx StrangeLove 16:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

She's got me - my prime purpose is to fill this place with articlecruft. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite right! I've made more peer-stubs than I care to reveal. Funny, when I became an administrator (about 14 months ago), I thought of myself as more of a village constable, or a justice of the peace. Never as an executioner, and only rarely as a judge. Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

--God_of War 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bwhahahah! :-D --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• How ironic, you have just created a userbox to protest userboxes. Me thinks I must add this to the list of userboxes :)--God of War 00:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Should I speedy delete this for being offensive and making threats of bodily harm to Wikipedians? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

    Well... no. The claim being made is that userboxes should die, not Wikipedians who use them. Had you not noticed that motto flying around? Since userboxes are not life-forms, it's a fairly harmless metaphor, IMO. For the record, I don't care one way or the other about userboxes, nor do I think it's helpful to anthrpomorphize them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes can't die. :p -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, no. The fact remains that people are going around saying "Userboxes must die," which however illogical, is not equivalent to "People who use userboxes must die." That's all I was saying. In the spirit of Hanlon's Razor, let's not ascribe something to murderousness that can be accounted for as simple asininity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Errr. Clearly, I know that. I was trying to be... funny. I'll give up now. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I can be pretty terrible at reading people's tone on the internet. Clearly, everyone here is very clear on just what is or is not an animate object. Death to awkward online misunderstandings! Let's scroll down and look at the cute ducky picture, shall we? (On the other hand, I did enjoy the opportuntity to use the word "asininity") -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Record number, hmm?

What is the record number of endorsements an RfC has ever received? (Excluding this if it already is the first.) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If WP:100 is accurate, this is the first to pass a hundred endorsements. —Kirill Lokshin 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An image to help calm everyone down

Image:Flowerslookingup.jpg

[edit] Crisis management

I agree that there are some tough things being said about Kelly Martin. I also think that she was trying to make Wikipedia more encyclopædiac. I support anything that achieves that but I think was Kelly Martin did, however well meaning, showed gross disrespect to everyone. I have worked with people in public office and there is one clear lesson directly relevant here. Where your actions arouse such intense anger you r career in whatever you were doing is dead in the water. You will have lost the credibility and respect you do to do the job. If you adopt an attitude of "I'm just going to ignore this and it will blow over" after causing such an enormous reaction (100+ endorsements of criticism of her so far, and growing by the minute!!!) you are finished. The only way Kelly can salvage her career on WP is to say

• I realise my actions have caused offence and that was not my intention. I did what I believed was in Wikipedia's benefit but obviously I misguided how I did what I did. I apologise.
• Rather than compromise the credibility of the arbcom I am resigning from it.
• I am also voluntarily resigning by adminship.

If she does that, the entire affair will calm down. In a few weeks the whole affair will be forgotten and she will have done no lasting damage to her Wiki-reputation. She would probably find that she would at a future date be re-elected to the arbcom and as an admin, on the basis of her apology and that she acted honourably in stepping down.

If however she hangs on, the likelihood is that controversy will follow her to the arbcom. She will be criticised for everything she does as an admin and like others caught up in far less controversial incidents she will end up quitting WP in frustration. IMHO, putting on my admin-hat and political advisor-hat, her position is untenable. When your action causes such a firestorm of a negative reaction, either you apologise and diffuse the situation, or you stand firm (as she seems intend on doing) and try to hang in there. As anyone involved in leadership positions (whether in politics, business, non-governmental organisations, charities, general organisations, etc) knows, in instances like this to try to hang on is sheer suicide. If she tries to hang on she will be destroyed by it and will end up quitting Wikipedia. It boils down to two options: 'resign and rebuild', or 'be destroyed'. Those with experience of crisis management know that there is no middle ground. (BTW a political consultant would have charged at least €2000 to give advice to someone in business in a similar situation!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clinton --CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

George Dubya Bush -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#Kelly_Martin_and_Snowspinner --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither is remotely comparible. Both were elected by means of a popular vote to a time-specific term-structured time-limited post with a history of only one resignation. Martin's position is different. Her position is comparible to cabinet members, parliamentarians or CEOs of companies. There is no time limit on her period as admin and we don't know for how long more she will be on the arbcom. Her position is more akin to a mid-ranking office-holder in politics or a company director, given that both, unlike presidents, are frequently required to resign for mistakes. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your demands are entirely ridiculous for the matter at hand. I ask everyone to stop turning this into a three-ring circus and shut up about it. FYI, some of the userboxes were copyvios. —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely the sort of attitude that caused this problem. Where the heck does Wikipedia get these people??? A mixture of blind arrogance and pompous self-righteousness. Apart from anything else it might help if people like Ilyanep actually knew what WP rules on copyright are. If an image is copyright you remove the image. You don't delete the frigging page or template! Zeech. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

May I please remind you of WP:NPA really quick before I reply. Anyways, what pompous self-righteousness is this? I see a page of about 3 miles of attacks, vitriol, and other diatribes which were written in time that could have been spent doing something better than attacking Kelly Martin. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being somewhat unfair by characterizing everything on the page as attacks or diatribes (some things are, of course). A lot of us would merely like a little more courtesy from the highest echelons; instead, we've been treated with utter contempt. —Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The self-righteousness is what caused this RfC in the first place: There are those thinking they are above the law and believe it to be their divine right to do whatever they see fit. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Kelly isn't entirely in the right, but look at you! You're asking for a resignation from sysop and arbcom duties! You want here to step down from every right she's been given (afaik). Granted, adminship isn't a big deal, but it shan't be taken away just like that. And don't go on a rant about how this isn't a just like that situation, please. In essense (as has been said on the page), you want her burned at the steak stake. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. On the RfC (or the talk page) I specifically stated that I would be fine with either an apology or an objective explanation. Ms Martin did not bother to respond to this. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I pointed out that the depth of hostility she faces means in reality she has no choice. Either she quits (the arbcom and admin) or she quits (Wikipedia). I don't want the latter to happen, but I can guarantee that it will. No-one under that sort of attack will stay on WP. Guaranteed. Eventually she will just decide "I have had enough of this" and go. I don't want her to go. But the only way to stop it getting to that point is to defuse the situation by stepping aside, saying a mea culpa and letting the issue fade. That is the realpolitik of the situation. I don't think you have the foggiest idea of just how major this issue is. I've been on WP for three years. I've seen massive rows but I've never ever seen an RfA in which 120 people + sign up. That is double the largest I can ever remember. People have left after been attacked by 15. She's got 120!!! This furore is unprecedented. No other admin and certainly no arbcom member has ever got themselves into such a massive row. People have been deadmined in rows where only 20 people took part. She has 120 and growing. The practical reality is her career right now as an admin is toast. Either she quits and saves face, or she quits WP altogether. That is the inevitable reality. It is just not possible, after this furore, for anyone to remain a credible admin or a credible arbcom member. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a major row. It's an interesting division, because it highlights how poorly the latest generation (e.g. last two months) of Wikipedians has been assimiliated into the community - they patently don't understand how Wikipedia works. Kelly did a perfectly sensible application of ignore all rules and be bold, and she's been lynched from a band of newbies who firstly don't understand those, and secondly don't understand that we don't try to burn people at the stake here - as evidenced by the fact that they're even raising the prospect of de-adminship (when this is, always has been, and always will be only something used in the most absolutely serious cases). No one should be quitting Wikipedia here, and no one should be standing aside. However, after his display on this page, I'm afraid to say that Jtdirl has lost any ounce of respect he had in my eyes. I'm absolutely disgusted to say the least. Ambi 04:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind, Jtd, that the majority of those who signed (when I last checked) were newbies or people who don't edit the encyclopedia much. If 120 serious editors were opposing, that'd be a different matter (and I'm not saying there are no serious editors in that list, but relatively few). Perhaps the more experienced editors should stay away from the RfC now, and let the others argue amongst themselves. The page is a reflection on the people who want to keep the drama going, not on Kelly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you counting me as a 'newbie'? It is true that I have been active less than three months, but in that time I have more than 3000 edits, 54 articles started, 7 categories started, and 34 images uploaded. Oh, and my user page has been vandalized 6 times, so I must be doing something right to have ticked off the vandals. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 13:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd call you a newbie. Whether you interpret that as a Bad Thing or not is up to you. - Mark 14:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The implication of the way the term was being used is that 'newbies' don't understand Wikipedia, and their opinions don't count. I do interpret that attitude as a Bad Thing. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtd, I regret to say that I think that you are right, but I really hope that you are wrong. Kelly, along with Snowspinner, was trying to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic, and I have trouble not backing anyone who is trying to achieve that, regardless of how much the attempt backfires. This incident is particularly regrettable because she is otherwise an ideal Arbitrator. She clearly sees the big picture of what kind of organizational culture the committee should effect in order to make Wikipedia conform to its goal of writing an encyclopedia. She wrote the following in her candidate statement: "I don't have a platform, other than a promise to handle each case fairly, with every decision intended to further our fundamental goal: to write an encyclopedia." [9] Her response to a question, "How would you describe the state of Wikipedia now?" was on target and quite insightful. Kelly Martin seems to be the Arbitrator who best understands the risk of what organizational sociologists call "goal displacement":

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

You clearly made the case that the strategy of "I'm just going to ignore this and it will blow over" is misguided. Any professional political consultant would have stated the same, I'm sure. I regret that you may be right about "the realpolitik of the situation." Still, there are those of rare cases of public figures who have managed to rehabilitate themselves after weathering a period of major popular backlash, which I hope to see now with Snowpinner and Kelly Martin. There is a community within the Wikipedia community of veteran editors that supports Kelly Martin that may have a chance to help her recover her "Wiki-legitimacy" needed for her to continue the job. First, as Sarah noted above, the majority of those who signed are "newbies" or people who don't edit the encyclopedia much. Many of the signers, as Kelly Martin has stated, have been turning Wikipedia into a site like LiveJournal. (I don't know if the site is too well-known outside the United States. I'm familiar with it from teaching undergraduates in Florida. In recent months I've been finding out that some of my students have been wasting their time on that site instead of doing the work I assign them!) There is a high turnover of these types of participants in voluntary organizations. In another few months their ranks may diminish, allowing this episode to be gradually forgotten. Amid the fallout, some veteran respected editors, such as Sarah, who are more likely to around in another year's time than most of the signers, have been defending Kelly. Second, there's also the chance that Kelly will be exonerated by the upcoming Arbitration case, which does not seem too unlikely if the other members of the committee agree with Theresa knott's rejection of the case. Third, in the end Jimbo may decide to back her publicly. If Jimbo makes a positive statement, given his respect and popularity nearly all editors, his comments may serve to restore confidence in Kelly among rank-and-file users. 172 11:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, 32 of the 116 editors who have endorsed the page are administrators. That's more than the total number who endorsed Ms Martin's response, and they're not all adminstrators. I'm sure you know that many valuable contributors contribute to Wikipedia without being admins. In any case, I think the number of "serious editors" who oppose Ms Martin's action is higher than the number who support it. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, Miborovsky (though I count 27, not 32), but 30 names isn't quite the same as 116. I see too many names on that list of people who hang around Wikipedia to cause trouble, as though it's a social club with sporadic fistfights breaking out for the entertainment of the inmates. But it's an encyclopedia. Somehow, as Ambi says, we have to find a way to convince every new editor that that is the sole function of the website. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

27, 32, what does it matter? (I was provided with a list up to 96 by a user who would prefer to be anonymous, and added my own.) Like I already quoted plenty of times on this page, "and you are lynching Negroes!" If Ms Martin did something wrong or inappropriate, then she did and it does not make a bit of difference whether God or Satan is the one pressing charges. My count merely serves to question the elitism of the Kelly Martin bloc and the supposed rabble that is the "Userboxer Horde". -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Woah! Perhaps not the right response, Ambi, when there are accusations of self-righteousness and disrepecting the hoi polloi flying about. I agree that sometimes you should Ignore all rules, but when you're ignoring them because you know that the process would not give you the result you want, what then? Are you saying that admins should ignore the policies of Wikipedia when they don't give outcomes that they want?

BTW, I haven't been here all that long, but I consider myself a serious editor. However, I don't think what someone has on their userpage makes a blind bit of difference to me, and I don't care that some editors are just here as a means of socialisation. It's supposed to be fun, isn't it? If more than a hundred editors -- serious, elite or otherwise -- are willing to criticise your actions, maybe, just maybe you might pause and think about whether ignoring the rules was such a good idea. James James 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My third year on Wikipedia begins next month, Ambi. Any other moronic generalizations for me to refute? (That's not a personal attack—diagram the sentence for yourself, "moronic" refers to "generalizations", not "Ambi".)— Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, but it's still uncivil and doesn't help to cool the flames, eh? I'd urge you to redact. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's uncivil to *make* moronic generalizations against veteran editors. If calling someone out for their incivility is uncivil then you should redact too. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Talk about straw men. Was I referring to you specifically as a newbie? No. Rather, you of all people should no better - and you and Jtdirl should be damned ashamed of yourselves for your role in this. Ambi 05:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • My role in what? In recognizing that we administrators don't form an arbitrary aristocracy? In recognizing that Kelly Martin crossed the line in trying to impose her own views on every other Wikipedian? In concluding that Kelly Martin has lost the authority to punish other users for being uncivil and sanction other admins for abusing their powers? In stating the obvious—that she really screwed up and acted with the stated intention of biting as many newbies as hard as possible? Fact: you are dismissing everyone who disagrees with you about this issue as a "lynch mob" or a "band of newbies". You should be ashamed. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
        • She deleted a bunch of userboxes. Keep things in perspective, please. "Imposing her views on every other Wikipedian?" "Really screwed up?" "stated intention of biting newbies? I'd like to think you were above such ridiculous hyperbole. Like every other Wikipedian, if you have an issue with someone's conduct, you're supposed to deal with it like normal people. Talk to them. Compromise. Try to work out an amicable solution. Instead, you, a couple of other users who should know better, and a bunch of newbies who at least have an excuse, have gone in for the kill and in this massive exercise in groupthink, overreacted beyond anything I have ever seen in my three years on Wikipedia. Ambi 07:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• 'Moronic', 'idiotic', 'stupid', et cetera are clearly personal attacks. The fact that it referred to the 'generalizations' is irrelevant... the word moronic means 'characteristic of a stupid or foolish person'. The generalizations were words... words have no 'minds' of themselves. The insult does not attach to the words, but to the person who wrote them. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 05:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Grrr... it could have been said like this: "Ambi, please be aware that there are many more experianced wikipedians (like myself) who feel that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. By doing handwaving over 'newbies' your appear to failing to appreciate that." I apologise for any incivilty. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Fact is, Ambi is being uncivil, and she is making generalizations "characteristic of a stupid or foolish person". I do assume good faith —I don't think Ambi is stupid or foolish, but even an intelligent and wise person can have a lapse of judgment and make statements uncharacteristic of themselves. If I ever say something stupid, I hope someone is as direct pointing it out to me. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • I'm not accusing you or anyone else of being stupid or foolish. What I am accusing you is of having a major lapse of judgement, as I just explained above. Ambi 07:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Ah, now Ambi is under attack. So, when will the RfC against her be filed, and when will the demands that she resign start flying? I see a certain theme here. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Having had my say...

... I'm outta here. :-)

Seriously, I'll be away for the remainder of the week, so now seems the appropriate time to announce my personal withdrawal from this RfC. It... has not gone as well as I would have hoped, and the degree of rudeness and incivility on both sides is unfortunate. I am, however, heartened to see that there are a number of editors who recognize that there are real issues at stake here, and I hope that it leads to future attempts to work out some of the ideological conflicts at work here. To everyone whom I've engaged with throughout the course of this fiasco, I do want to make clear that I admire and respect everyone who contributes to this project, and to emphasize that I bear no grudge nor ill-will against anyone. Oh, and a belated happy new year to you all! – Seancdaug 06:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's Falling Down

I think I'll be frank and say what I've been fearing since this started.

Sung to the tune of London Bridge Is Falling Down

Wikipedia's falling down,
falling down, falling down,
Wikipedia's falling down,
my fair lady. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. If everybody would stop this witch hunt and go back to the business of writing an encyclopedia, this would all end today. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite. And if certain administrators hadn't decided that they were the arbiters of what is and is not germane to the activities at hand, we could have been back to what were doing five days ago. Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, this is not about "witch hunts", "burnings at stakes" or "lynch mobs", this is about honest, decent Wikipedians who build this encyclopaedia being outraged at the actions of one particular user (and subsequently 2 others) who happens to have tools to empower their particular deletion spree, against any form of concensus. When will you "admins" learn this important lesson? You are not the arbiters of what should appear on this web site, you are the servants of the community to uphold the community held concensus. -- Yours, "Disgusted of Doncaster". --Cactus.man ✍ 19:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guess who said this

Voluntary organizations cannot survive on fascist lines because they have no means to compel continued participation. People will leave, in droves, under such regimes. I personally feel that discarding Wikipedia's communitarianism would be a grave error, and I do not see any reason why we cannot continue to operate in a communitarian fashion.

(Not me, just signing.)-- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nor can voluntary organisations be ruled by groupthink and raving lynch mobs. If you have an issue, sit down and work out an amicable solution to all, instead of trying to burn the other party at the stake. Ambi 07:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Like, maybe, suggest the deletions in the appropriate forum and then have a discussion about it? That kind of thing? James James 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't a dispute at that point, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. No, if someone does something you disagree with, talk to them. Compromise. Try to work out an amicable solution. I've had my disagreements with Kelly and other folk using IAR before. So I did the former. What you absolutely do not do is round up a lynch mob and burn them at the stake for being bold, particularly when whatever happened was easily undone. Ambi 07:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think, in the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out that the evidence section of this RfC documents several attempts to talk with Ms. Martin before this request was opened. In all cases, she essentially refused to engage on the topic, and instead vowed to continue regardless of the then-clearly vocalized disapproval of her rationale. – Seancdaug 07:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "APOLOGISE OR I WILL SEE THAT YOU'RE DESYSOPPED" and "how can we resolve this amicably?" Ambi 08:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But none of the pre-RfC requests (that I'm aware of) invoked the the threat of desysopping. Those kind of comments did not begin to appear until this request was well under way. And while they are unfortunate (and counterproductive), and really should not be condoned, I would ask that you try to understand that they are the product of the frustration a number of us have felt at Ms. Martin's refusal to respond to efforts to reach compromise, and her incivility in the face of attempts to communicate with her on on the subject. – Seancdaug 08:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

From the very beginning, however, there was no question of an amicable resolution. It was "revert this and apologise now!" Nothing justifies this lynch mob. The complainants here have had plenty of opportunity to seek mediation or some other form of amicable resolution, and when demanding an apology has failed, have gone in for the jugular. This is not the Wikipedia way. Ambi 08:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the Wikipedia way then? Acting without consensus? Screw process? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 08:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia way? If you have a disagreement with someone, work it out amicably. Request mediation if you have to. Compromise. Try to come to a solution acceptable to all sides. As I said above, what you absolutely do not do is round up a lynch mob and burn them at the stake for being bold, particularly when whatever happened was easily undone. Ambi 08:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And Ms Martin adhered to which part of the Wikipedia Way which you put forward and I whole-heartedly agree with? This isn't mine (or our) RfC, you know, it's hers. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 09:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what led you to that conclusion: I don't see that any of the exchanges presented as evidence did any more than politely ask Ms. Martin for her reasoning, and requested that she take the matter up with TfD in the future. Her chosen response was to lecture her critics that she was following policy (which she subsequently was unable to cite), and to suggest that she was unfazed by those requesting that she at least temporarily halt her activities in order to engage with the community ("...don't worry, I'll get to the rest soon..."). It was inarguably wrong that anyone allowed it to escalate beyond that point, but to suggest that that there was no attempt to try and talk and reach consensus with Ms. Martin, is a bit insulting. Naturally, if I'm missing a particular comment that led you to a different conclusion, I am willing to be corrected. – Seancdaug 09:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You said three hours ago that you had said enough, Sean, and I agree with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Chalk it up to boredom while I wait for my train to arrive, and accept my apologies for lacking the willpower to stay away. – Seancdaug 09:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. Thank you. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nor can normal people tolerate endless insults, and if you would like an amicable solution, take the initiative, and read WP:DICK. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice straw man, by the way. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're damned right they can't, which is why I've started to speak up here. It's about time the mob stopped doing exactly that and started behaving like mature, reasonable people. Ambi 07:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly, (or not,) I can say the exact same thing of you and the group that is supposedly being lynched but still regally spit upon us proletarians. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, stop playing revolution. You've gone royally over the top here, and it's about time someone put a stop to the lynching. Ambi 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop stealing my metaphor themes. ;) And no, there is no revolution right now, though if you want one, we can certainly give it to you. If need be, I'm willing to learn Spanish just to join Enciclopedia Libre. ;) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 08:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Come see the violence inherent in the system! I'm being repressed. Guess who said it?? :P --Wgfinley 07:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Both sides need to curb the unnecessary incivility at once before ANY progress can be made. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 07:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote #1: Kelly Martin, of course. Quote #2: a peasant from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." —David Levy 08:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bystander's comment

Before I make this comment, I would like to firstly point out that in the references and in the actual fact that I make this comment I am not endorsing any "side" to this matter, and I don't think I will, since it appears that the proponents of each "side" can make their arguments without aid. I preemptively disendorse any such perceived association to a "side" or viewpoint that may be made from third parties reading this statement.

I'm quite frankly appaled and disgusted at the attitude of some of the users in commenting about their fellow editors on Wikipedia. I'm not going to name names, since that would be counterproductive.

Regardless of the actions of our fellow editors, we as contributors to a project that aims for professionalism, accuracy, and high standards, should endeavour to maintain these goals in our interactions with our fellow users. We should aim to examine the facts at hand regardless of the situation whether we are editing an article or editing in the Wikipedia namespace, or wherever we may go in our project. We are (or aim to be) professionals and we should act like ones. Professionals do not resort to blatant incivility. Professionals do not exhibit the behaviour that I have seen on the RfC page and on this talk page.

Negative behaviour intended to drag our fellow editors down that is inevitably not relevant to the issues at hand is unacceptable and does absolutely nothing to obtain the just resolution that is deserved by all parties involved in a dispute or related to an issue.

If, hypothetically, NPOV or some other moderating factor must extend to such pages as these, I for one would welcome it; the behaviour of some users on the RfC page would be my prime evidence for its introduction.

Dysprosia 08:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 08:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia politics

Wikipedia now appears to be large enough to have its own right-wing vs. left-wing politics with extremests on the far right and far left not able to communicate. Contempt for the masses is not an advantage for an aristocracy, especially one that sees itself as a meritocracy. The bureaucrats cry this is not a bureaucracy and the masses want the fun in editing to be allowed to overshadow the point of editing. "Let them eat cake" ... "Off with their heads" ... WAS 4.250 12:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Testify, brother! --CJ Marsicano 18:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived Original RfC

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

I must oppose your request for three reasons.

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

Just an opinion. --CastAStone 19:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

--CastAStone 20:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is not a wiki-right. WP:NPA suggests, within process, we could delete the whole damn thing.--Tznkai 20:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that this is a train wreck, it seems to me that there are many, many non-personal-attack, well-intended, constructive criticisms in this RfC. That they are mixed in with some very vile attacks indeed is not, in fact, a good reason to delete the entire page. Archiving it does not seem entirely unreasonable to me. Deleting it does. Nandesuka 20:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that those constructive criticisms could be put under appropriate headings of the new one, and the old one is here so the info isn't lost. I think 100+ people signing the first one made the point that this is widely (although not universally) held to not be the way to do things, and the approach now (including not signing, I think that's a good way to go) is a much more constructive way to get to consensus on the issues than just piling on signatures to 11 different viewpoints that were mostly similar. (for whichever side you were on) IMHO. ++++Lar: t/c 22:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How did this get completely and utterly out of hand and turn into an off-subject food fight? The term train wreck seems apt yet a slight underestimate. Everybody on this page needs to take one massive chill pill, extra strength! How can we prevent this from happening on the second RFC? I just want Kelly to stop crusading against freedom of polite expression, not start World War III. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)