Misplaced Pages

Outside View by Soltak

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

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

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

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

Users who do not endorse this summary

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

Outside view by Cyrius

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

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

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

Users who do not endorse this summary

1. They can be rather annoying and stupid, but so are many things on user space. It has been policy/tradition/common sense/whatever you want to call it that user space is subject to much looser rules than others. This outside view also ignores the heart of the dispute - the mass deletion, assuming that all who would oppose it don't matter. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I agree with SPUI's comments. This is a non-sequitur: the issue has never been the value (or lack thereof) of these templates. This is the sort of argument that should be made on the Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion discussions that Ms. Martin unilaterally bypassed. – Seancdaug 01:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

   That seems to be the problem with this discussion. Those on one side say the value of the templates is irrelevant, it's the way they were deleted that's the issue. Those on the other side say that the way they were deleted is irrelevant, it's the role of the templates that's the issue. There may not be a meeting of minds on this for some time. David | Talk 01:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

3. This summary is a red herring. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
4. It's hilarious that the argument here against userboxes has been put into a userbox. Remind me to make {{User Irony-5}} in honor of this occasion. karmafist 02:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Make {{User Irony-5}} in honor of this occasion, Karmafist. (You asked to be reminded.) :-) Hermione1980 02:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
     • lol, thanks :-) I'll make a {{thank you}} userbox. Talk page template messages are so 2005 ;-) karmafist 02:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
5. FREAK OF NUR_xTURE. 13:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Mistress Selina Kyle 16:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
7. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Xoloz 01:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Userboxes are a red herring. The problem at the heart of the RFC is the manner in which they were deleted, and the manner in which those deletions were/are defended. Xoloz 01:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
9. I absolutely agree with Xoloz. This RfC is not about whether or not user boxes are a good thing. That should have been discussed at templates for deletion, and would have been, if Kelly had not taken it upon herself to ignore process. For the record, I think there are too many boxes. Some of them are silly; some are divisive; some may be offensive. But an administrator is not meant to treat process with contempt. The Misplaced Pages rules about deletion, just like those about 3RR are there precisely because individual Wikipedians should not take it upon themselves to decide, against consensus, that their particular interpretation is the correct one. AnnH 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
10. I wonder what Cyrius' opinion of the "purpose" of userboxes really are. (Seriously, though, I concur with Xoloz et al.) Joe Sewell 02:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Dalbury 11:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Pilatus 03:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Beside the point.

Outside view by Cjmarsicano

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

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

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

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

Users who do not endorse this summary

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

Outside View by Cool Cat

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

Side 1

1. Aside from copyright issues the userboxes should not be an issue after all it is often much easier to use 10 userboxes rather than explaining all of it in a paragraph. Userboxes are the best thing since sliced bread as far as I care.
2. I like to advertise what wikiprojects I am assosiated with. The purpose of wikipedia userboxes is that they tell people my interests so that if they are writing about lets say Star Trek or about Anime, they can ask for my assistance just by having a glance at my userpage (due to userboxes).

Side 2

1. Too many {{user ****}} templates started appearing and it has became unmanagable. Often user templates are used for stuff one should take for granted (such as someone being a wikipedia editor).
2. People should not relly comletely on userboxes. Pages that contain nothing but userboxes are bad for health and should be accompanied by text. Its "too much good stuff".
3. Misplaced Pages is a comunity, people oppossing/supporting rfas, vfds, and other votes determined by the personal affiliations (Religion, political pary, race, gender, etc...) of another is something we really want to evade.
4. Individual political parties are too spesific userpages. General rule of templates is that it is usable by large masses.

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

2005 (UTC 

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

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

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

Request for clarification

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

• It's on the talk page for this RfC. - Synapse 02:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You can read his mail in full here (think that's the one) --Sherool (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of the quote on the talk page, but I noticed that Ms. Martin hasn't confirmed or denied that it is the correct one. If it is, then I fail to see how it can be interepreted as anything more than a statement of personal opinion, and fail to understand how it is being read as a call for Ms. Martin's actions. – Seancdaug 02:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There's also this, from Category:Wikipedians by politics :

      Just a comment from Jimbo: I would like to discourage the use of these and similar templates on user pages, instead encourage people to adopt an attitude of 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Misplaced Pages as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.--Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December

--Calton | Talk 08:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Switzerland or United Nations - It's seems that we can never escape the question: Do we want neutral-ish comment, or even-handed comments? Do we want a Walter Cronkite pretending to be neutral and authoritative (though he really wasn't), or instead an articulate advocate from each serious pov on an issue making their case respectfully and as neutrally as they can without compromising their view, and let the reader decide? Perhaps a middle ground where on debateable issues there is a matter-of-fact introduction to an article with advocates limiting themselves to describing thoughtfully their own position within the article, while maintaining order with consensus policing those speaking out of position. It's difficult, but I think that if we pretend to not being advocates, we are simply lying. Being an "advocate" and being "thoughtful" and generous are not mutually exclusive ideas. -- Chris 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Thank you. That's very informative. – Seancdaug 08:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • "Discourage", not "prevent by fascistic unilateral deletion". — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Users Str1977, Patsw, AnnH/Musical Linguist were putting up boxes around the time they were combining against Hitler's Pope with Robert McClenon.I show diffs of concerted actions aplenty based on religion-one religion. I believe this here is Jimbo trying some action. I warned him that there had to be a catch- meaning faith-based editing. These boxes and groupings cannot be defused just by removal of the boxes, as they naturally have built up email networks. The error was in allowing emailing. There is possibly no way now to undo the damage, as the private invisible networks know who they are and even a closing of all user names prior to re-start is too late. Perhaps the only way would be to publish the entire email database with the entire stock of emails sent. That way we would likely see what happened, and more importantly we could expect that the subverters would not have built fall-back networks or if they had, that the emails would reveal these. I doubt that Jimbo could take any such drastic action, I have no idea what the legal ramification would be, but someone should tell him-Kelly Martin, say- straightaway to think of this now. Jimbo needs to save his system and run another button linking us to every users email diffs. You may think I'm mad, but I am sick of dishonesty in defence of ecclesiastical crime. Go to todays diffs at Pius XII if you want to see the problem(not me-others) but my whole wikiness reveals the story. Go for it Jimbo, operate on this cancer. Use the same action as here to delete all wikipedian categorisation pages, even nationality pages. In fact disallow anything but text, as the colour yellow is enough. These people use subtle codes, so disallow user-language boxes, and disallow foreign text of any kind on user pages. Set more people on it and put out a general order for users to excise all the foregoing voluntarily or face your team. If you can post an email diff button, users can do the policing. And close emailing immediately, and then lets send the abusers off to the wiki court with their IP numbers round their necks. Sorry, we all see this drastic action as contradicting principles, but users get what they deserve for allowing the cancer to grow. Sorry -community, has to be said.EffK 01:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Urthogie

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

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

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

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

Outside view by User:NicholasTurnbull

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition to this view

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

Dear Miborovsky: I did not dismiss the importance of talk pages in the slightest; it is merely that spending time discussing objets d'arte and POV indication banners is far less productive than spending time discussing articles - or better still, being bold and writing the things. I cannot possibly see any reason why a project which is meant to be writing an encyclopaedia should squander its time resources bickering about pleasant objects to add to one's talk page. I made it clear above that I would advise better communication, but I fail to see why entering into lengthy discussion is at all useful over something which contributes nothing to our project's actual goals other than to satisfy the aesthetic desires of its participants.

In response to your equestion - "Who builds Misplaced Pages?" - Wikipedians build Misplaced Pages, of course. User boxes do not get articles written, they are thus not a part of the goals of our project. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though there is a reason talkpages exist, and that is to use them. Article creators don't get a "Would you like a talkpage with this article?" button and that tells you something - talkpages are not optional! And as a counter point to your answer to my question, "Who builds Misplaced Pages?", do you honestly think that all the megabytes of bandwidth we have spent on this page has gotten any articles written? Do you think the community overall has benefitted from Ms Martin's outburst on New Year's Day, 2006? Do you know how many editors Ms Martin has pissed off? Do all of them squander their time doing nothing but designing fancy-looking userboxes? Would all of them return after this debacle, after the work they put into Misplaced Pages, no matter how misguided or inappropriate, has been so callously dismissed? You answered my question - Wikipedians build Misplaced Pages. How many Wikipedians have we lost this day, and how many articles have we got written because of this? -- Миборовский 02:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

To "Who builds Misplaced Pages?": Would so many editors do what they do here if they saw admins deleting things without notice? Admins ignoring discussion and resolving to do whatever they wanted regardless? Admins ignoring WP:CIVIL, attacking other users and belittling their contributions? Admins laughing off the fact that their actions have pissed off a lot of editors? Would they be more or less inclined to donate money and time to a project that was subject to the whims of a privileged few? -- Synapse 17:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"User boxes do not get articles written, they are thus not a part of the goals of our project." User boxes are conducive to a casual and fun working environment. The ones Kelly Martin deleted are particularly useful if you want to hunt down someone with a certain POV, which most definitely is conducive to getting articles written. Misplaced Pages's greatest strengths are the community and the fun casual things we do as a community. We Wikipedians are nice, fun, friendly people. This isn't a workplace filled with cubicles where we're banned from posting Dilbert cartoons on the walls; this is a small startup where we write encyclopedia articles, but we also joke around and have fun. Take that away and you kill Misplaced Pages. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

An opposing view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another opposing view

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

Dear Seancdaug: Admins never accept nomination on the basis that they believe Misplaced Pages processes are perfect; I do not believe I am alone in my view that the deletion processes have become far far too heavy going, although even if I am I do not believe that invalidates my ability to act as an administrator. I believe in consensus wholeheartedly - this project wouldn't even have got off the ground if it didn't exist, wikis cannot work without some means of bringing editors together into a cohesive whole. There is, however, a difference between debate and consensus, and indeed it is a fallacy to believe that the existence of the former necessarily brings the latter into existence, or vice versa. Consensus is not necessarily achieved by debate, and indeed, plenty of debates fail to bring together consensus. These user page boxes are not part of our encyclopaedic project, they are toys we have created for aesthetic purposes and point-of-view representations. There was no consensus to bring them into play to begin with, so why is it a violation of consensus to reverse that change and delete them? We have never had a consensus that building user page boxes was necessary to a good, neutral encyclopaedia. I would point out that the status quo is not necessarily the same thing as consensus; that is, circumstances may exist even where consensus does not, but just because nothing has been done about a particular decision does not make it consensus by default. I work with the community as much as possible - indeed, I'm sure you can observe I would not be talking here if that was not so, and my rôle on Misplaced Pages gravitates around talking, namely mediation. I am not advocating no discussion; what I am advocating is that admins use their judgement, and be bold, and that user page boxes are not encyclopaedic and thus do not require the same editorial review processes (which, incidentally do not generate consensus a lot of the time). Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly true that review processes and debate do not always generate consensus. It similarly true that consensus cannot be generated without some processing of gauging public opinion. And I never once stated that belief in all of Misplaced Pages policies and processes is a prerequisite for adminship. A willingness to uphold those policies and processes, however, is. They exist for a reason, and if it is not possible to raise the consensus necessary to alter them, then there is very likely a reason for their existence in the first place. Ultimately, you'll notice that the case against Ms. Martin does not solely rest upon her refusal to go through the proper channels, but in her refusal to communicate at all before taking action, and her openly inflammatory response to criticism thereafter.

As you argue yourself, debate does not always lead to consensus, and, similarly, consensus does not emerge solely from debate. The argument that the proliferation of userboxes, for good or ill, was the result of a mere adherence to status quo seems to flatly ignore the situation on the ground, as it were I would also hasten to add that the very presence of user pages on Misplaced Pages suggests a belief that they do serve some purpose towards the stated goals of the project, even if indirectly. And consensus, to my knowledge, has always been considered a standard of behavior throughout all namespaces. Even if I accept the argument that the formal review processes are inapplicable outside of the article namespace (an argument that I have never once encountered before this RfC, and find highly dubious), more general standards of behavior and of conduct almost certainly do. And it is these standards that Ms. Martin has flaunted, and has promised to continue flaunting. There was no "quibbling," as you put it, until Ms. Martin decided to impose her own personal policy on the community at large. Ultimately, this is conduct unbecoming of a sysop, and even less becoming of a member of arbcom. – Seancdaug 03:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet another opposing view

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

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

Perhaps I was a bit too harsh, but an unwillingness to follow proper procedure because it's inconvenient still shows callous disregard to consensus, not to mention basic fairness. Rogue 9 16:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Another view ... streamline cumbersome process

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

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

Outside view of Zzyzx11

My two cents:

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

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

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

Comment by User:AlMac| on WP:UP re-write

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

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

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

Outside view of Ral315

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

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

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

Outside view by D-Day

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

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

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

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

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

1. Stripping out of adminship is way too harsh. We all make mistakes once in a while. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 18:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If she had only deleted a couple of userboxes and didn't bite people who tried to reprimand her, than I would agree with your logic. Her behavior and subsesquent behavior has been disgusting, andcan almost be considered vandal-like.(Ignoring repeated warnings, rude behavior. Trust me on this. I'm an ex-vandal myself.) --D-Day 19:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

1. ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) I think this may be overstating things a bit.
2. Removing adminship is an inappropriate overreaction. User:Zoe| 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Snowspinner

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

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

Users who oppose this summary

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

• The template made about the RfC was ONLY placed on two pages: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Userboxes and Misplaced Pages:Userboxes - by members of the very WikiProject involved. That's not "spamming".
  • It was not an "attack", it merely mentioned that many templates had been deleted and provided a link to this request for comment (I didn't make this by the way, but I saw it). I thought it was very useful myself too, as I had no idea what was going on until I saw a message on someone else's talk page. There's nothing wrong with bringing attention to such a blatant abuse of admin powers like this, and there were definitely no rules broken, unless you're going to say that no one should be allowed to mention that RfCs are in process..
  • As a matter of fact some of the things that occurred after in response to that were quite chilling and much more serious: People mentioning the RfC were banned from Misplaced Pages indefinitely (e.g. God of War, User:Saveus)
• Kelly Martin was acting very much out of process herself. Mass-scale, non-consensus deletions of material from userpages without applicable support from policy is pretty serious, and deserved to be brought attention to.
• It was hardly a "good faith action".:

(From Misplaced Pages chat room, this was spotted by User:SPUI who posted it on the talk page here and was promptly banned. The reasons for this were described as "we should be able to say what we want without it coming back to haunt us.":)

<karynn> i deleted a bunch of useless shit, and the people in love with it whined.

<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.

<karynn> yeah, pretty much. along with a handful of process wonks

<karynn> by the way, i'm just loving this. i should get RfC'd more often.

<karynn> i peed on someone's playground, i guess."

Template:BigspaceTemplate:BigspaceTemplate:Bigspace Mistress Selina Kyle 16:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, that's a perfectly valid rationale for not wanting the chat log posted. Furthermore, it's external to Misplaced Pages itself, and is not strictly relevant to this RfC. Posting this here, despite the clear disapproval of the participants, is unconscionably rude and degrades this entire procedure to the level of witch hunt. – Seancdaug 19:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's on the Misplaced Pages computer servers, paid by the same Wikimedia Foundation, about the same encyclopedia: I think it's relevant. --20:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, the #wikimedia channel is hosted at the Peer-Directed Projects Center (also known as freenode), receives no funding from the WMF, and makes use of none of their servers. Next time, check your facts before you spout. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen irc logs forged before.

<spectie> I saw a man eat a bicycle :(

- FrancisTyers 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Outside view by Firebug

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

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

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

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

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

   LOL Dan100 (Talk) 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   How many times, she could have removed the images not deleted the whole template. the wub "?!" 00:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Xoloz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Users who oppose this summary

1. I have yet to see single person on Misplaced Pages who "self-classifed as "elite." " User:Zoe| 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

   User:Tony Sidaway, User:David Gerard, and the departed User:Ed Poor spring immediately to mind; I consider declaring, "I been around here so long that I can get away with this", or similar words, to be such a self-classifying statement. Xoloz 19:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by the wub

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

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

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

Another outside view by Aranda56

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outside view by rst20xx

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

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

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

Outside view by User:Blu Aardvark

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

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

1. Blu Aardvark | 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
2. --Jaranda 22:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Drini

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

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

Outside view by User:Evilphoenix

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

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

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

Outside view by User:AzaToth

Per WP:DGFA it says:

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

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

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

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

Outside view by Wgfinley

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Did not realize or did not care? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 11:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Amendment by Seancdaug

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

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

Does this sound acceptable?

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

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

Outside view by User:Tufflaw

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

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

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