Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:59, 9 August 2006

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC).

• Kelly Martin (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

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

Description

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

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

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

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

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

August 8 2006

WP Logos 05:57 - User_talk:Kelly Martin 12:25

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

August 8 2006

WP Logos 05:57 - User_talk:Kelly Martin 05:51 - User_talk:Kelly Martin 07:57 - User_talk:Kelly Martin 10:00 - User_talk:Kelly Martin 10:41 - User_talk:Kelly Martin 11:39

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

August 8 2006

WP Logos 07:06 - User_talk:Kelly Martin 05:51 - User_talk:Kelly Martin 10:03 -

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:AGF
2. WP:CIVIL
3. WP:CON
4. WP:EQ
5. WP:DR

Related policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

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

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

Summary

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

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

Other users who endorse this summary

1.  — MrDolomite | Talk 00:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Remember 00:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. NMajdan•talk 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

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

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

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

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

Addressing the specific items in the "summary" section:

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. "I am aware that many editors hold my opinions in high esteem, and I try to refrain from making such declarations when I am not certain that the declaration is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages" basically says it all. ed g2s • talk 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
4. InkSplotch 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Yes, I agree. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Tony Sidaway 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Kelly is to be commended on coming up with a good, solid policy. It would take a few sticks of dynamite to shift it.

Outside view

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

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

Aeon

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Æon 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2.  — MrDolomite | Talk 00:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Remember 00:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
4. --MECU≈talk 01:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam Blanning

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

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Sam Blanning 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (as writer of above)
2. Æon 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3.  — MrDolomite | Talk 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Remember 00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
5. --MECU≈talk 01:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC) with my preference for correction stated on the talk page, see the link below.
6. Powers 01:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(Commentary has been moved to the talk page. --SB 00:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Discussion

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