Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lar (talk | contribs) at 09:45, 9 January 2006 (revert (after discussion with User:Sean Black) back to God of War version). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The previous version of this page.

Civility discussion

You removed the proposal so no one knows what you're talking about, but thats just fine. I will be helping removing incivility on sight, for the record.--Tznkai 20:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't want to clutter this page or section. In fact, we should move these remarks to the talk page. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the proposal as I recall it (finding it in the history failed me but it probably is findable) was that any incivil remarks be stricken and the user be given 24 hours to refactor the remark, rather than being removed outright. Hope that helps. Also I did move some remarks from there to here just now, hopefully that was helpful too. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment on new RfC

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

I must oppose your request for three reasons.

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

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

--CastAStone 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The extraordinary case of the Vanishing Request for comment

Well, an interesting occurrence. This used to be a RFC for censure of actions by Kelly Martin. It had collected approximately 150 signatures against Kelly, at a rough count 4:1 against Kelly's actions deleting user boxes out of process. Someone had posted that this was a record number of votes against anything. Having come to this consensus, the slate has been cleared, and we are instructed not to reinstate our votes. Am I dreaming, or is this also out of process deletion? I reverted to the deleted page (in this context, archiving is NOT a justifiable action), on the basis that the arbitrary replacement constituted vandalism. This was rapidly re-reverted. Now, do others have views on this? Sandpiper 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

See mine above--CastAStone 21:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you misunderstand the way that dispute resolution works at Misplaced Pages. We're not interested in lynching people; we're interested in working out an amicable solution. Philwelch, who has been one of Kelly's main critics here, has had the good faith and judgement to end this mess and to refactor it in such a way that something useful might come out of it, and for that, I really do commend him. Ambi 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to delete or get rid of the initial RFC, I'm trying to distill from it the basic arguments and concerns of those involved. If the original RFC was a raging wildfire, this is a combustion engine trying to take that fire and direct its power to useful ends. As a critic of Kelly's actions and the first one to ask for her resignation from Arbcom, even I recognize that the original RfC was doing more harm than good. If you agree with me and want Kelly Martin to be held accountable for the mistakes she's made, then trust me when I say that the way to get there isn't mob rule, it's calm and rational discussion. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

<Edit conflict>

The original RfC is here and is clearly labeled as being both here and available for continued comment. As the new page states, it is possible for people to continue the old RfC if they wish that (POV: incivil, nasty and destructive) process to continue.

The new page, however, aims to get a resolution based on consensus, where we can find a way forward, draw up new rules and decide together as a community what we want to happen and why.

That process does not include "censure", punishment or revenge as part of the process itself. Perhaps the consensus will decide to do any one or more of those things at the end. Until then, the important thing is that we all, as a community, stop baying for blood or turning our backs on a serious issue and instead find a consensus based on the Wiki attitudes of friendliness, openness and cooperation. The new RfC is designed to facilitate that,

It would be best, based on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA if nothing else, if people stopped using such emotive terms as "censure" and "vandalism" - especially in non-editable edit summaries.

This is an opportunity for everyone to take a deep breath, examine the issues clearly and without bias, and decide a way forward. BTW, as someone who feels that Kelly made a serious mistake and said so, I don't see 4:1 as a consensus on this matter, as people were voting on different things for different reasons.

Hope this explains things to you, Sandpiper. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. In return, I should perhaps suggest leaving a talk comment as explanation before making major edits, rather than only after someone objects. My comments in the edit summary were entirely deliberate with the full intention that they should make a clear objection to an arbitrary, unexplained deletion of the existing vote and RfC. I notice they have nonetheless been deleted. Sandpiper 22:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, just lost in the move, I'd imagine. Please assume good faith, and please restore those comments if they are important to you. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I have no magic powers to edit wiki histories and it would be churlish to revert back to the original page again, at least so long as it is clearly explained here what is happening and why. Sandpiper 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. funnily enough I always do assume good faith, though perhaps i come across as being rather dry. It surprises me how many paople in the previous debate seemed to be getting excited about what I would have considered reasonable objections. Perhaps others are assuming malign interpretation where none exists. Sandpiper 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As to the issue of 'censure'. I think it fair comment that no one brings a RfC if they are happy with the actions of an editor. The intention is, as you say, to obtain a consensus view of something which has occurred. It is not the intention that nothing will happen as a result, rather to gain support for a particular line of action. The bringer of the action presumably believes that others will support his objections, and the result will be some form of action against the individual named. The bringer may be entirely wrong, and the majority will support the named individual. But it is expected that a view will be formed. It is expected that this will involve 'censure'...or something rather stronger. I await to see where you plan to go with this, but I fail to see how there can be a resolution of the matter without someone being found to be in the wrong, and a sanction being applied. This matter has already spawned a referral to Requests for arbitration. Now, how exactly will a satisfactory conclusion be achieved here, and how will consensus be expressed without allowing editors to list their views? Consensus is not formed by an overwhelming majority, but it is not formed by ignoring one either. Sandpiper 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Two questions:

• What is the point of calling something a "Request for comment" and they saying, essentially, "Please do not comment"?
• Who selected the priveleged few who are allowed to comment on the page?

--Tabor 22:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends what people mean by "comment" :) If people mean "attack", "be rude", "demand revenge", "demand retribution", "assume bad faith" and so forth, then, yes, such comments should not be made. Such comments should never be made. The process isn't "Requests for Attacks". However, if people want to genuinely comment in order to find a consensus for a way forward that will grow and nurture the Misplaced Pages and its processes, then that's easy to do and shouldn't pose a problem for anyone.

As for "the selected few", these are self-selecting. They are the ones who can comment and seek a way forward without attacking, being rude, demanding revenge, demanding retribution, assuming bad faith and so forth. Those that cannot do this are invited not to comment. For the 99.99999% of Wikipedians who can do this, their constructive comments are more than welcome.

And, before anyone makes a value judgment on whose side I am on (if anyone's), I'd just like to say (a) don't; and (b) the above applies to all sides, deleters and undeleters, admin-gods and humble-editors, boxfans and boxhaters. There's no distinction when it comes to people not being nice. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I had taken "Do not add outside views" to mean that comments were not welcome. --Tabor 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This was never an RfC "for censure". As the name indicates, this was an RfC "for comment". The community cannot "censure", they can only discuss actions. User:Zoe| 23:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

see my comment below. Censure means to show disaproval of, which is exactly what a RfC can do. perhaps the only thing it can do, apart from the reverse, to show approval for. The intro stated that 150 people censured the action, while 50 approved it. Sandpiper 00:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Disagree with" is not the same as "censure". Please don't try to speak for all of the people who added their names to the RfC. I doubt all of them would say they were calling for her censure. User:Zoe| 19:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please

In the interests of keeping the edit history easier to view/manage, please move this page (talk page and the original page) into the /Archive space, then edit the new RFC into the old space. I'm tempted to do it myself, but an admin would have an easier time (since /Archive already exists it would need to be deleted first). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I should have done a page move. OK, here we go... — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Phil. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Some of the page history that refers to *this* page is in the archive page history, but I don't think anything can be done in that case. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

ah, that would perhaps explain what was about to become my next comment, what the devil happened to the edit history and my previous edits. Unfortunately you took with it the initial history of the new page. Could we have it back?Sandpiper 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We can do a page history split and a page history merge, but that would need a pause on editing, since it depends on both pages being deleted and undeleted a number of times. Better leave that to the end (or to a faster admin - I'm too slow). --cesarb 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just thought of a way of doing it with the minimum amount of "downtime", so let me try... --cesarb 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Remind me next time to use a warning template, I'm still too slow (and the procedure is still way to convoluted). --cesarb 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, the main page also needs it... Will do it soon. --cesarb 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

All done. --cesarb 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Threshold

There's no votes to endorse this RfC, so currently it will fold in a day or two. Just thought I'd point that out. Harro5 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, the previous endorsements still stand. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is being argued that this is a valid continuation of the debate, which has merely been archived, then it would seem logical that the original vote to endorse remains. It also invites determined individuals to continue adding their names to the archived votes. (a slightly odd concept, but sensible until something further is resolved here) Sandpiper 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have deleted the Archive now. _→AzaToth 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

See above section, there's currently a revision split/merge in progress to rejoin the edits made to each RFC back together. I suspect it's not finished yet. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the confusion, but it's kind of hard to keep a {{inuse}} tag when you are deleting the page. It's finished now. --cesarb 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale confusion

The move of this page is guaranteed to cause massive confusion. I, for one, support the original statement, and cannot fathom why this page would be altered. The actions of this editor (and others) have disrupted the wikipedia community, and while the motivations may not have been unkind, the result has been unhelpful to the wiki. I believe that this administrator should accept that the unilateral deletion of content in the user space should not be engaged in lightly - and therefore that an apology is appropriate. Hundreds of hours of time have been spent managing the fallout of this series of events, when there was a much less troublesome option (TfD) available to resolve any problems. This demonstrates one of the problems with the wiki - editors must edit responsibly, or the entire project may devolve into uselessness. --Dschor 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the move will keep the edit histories sane. Otherwise, the "new" RFC was tantamount to blanking the page and starting over. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr Sidaway?

Now that he's done the exact same thing as Ms Martin, is Misplaced Pages really just a farce? A grand con-scheme to fool us idiots into pouring hours into this project only for a few select people to exile the rest and claim all the credit for themselves? 'Cos from what it looks like to me, Mr Sidaway sure wants as many editors gone as possible. -- Миборовский 23:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am already confused - where is the original RfC, and why was it moved? Who is responsible for disrupting the RfC process, and how does this help to resolve the underlying problem? --Dschor 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Section 3

The article asks people not to work on section 3, possible results of this RfC. One reader has already suggested that the intent of this action is to impose a sanction on Kelly above and beyong the normal result of a RfC. An interesting interpretation, I myself saw it rather the other way.. as an attempt to postpone to death the logical conclusion of the debate.

However, my own view (having no previous views on Kelly) is that this is a case of zeal in attempting to tidy up wiki. Kelly is entirely entitled to her views on user boxes, or anything else on wiki, and fully entitled to further her own views of how wiki should run. However, no administrator is entitled to act against policy without very good reason. Administrators, even more than editors must recognise this, and the higher up the ladder they go the more it must apply. What is therefore needed is reinstatement of all out of process deletions, and a firm policy statement that no administrator should act in his way. Qui custodet ipsos custodes? The debate suggested that others may have joined in with these deletions, and perhaps those should be quietly reinstated too.It should be recognised that policy is not immutable and may always be overruled by consensus, but this is not such a case. While an apology might be pushing the matter, since I do not see how someone can exactly apologise for views they hold in good faith, a promise not to continue such actions would be helpfull. Sandpiper 23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, an RfC does not censure people. Never has, never will. I think this whole saga highlights the urgent need for some form of newbie FAQ to explain dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages. Ambi 23:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

yes, it does. Did you never feel 'censured' because 100 people told you that you were wrong? My dictionary says 'severe disaproval', which seems to be exactly what we have here. The latin root is censere, to consider. Exactly what we have here, and why I chose to use the word. Sandpiper 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Working on results here is premature. We can't resolve everyone's concerns until we understand them all. We're at the "understanding concerns" stage. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong objection to the reformatting

I have no particular view on this RfC, but I strongly object to the archiving and reformatting. When things are contentious it is not a good idea to swiftly change the rules. I'm sure the intention is good - but the result looks like censorship by a cabal.

• General introduction is replaced by Phil Welch's personal instructions to participants
• 'Filtering out' of undesirable remarks has taken place
• No endorsements are allowed
• Outside views are not to be permitted
• Anything deemed incivility will be deleted on sight (by whom?)

I'm sure this is well intentioned - but it is not well-thought through. This is the first RfC, when comments have been unwelcome--Doc 23:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I second the above. The thing should be left to run its course. Generating comments on an issue is what RFCs are there for. Zocky 23:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The ongoing original process was achieving absolutely nothing apart from further bad feeling on all sides. Philwelch has, to his credit (particularly considering he was one of those bringing the original RfC), acted to try and channel this into some form of productive attempt at resolving this dispute. Remember the purpose of an RfC: dispute resolution. Ambi 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling Phil's motives into question (sorry if it sounded like that), but I don't think changing the rules mid-process will resolve disputes. Bad air is best circulated. I'mm all for trying to develope a better process for the future. --Doc 00:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad air is best cleared out of the room. That's what I did. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Ambi 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

One definition of arbitrary power is where rules are drawn up ex post facto --Doc 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's just that the process wasn't working, so it makes sense to try something new. Where is the exercise of power? Ambi 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A small group changing the rules - and saying what type of speech is, and is not, permitted is most definately an exercise of power. --Doc 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And possibly common sense. ] 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You can say what you want in your own userspace or on your own wiki. You can even go back to the old RfC and say it. But on this RfC, you have to remain civil and productive. That's the only way to get anything done. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how the process was not working, except in so far as a growing majority had expressed their views against Kelly, with no obvious consequences for anyone. However, if we now take that vote as concluded, perhaps we can see what happens this way? Sandpiper 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We were shouting past each other and not communicating. It's established that a large number of people oppose what Kelly did. I oppose what Kelly did. Now that we've established that, let's discuss why we opposed it and what to do about it instead of just screaming "Deadmin her!" and "Lynch mob!" at each other. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I for one want to commend Phil for what he's doing, it's certainly both bold and needed. --Wgfinley 00:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We were all acting like children, myself included. It was high time for one of us to be the adult, and I took the initiative. The original RfC is still ongoing. If you want to bicker like a little kid, go there. This is a refactoring intended to draw out everyone's concerns in a rational and civil fashion. If you didn't want me to do this, you should have spoken up on the RfC when I proposed it yesterday. Since the positive response was overwhelming, I refactored. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This childish user missed the RfC yesterday and certainly didn't read the talk page. I came to it fresh today and reacted strongly to the 'thou shall not comment' tone. However, having read it through since, I have no wish to comment further. Good luck. --Doc 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for reformatting

I am having trouble telling who it was who did the rewrite of the RFC on Kelly Martin on Deleting stuff without consensus, but I think it was Phil. Whoever did it, and it may have been a team effort, they deserve a Superhero Editor Barnstar for translating the anger and frustration into the different cogent view points. But perhaps after userboxes and templates are resolved, barnstars could also become a controversy, unless I am misunderstanding some of the nuances.

Some people may feel that Phil missed some pieces, so perhaps it was not a perfect job, but someone needed to do it, and given the contentious nature of the sides in support of Kelly Martin, and the sides in opposition, it is remarkable that someone has done such a great job. This gives us hope for ultimate remarriage of the divorced sides. User:AlMac| 18:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Remark by Hipocrite

(moved from main page, in response to the top section) Radiant_>|< 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate venue for 3, nor is 3 appropriate for someone who has done nothing wrong. Refactoring this RFC like this was an abuse of process, but, beyond that, it was as opposed to an abuse of "process" such that an encyclopedia could be written. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Remark by Radiant

Given the utter mess that the RFC had become, I think that this new version is a good idea, so that people can actually find out what happened. And as said above, people can still contribute to the old version if they believe there's a point in that. Radiant_>|< 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How about then renaming it to something like /Original_version? /Archive seems to imply it's read-only. --cesarb 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• {{sofixit}}. /1 and /2 seems to be the most common naming scheme. Radiant_>|< 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the currently flammable state of the affairs in the vicinity, I'm loathe to do even an apparently innofensive rename without asking first (I've already been bold enough on these pages by doing a complex and slow page history mangling). --cesarb 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've been bold and renamed the 'archive' as 'original' and linked it back to the RfC page. Nothing is now hidden, no-one forbidden from commenting in the usual way - this new verion is simply offered as an alternative (perhaps even preferred version - since it occupies the usual RfC space). To avoid any call of bias - I will not be commenting on this RfC - either version. --Doc 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So, just what are we doing here?

I'm not at all sure ove. -- Dalbury 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Arb-Com having turned this down, one sees this mess festering on, esp since the Martin-Sidaway group have decided to ride this one out (a bit like the White House), oblivious of the ill feeling they have generated among a wide cross-section of Wikipedians (both old and new) and determined to ignore all protest. Tony Sidaway's recent behaviour reminds me of the repeated provocative behaviour of the Bush White House in the face of criticism. (And I'll thank you all very much not to amend or correct this comment). --Peripatetic 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

last I looked, two members had declared an interest and withdrawn, while two more had turned it down. One on the grounds that user boxes was a rather trivial issue, which seemed to entirely miss the point. If that counts as being turned down, then the system is falling apart anyway, since it is supposed to take four votes to accept or reject. If it it has failed because there is no one left to hear it, well...quite a different problem. Some remarkably speedy voting, though, the number of people expressing a view on the case is still growing.Sandpiper

What are we trying to do here? We're trying to come a mutual understanding of everyone's perspective. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Defense of Kelly Martin's actions

1. These templates are divisive
2. These templates are clear violations of copyright

Response by SPUI

1 is an opinion, not an undeniable fact that can back up a massive deletion. 2 is simply wrong, as the emplate itself is not a copyright violation; removing the image fixes the problem. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Even the images themselves don't violate copyright; using them on userpages falls well within the bounds of fair use. They're a violation of a Misplaced Pages policy, and an irrational one at that, nothing more. Rogue 9 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• I moved this response by SPUI to the talk page. Per Phil can we try editing the text on the RfC to be how it hsould be as a way to reach consensus and talk about it here? ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• the wording of 2 should be changed to "contained images that are" intsead of "are" to address the objection, so I did. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

I have noticed in this RfC, on talk pages associated with it and so on, a lot of incivility on all sides. Some of this incivility has been coming from admins, arbcom members, and other "senior" members of WP administration. I don't want to name names here in the interest of cooling this down, but I feel that many of the complaints made in the initial RfC directly result from "ordinary" editors being treated with contempt, ridicule and incivility by members of WP administration.

I believe that the sole exception of Ignore All Rules should apply to WP:CIVIL, and I ask the members of WP administration to apologise for any abusive comments they have made. It will reassure many editors of your good faith in this matter.

-- Synapse 00:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur about incivility. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; this mob mentality is like nothing I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages before. But that doesn't help us resolve things, so please let it drop. Ambi 00:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking for people to apologise for being abusive because I believe it would be constructive to resolving things. -- Synapse 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that asking for apologies at this particular point in the process is the way to go. I think just asking people to try to be more civil going forward (and reminding them that Phil has stated intent to remove incivil remarks completely) might be the way to go. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies will just mess up something that's already messed up, so I agree. Now, off for my attempted wikibreak. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the way things are going, this seems to be working, so I'm forced to agree -- Synapse 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuck apologies. Just get on with it, and don't do it again. Let's keep this go civil. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Which mob mentality is that? I read much of the original RfC and it did not seem so very out of control to me. It seemed to express an extraordinary degree of consensus that a wrong had been done entirely unrepentantly, and was likely to be repeated. If that happens, and people are seen to get away with it, then, yes, perhaps a 'mob' is the correct descriptive word for the resulting overwhelming consensus. Sandpiper 01:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Amen. It's only a "mob" if you don't like what they're saying. The RFC process has been devalued by this new page. --Peripatetic 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think people must realise by now that this issue is one that many many wikipedians feel very strongly about. The archived page clearly shows that. The opinions expressed there are not lost, not swept under the rug, and I doubt anyone would be able to claim differently any time soon., no one will forget. But that RfC was felt by many, even including many who expressed dismay at Kelly's actions, to be degrading into a pitchfork party. No one comment was the sole bad comment but taken as a whole, surely you agree they were not WP:CIVIL? This new process is a sincere attempt to get everyone's issues documented in a way that is civil and respectful to all parties involved and I think it should be given a fair shake. Modify the points and expand them as you see fit, or discuss your proposed modifications here first, as you prefer, but don't comment there and don't start signing things yet. IMHO. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Response by Rogue 9

(remarks in response to this section Further response from Kelly Martin to a comment by Kaldari ) moved to talk page by ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

Kelly Martin is gravely mistaken in her assessment of her powers and the effects that her wielding of them in this instance wrought. I will address each part of this defense in order.

I do hold those whose purpose for being on Misplaced Pages is other than to write an encyclopedia with contempt. Such people do not belong here; they should be asked to leave, and if they do not leave they should be forced to leave.

This is authoritarian thinking. CalJW will probably come barging in and say that the preceding sentence is a personal attack, but it is not; it is a simple statement of fact. Who is Kelly Martin to unilaterally decide that any one of us should be forced to leave? None of us have that power by ourselves, and none of us should have it. It is my opinion that those who hold such attitudes should not be entrusted with any power whatsoever beyond those of a normal editor, lest they abuse it in pursuit of their personal goals and vision, but I do not say that my opinion should be the one enforced. I submit that Ms. Martin should not either.

Misplaced Pages is not a social experiment; it is an encyclopedia.

Quite true, but irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is not a social experiment, and it is an encyclopedia, but it is also a community, and if the community is not allowed to exist, then neither will the encyclopedia. And the community will not exist for very long if the members have no incentive to stay here. Many of us who contribute to articles would not be here if Misplaced Pages tolerated only the driest of academic discussion and concourse, and the encyclopedia would suffer for it.

I do not believe my actions will have a serious impact on that portion of our community that actually writes the encyclopedia; my actions did not target them.

Ah, and here is where Ms. Martin is most seriously wrong. Her actions did, in fact, target a large portion of the encyclopedia-writing community. You see, Wikipedians do not fall into two monolithic groups of those who write the encyclopedia and nothing else and those who express their personal opinions without touching articles. I challenge anyone to examine my edit record and question my commitment to writing and improving encyclopedia articles on several subjects, and yet one of the first templates deleted, User Capitalist, was made for a Wikipedian category that I founded, namely Capitalist Wikipedians. Her actions did indeed target writers of the encyclopedia, and a great many of us at that.

I will not apologize for my actions; they were motivated by my belief in what is best for Misplaced Pages.

And they may well have been; in fact I daresay that they were motivated by the best of intentions, but we all know what the road to Hell is paved with. Be that as it may, good intentions do not excuse bad actions, and the summary deletion of the work of scores of her fellow editors shows callous disregard for the community that builds, maintains, and sustains this encyclopedia. I will not presume to tell Ms. Martin that she should apologize, but I submit that her reasoning for not doing so is flawed.

Nor will I apologize for the response to those actions because it was not I who responded.

This is only fair, but the response to her actions is with a few possible exceptions is not something that requires apology from anyone.

Nor will I apologize to my response to the response, as I have done nothing for which an apology is appropriate.

And that is something for this RfC to determine, not Ms. Kelly Martin.

I thank the good editors of Misplaced Pages in advance for their forbearance. I may have rambled overlong, but sometimes that is the best way to illustrate one's point. Rogue 9 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Rogue 9

I feel that you're making an error in logic that a lot of people make that leads to hurt feelings. Your contributions are not you -- you do not own them, nor is it guaranteed that they have a place on the encyclopedia. Decisions that they do not belong are not attacks on you, and should not be taken as such. If you are a well-behaved editor, we'll be happy to have you in the community, and if you produce good contributions, that is very cool. Don't, however, get defensive about things and think you own them. This site exists for a project, and personal use is merely usually tolerated when it doesn't get in the way of the encyclopedic goals. Enforcing the rules may be authoritarian, true, but in the appropriate time and place, such authority is well-placed. All these userboxes are a waste of time, unrelated to the primary goal. Regardless of the work on keeping the project self-governing, and regardless of whatever votes people might do, Misplaced Pages is never going to be your Yahoo or Geocities homepage. This will not change if a million Yahoo/Geocities people come here and start voting or complaining. I don't always agree with Kelly Martin, and some of her positions on following rules make me uneasy, but in what she has done here, I agree fully, and in what she has said about the aim of people coming here I also agree fully. Those who are not here to work on the encyclopedia should be (kindly) shown the door. It is very unfortunate that this situation arose -- if userboxes had been nipped in the bud when they started, it would have been for the better. As of now, corrective action needs to be taken. Please try not to feel attacked when your works are judged unsuitable for the encyclopedia, and please remember that your userpage is at most a small sideshow to what you're hopefully doing on the encyclopedia. If you want free speech, get a webpage. If you want democracy, go start a club with your friends. We're an encyclopedia. --Improv 03:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The only corrective action that needs to be taken is against Ms. Martin for her blatant disregard for consensus. The very thing that is in dispute in this RfC is whether the userboxes in question have a place in the encyclopedia; since Kelly Martin completely bypassed the method for determining this, she didn't know, much as she might have thought that her personal opinion was fact. She was operating on assumption, which is a very bad thing to do when undertaking deletions on a massive scale. Further, the only thing I might take personal offense to is not the deletion of User Capitalism; it's that I'm evidently held in contempt for daring to make the category that it links to, and the assumption that I must be worthless as an editor because of it. Rogue 9 22:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it really obnoxious when people say "it's an encyclopedia" to justify their own views, as if the rest of us don't think it's an encyclopedia. Well, I think it's an encyclopedia, and I also think the only problem we have here is the one caused by Kelly. I think process and policy are essential to the successful operation of the encyclopedia, and therefore Kelly's actions were harmful to the encyclopedia, because they caused disruption and unfairness in the community on which the encyclopedia is based. Everyking 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Remarks by Monicasdude on The Actions in Question

(unsigned on main page, moved here by CarbonCopy (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)) <<original edit history line: 00:25, 4 January 2006 Monicasdude (→The actions in question)>>

This summary is objectionable. The first quotation from Kelly Martin applied only to a small group of templates created by a single user, including such items as template:User Coca-Cola, template:User Pepsi-Cola, template:User McDonalds, template:User TacoBell, and template:User KingKong. The original RFC misquoted Martin on a crucial point, and it is disturbing that its successor also misrepresents quoted comments.

Thanks for the clarification. I've edited it accordingly. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Martin gave a much clearer, policy-based explanation of her actions governing the entire set of deletions, and you suppressed it in favor of a prejudicially selected subset of comments. Monicasdude 05:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This summary is objectionable. It emphasizes Kelly Martin's response to a particular question regarding a set of conspicuously frivolous, just-created templates and presents it as though it is representative of her stated reasons. The framer(s) of this RfC are perfectly capable of presenting Martin's statements fairly, but choose not to do so. (unsigned on main page, moved here by CarbonCopy (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)) <<original edit history line: 03:03, 4 January 2006 Monicasdude (→The actions in question)>>'

Not happy with the new incarnation of the RfC

Ladies and gentlemen: I was one of the individuals who advocated a fresh start for the RfC, but I'm dismayed to see what has replaced it. This appears to have become more of an exercise to present only criticism of Kelly Martin's actions, and apparently not be able to present any counterarguments or mitigating circumstances in the document. Moreover, it appears to begin with a prima facie assumption that Kelly was indeed in the wrong, without providing any means for disproval nor for reasoning to the contrary. The document also has the appearance of being tightly controlled and not freely editable, which is not satisfactory. Phil, I appreciate what you are trying to achieve, but I do not agree with such closed debates as this - especially since the gist of the RfC was that Kelly did not pay attention to the community, and now it seems only those who agree with that opinion are permitted to present views on the RfC. Please, consider opening this up more to those who do not share your views. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Nick's concerns here are valid, and should be incorperated, but this is certainly better than the last debacle that ensued.--Tznkai 01:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it really? I gather that the last one was considered a "debacle" because some perceived that it was uncivil, but I contend that nothing is more uncivil than intellectual dishonesty, particularly that resulting from adherence to artificial standards of politeness. Simply put, if we're not permitted to comment on Kelly Martin's actions accurately because her actions were such that they necessitate a marginally "rude" response, then what good is this proceeding? Rogue 9 01:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin did not kill your mother. She does not eat babies, and as far as I'm aware, she didn't kill Kennedy either. If you can't contain yourself from being a jerk when you complain about her actions, that's a personal problem. We're trying to communicate here. The incivility of the previous RfC was noise, not signal, and the purpose of this refactoring is to filter out the noise. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh* I call a spade a spade. Her behavior was arrogant, authoritarian, and completely anti-consensus, and I will say so. These truths are certainly unpleasant, but they are truths nonetheless. Sometimes the truth hurts. Does that mean we shouldn't say it? I'm not going out of my way to be excessively rude, but there's no absolutely polite way to say some of the things she did without it coming off as an attack, because frankly she did things worthy of attack. I remind you that taken by the strictest definition the whole concept of an RfC is a personal attack, because it suggests that the initiator found something wrong with the editor's behavior. That's all I'm getting at. Rogue 9 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, it would be a nice gesture on Kelly's part if she somehow indicated that she is interested in the outcome of this new process. Given that there's already a RfAr on this topic, we're not really gaining anything by this re-hashing of arguments if she doesn't wish to participate. —Kirill Lokshin 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur to a degree. There are beliefs from several sides, right now we're not seeing that. That's not a problem with the format, {{sofixit}}. - brenneman 01:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a big section for you to provide defenses of Kelly's actions in the RfC. Please do so. Some of the items listed under "concerns with Kelly Martin's actions" respond to some of the defenses provided, so don't be afraid to use the defense section to respond to the concerns presented. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What he said. It may not be perfect, but I think it's worth trying to make this work - it's certainly better than the fiasco we had before. Ambi 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing stuff get added there, even just since I moved some comments here,so I think it's not one sided at all. Doing it this way is more cumbersome than just letting er rip, commentwise, but I think it will be a better result and I applaud Phil for the effort (which is why I moved a few things, trying to help out)... ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Applauding Phil is something with which I can concur fully. - brenneman 01:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Phil: I'm sorry, but I really can't work out what I can write, and where. It says at the top of the document: "For one thing, endorsements or "me-too" signatures are discouraged, as are outside views." If outside views are not permitted, why is Rogue9's response printed verbatim in the document? Also, the "Other defenses" (which I assume is what you are referring to) is shoved right down at the bottom in a subsection, as a bulleted list. What can I write there, if not a view? It strikes me that the negative comments are arbitrarily considered to not be a view (as in, the "Specific actions" at the top, and Rogue9's response) and the ones supporting Kelly's actions aren't. Please tell me - or better, still, make it clear at the top of the page - what I am permitted to post, and where. Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions kindly answered by Phil via IRC; thank you Phil, and sorry for my initial rudeness. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Rogue9's comments appear to have been moved back to the main article (I moved them here). I am not sure who did it (WP is balky for me tonite, walking the history failed) but I understood the idea was that they not be there whichy is why I moved them here. I don't want to get into a edit war (I've never been in one andwould like to keep it that way) so perhaps someone else could determine why they were moved there and then move them back? ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This process will not go anywhere unless new comments get incorporated into the text. There is absolutely no point re-stating the same view, but comments both pro and anti need to be inserted somewhere so that the text can make a full representation of all views expressed. When people have run out of new points, perhaps we can move on to section 3. Sandpiper 02:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

New comments or new points? Do we have all the points/issues yet? I'm not sure we do and those ought to all be added before moving to part 3. Unless we are moving to part 3. As for the process not going anywhere, I saw on User_talk:Jimbo Wales that Jimbo is thinking about this, and held back from comment because it is not an easy question. If all the pros and cons, all the issues and defenses can be cogently and civil-ly put forth, I think that will aid everyone in deciding how they now feel about how to proceed (and may I again put in a plug for the Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userboxes process as well?) I think it is useful to try to look at the other side and see what objections there might be (if you feel that Kelly did the right thing) or what justifications there might be (if you do not feel Kelly did the right thing). It is an excellent exercise. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I really don't care about userboxes, though I suppose I should form a view on it now. It is the way this has been done which is the problem.Sandpiper 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The reason I keep giving the userbox policy link is because people that think this is about boxes, or that have feelings about boxes, might be better served to participate there. This is, IMHO, not about boxes, this is about out of process deletion, and whether it is justifiable or not. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that the deletion was symptomatic, and that the actual issue is lack of a system of checks and balances on administrators. - brenneman 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is another problem of scaling up wiki. Not only does it become impossible to keep track of editors, it becoms impossible to keep track of administrators. However, it at least ought to be possible to control actions of administrators by rules, whereas it is difficult to control random editors without stripping them of rights to participate. Sandpiper 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind every one there is no Wiki-right to free speech. We demand you be civil, polite, and avoid being a dick. Personal attacks are inexusable.--Tznkai 03:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the purpose of continuing this RFC?

Opinions on the matter have been clearly expressed on the original RFC, as the page now appropriately says. I tried to present a possible way out of the current sorry state of community relations without too many feelings getting hurt.

But some people insist on prolonging this. I fail to understand what they are hoping to achieve beyond an acknowledgment that there is no consensus for templates to be deleted the way Kelly did it. User RFC is not the appropriate venue neither for punishing editors nor for creating policy. Insistence on using it for either is no less abuse of the process than the transgressions on the other side. Zocky 03:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some people seem to think this whole affair is the Revolutions of 1848 all over again ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 03:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but some concrete way forward to resolve the problems brought to light would be helpful. If not RfC, then what? I can't say RfC has worked well, but ArbComm has apparently declined to take up the issue. Is there any other process available? This whole episode is very likely to end up leaving deep divisions in the community. And Misplaced Pages does need a community to function. Perhaps the implication in much of this debate that the community is the problem explains the vehemence of some of the participants. CarbonCopy (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Haven't the problems been resolved? The userboxes were re-created, and we established that tere's no consensus for deleting templates out of process in this way. Again, what more do you want? Zocky 04:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the underlying problems have most definitely not been solved. Thinking that simply restoring the userboxes restores the community is in many ways a revealing symptom of the unresolved issues. Will this sort of event happen again? Is Misplaced Pages operating from community or authority? What are the checks and balances? Will I be blocked for expressing opposition to admin actions? Some of us want answers to these questions. CarbonCopy (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like those answers, too, but none of those questions is about Kelly Martin. Zocky 05:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps this RfC should be titled differently, but the initial actions triggered a whole chain of related events, and I see no neat way to compartmentalize the issues. CarbonCopy (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I second Carbon Copy's sentiments. It seems to me that there are now a significant number of people not editing Encyclopaedia articles because they ahve become embroiled in RFC on the actions of administrators deleting without consensus, blocking people for alleged uncivil actions and deleting the evidence of those actions, so that only administrators can judge whether the actions justified the blocking, administrators engaged in a wheel war that would not have started had this dispute not begun over userboxes, and now the process has begun on whether various chunks of work from the userboxes wiki project should be deleted, and thankfully several deletion proposals combined in a handful of deletion proposals. Am I mistaken, or is some action by Tony Sideaway very similar to that of Kelly Martin that was opposed? The RFC should be on the action that is deemed controversial, and remove personalities when more than one person may be engaged in the same action. User:AlMac| 18:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned objection

From the RfC page:

This summary is objectionable. It emphasizes Kelly Martin's response to a particular question regarding a set of conspicuously frivolous, just-created templates and presents it as though it is representative of her stated reasons. The framer(s) of this RfC are perfectly capable of presenting Martin's statements fairly, but choose not to do so. (above unsigned comment: 03:12, 4 January 2006 Monicasdude)

Monicasdude: {{sofixit}} Give the info here first if you want, or just do a revision on the part that you think needs fixing. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What should be done

Below are two proposals of conclusions. They are separate versions of each other. Editors are encouraged to do either of:

• endorsing conclusions they agree with.
• proposing amended or separate sets of conclusions and offering them for endorsement

Initial proposal of conclusions

Using this page to a rehash the now archived RFC doesn't seem very useful - editors have already expressed their opinion there. Using it to debate a wide range of policy issues is neither appropriate nor likely to achive anything.

Therefore, I'll move right to point 3 and outline what I think to be a rational course of action that will allow us to move on to more useful things:

• Kelly Martin is a valued editor and a respected member of the community. Desysoping her or removing her from the ArbCom over deletion of a few templates is not likely to be good for the project.
• Kelly should acknowledge that many editors, both those that agree and those that disagree with her about the issue of userboxes in general, have expressed legitimate concerns about the results of her actions in this case.
• Editors who believe that procedures are irelevant as long as results are right should acknowledge that there is a large number of editors who disagree and believe that procedures should be adhered to in order to avoid conflicts and maintain good will in the community.
• Userbox supporters should acknowledge that userboxes are entirely secondary to the process of writing the encyclopedia and that many editors have raised legitimate concerns about their potentially detrimental side effects.
• Everybody should re-read their comments in this debate and strike them out and/or apologize if they decide that they were intentionally or unintenonally incivil.

In the future

• We should have a proper discussion on the existence and/or deletion of userboxes. This should be done at an appropriate page in a civil and mature manner.
• Polls and RFCs about policy and community issues should not be advertised on wikiprojects and various ===special-interest noticeboards. Use Misplaced Pages:Current surveys and Misplaced Pages:Village pump to get site-wide attention instead.
• We should avoid adding spurious and/or humorous views and votes on RfCs and other polls and discussions. Even when not intended, it can be easily understood as making fun of people who are taking the issue seriously.

I don't see how further debate on this matter can contribute anything useful. Therefore, I move to close this RFC with the above recommendations.

Editors who agree that above is an acceptable solution of this matter:

1. Zocky 01:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Ambi 01:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Hermione1980 01:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
4. —Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
5. FCYTravis 02:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Dalbury 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
7. *Dan T.* 02:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Tznkai 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC) (I prefer to have this closed here, but willing to let it remain open as well)
9. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
10. User:AlMac| 18:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC) agree with all of the above except one point commented on in the disagree section.
11. This isn't what I would myself prefer, but consensus is in short supply here and I want to help bring some more of it. David | Talk 00:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors who disagree that above is an acceptable solution of this matter:

1. I agree with all but the second point. I do not believe that Kelly should be pressured into acknowledging something she seems to have made clear she doesn't actually believe. Sarah Ewart 05:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   Acknowledging that there are people who honestly disagree with you does not require that you believe they are right. Zocky 05:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, I know and far be it for me to put words in her mouth, but she doesn't seem to believe the concerns are legitimate (which is what the statement actually says). At least, I have not seen her express that opinion. If she states it is her opinion the concerns are legitimate, I would happily support the conclusions. I would also support if it were changed to something similar to what you say, i.e. that she acknowledges "that there are people who honestly disagree" with her. It's the requirement she acknowledge legitimacy of those concerns that rankles with me.Sarah Ewart 05:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   I belive she is being asked to acknowledge something. Thers no requirement for her to actually do so. Does this ally any concerns of yours?--Tznkai 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   I understand that nobody will be forcing Kelly and that endorsement of these conclusions does not mandate her in any way at all. However, I personally cannot endorse a statement that I feel amounts to pressuring someone into making a statement they may or may not believe or support. Kelly doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would actually respond to such pressure anyway, but I believe that a person should make statements like this, particularly when in conflicts, entirely of their own volition and not because a group of people demand it. So, no, unfortunately it does not allay my concerns. It just reminds me of Super Nanny trying to get "naughty" children to apologise regardless of whether they actually mean it. Sarah Ewart 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2. The second bulleted point of the outline - I do not see Ms Martin anywhere acknowledging there are legitimate concerns. Please provide something showing she did, then I can endorse this. -- Миборовский 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3. My one disagreement with the above overall presentation is that when there is a proposal that directly affects a project or article, I feel it is appropriate to have some NPOV template on the top of its talk page to inform participants of that project or article of the proposal, linking to both where the proposal is being debated, deiscussed or whatever, and also to the WP policy or policies that are relevant to the proposal. User:AlMac| 18:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional proposed conclusions

This amended proposal adopts the proposal above, with the addition of these statements:

• Misplaced Pages operates according to consent, not authority. Kelly should acknowledge that when there is good-faith opposition to admin action, it is frightening and against Misplaced Pages's core principles to undertake such action unilaterally.
• Kelly Martin's actions aside, any future efforts at unilaterally deleting things that large number of people want kept without discussion would be ill-advised. The existence of this belabored RfC process is proof of that.

I see a problem in the structure of the above sentence, and propose the following clarification: Kelly Martin's actions aside, any future efforts at unilaterally deleting things without discussion that a large number of people want kept would be ill-advised. The existence of this belabored RfC process is proof of that. -- Dalbury 08:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)