This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johntex (talk | contribs) at 22:27, 8 August 2006 (New RfC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:27, 8 August 2006 by Johntex (talk | contribs) (New RfC)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:11, 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 he is forming a new policy in order to close off ongoing discussion pertaining to an issue. The method and tone of the new policy have be.
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.
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.
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.
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Related policies and guidelines
- 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)
- Requests on Wikipedia_talk:Logos to provide a basis for the action: Mecu, Nmajdan, LtPowers, Dknights411, Remember, Johntex, MrDolomite
- Requests on User_talk:Kelly Martin to provide more information or expressing concern over curtailing discussion: Johntex, Johntex, Dknights411
- Request specifically requesting Kelly Martin engage in the open mediation discussion: Mecu
- 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.
Sumary
- 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 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.
- 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}
Other users who endorse this summary
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.
{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.}
Users who endorse this summary:
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.}
Users who endorse this summary:
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.