Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin

(Kelly Martin | talk | contributions)

The original RfC. Please read WP:NOT, WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA and WP:RPA before proceeding. Discussion on user box policy should be directed to Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes, which is not to say that they may not also be relevant here.

The original RfC is still available for comment, but has been moved. This is an attempt at a refactoring of sorts. It is a controlled attempt at trying to glean out the genuine complaints and concerns of those involved while filtering out vitriol and incivility. To this end, it is formatted differently from a regular RfC. For one thing, endorsements or "me-too" signatures are discouraged, as are outside views. It follows a deliberate process:

Describing the actions taken by Kelly Martin.
Describing the concerns people have with these actions, and the defense offered for them.
Deciding if anything should be done to address these concerns, and if so, what.

Parts 1 and 2 are underway, and feel free to add to them. Do not begin on part 3, although feel free to provide an analysis of the situation in the third section. This is an exploratory process, not a confrontational one. We understand that large numbers of people have an opinion about this issue, and if you want to add a signature that says "me too", you can go to the previous RfC. If you want to solve this problem, please give this a try.

Also, any blatant incivility will be deleted.

The actions in question

Statements in this section should be NPOV, or at least stipulated to by everyone involved in this dispute.

On January 1, 2006, Kelly Martin began a wide-scale deletion of many of Wikipedia's userboxes. These deletions occurred out of process.

Kelly Martin's talk page quotes her as saying, of such items as Template:User Coca-Cola, Template:User Pepsi-Cola, Template:User GoaPsyTrance, and others, "Those templates are crap and should be deleted. No point in wasting TfD's time with them." [1] Further rationale has been given by Ms. Martin regarding her deletions of other templates.

Martin later explained her reasons for deleting the infoboxes:

The templates I deleted were those that:

1. contained a non-free or unsourced image (thereby violating the fair use policy);

2. expressed a political, ideological, or religious opinion (thereby tending to categorize Wikipedians by affiliations not related to Wikipedia, which Jimbo himself has expressed disapproval recently on wikien-l); or

3. in my opinion, expressed incivil or offensive content.

The templates I deleted (I've only made it through the C's so far, which is why some people feel I am being arbitrary, when it's just that I took a break after finishing the C's; don't worry, I'll get to the rest soon enough) were deleted systematically for being content inappropriate for a user page per the user page policy. There is no reason for Wikipedia to support templates that facilitate editors adding content to their user pages which is inappropriate for placement on a user page.

Kelly Martin (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Specific actions

Deletion (log and log):

Kelly has deleted far too many pages to list here; however, some examples are provided. See the deletion log (above) for a full list.

Template:User AI (Amnesty International)
Template:User Chinese Traditional Religion (Taoism or Buddhism)
Template:User Christian
Template:User Anti-euro
Template:User GoaPsyTrance (Goa and psytrance, two very closely-related genres of trance music)
Template:User Communist
Template:User Capitalist

Comments by Jimbo (made prior to the deletions)

From the mailing list:

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

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

Concerns and defense

Concerns against Kelly Martin's actions

This section is intended for listing the specific concerns with the actions of Kelly Martin in this dispute. Use this section to list concerns only. Do not suggest remedies as of yet—it is premature to do so and adds nothing to the conversation.

Concerns dealing specifically with userboxes

Deleting templates because they contained copyvio images was excessive—the images could have been removed instead.
Deleting popular templates without discussion is disruptive. It is one thing to delete something that would never survive AfD/TfD/etc., it is quite another thing to delete something that large numbers of Wikipedia users like.
Userboxes declaring a political viewpoint or affiliation have legitimate uses. We all have points of view, and only by declaring them openly can we collaborate towards NPOV.

Other concerns

Kelly Martin is an admin who has held positions of trust and authority on Wikipedia for a long time. There is some concern that unilaterally using her admin powers in this fashion is authoritarian and insufficiently respectful of the views of others. Whether or not Kelly is right about userboxes, other users disagree with her and deserve to be heard out before admin action is taken.
Many supporters of this action have no previous knowledge of her actions or position within Wikipedia. Such knowledge is entirely immaterial to the issue here. A complaint has been lodged that an administrator has exceeded the prerogatives of the post and used powers available to an administrator contrary to stated policies of wikipedia. It must be made entirely clear to all administrators that such action can only be taken in extraordinary circumstances, and this is certainly not such a case.
Kelly went into the whole affair with the intent of deleting a large number of userboxes. The fact that they were in use and that a Wikiproject existed should have been enough evidence that this would be a controversial action.
Kelly re-stated her intentions to continue deleting further boxes despite objections already having been made that there were no valid grounds for a number of the deletions. She claimed to be "enforcing existing policy", which is clearly false. [2] [3]
Blocking users without proper cause. (this should be considered within the scope of this RFC)
Allegations of copyright violation have become a weapon in content and policy disputes. While not unique to Wikipedia, the use of copyright claims to reach other ends is destructive

Defense of Kelly Martin's actions

from Kelly Martin's original response to the RfC

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not LiveJournal. The purpose of user pages is to facilitate writing an encyclopedia. If you want to make cute webpages, get a webhosting account.

Kelly Martin (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further response from Kelly Martin to a comment by Kaldari [4]

I believe this is germane to the issue being discussed, so let this quote stand. Click link for full context. --Peripatetic 20:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do hold those whose purpose for being on Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia is not a social experiment; it is an encyclopedia. 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.

I will not apologize for my actions; they were motivated by my belief in what is best for Wikipedia. Nor will I apologize for the response to those actions because it was not I who responded. Nor will I apologize to my response to the response, as I have done nothing for which an apology is appropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other defenses for Kelly Martin's actions

Administrator discretion

Administrators should be permitted to use their own judgement in carrying out administrative activities as opposed to being forced to conform exactly to policy, since WP:IAR is quite well entrenched in Wikipedia culture.
The actions that Kelly performed were easily reversible by another administrator (and indeed were in most cases). Users have been claimed by some to have thus taken this out of proportion in comparison to its real value. Consequently, the damage done may have been more by lack of willingness for sudden change, and a desire to seek retribution, as opposed to Kelly's initial actions.

Consensus and community

These templates have the potential to be divisive.
Consensus building for userspace items seems to involve less consultation, and thus it could be argued that only de facto consensus existed for the templates in the first place.
Userboxes cause issues relating to bloc voting and other POV-related editing problems. There have been at least three such incidents in the past three weeks, concerning three separate users.
We are here to build an encyclopaedia, and thus it is unreasonable to spend large amounts of time both creating these userboxes and debating their removal when editors consider they should be deleted as opposed to writing articles in that time. (The same, incidentally, applies to the RfC)
Further to the above, there is a danger of being wrapped up in process rather than working on product (that is, spending more time following process than working towards this project's goals).
Userboxes have been alleged by some editors to contribute nothing to our project's actual goals other than to satisfy the aesthetic desires of its participants.

Deletion process

Deletion issues are a long-standing, contentious issue on Wikipedia (usually reappearing once every three months at least) and this issue may be, in part, an expression of this contention.
The existing deletion processes are considered by some to be cumbersome, unwieldy, and bureaucratic; they consume a great deal of editor time and effort, and in some cases do not even garner consensus either towards deletion or being kept. As a consequence, they discourage editors from seeking consensus, and since administrators have the ability to not use them it would appear an acceptable use of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in some circumstances to override these measures.
The deletion process is considered by some to be cumbersome, unwieldy and bureaucratic, consuming a great deal of editor time and effort. This is regrettable, but it is seen as a necessary penalty to allow consensus to be formed where there is likely to be disagreement about a decision to delete. Deletions without consensus inevitably lead to conflict.
Deletion processes may need to be streamlined so that administrators can reasonably be expected to nominate these items for deletion.

Process and policy

Ignore all rules
While Wikipedia has rules, the rules there to facilitate the writing of a high quality encyclopaedia. If it should happen that obeying the rules does not facilitate the writing of a high quality encyclopaedia, then users of whatever level are allowed to use their judgment and act in the best interests of the project
WP:NOT a democracy; however, this does not mean carte blanche to override consensus.
These userboxes are not part of the encyclopaedia (see Wikipedia:Avoid self references) and it is thus not necessarily a worthwile use of editor time to place these through the usual deletion processes.
Some of the templates contained images that are clear violations of copyright.
No-one has a duty to uphold process where that process conflicts with our core goals.

Comments on Kelly Martin's actions that are neither in support nor in opposition

I strongly believe in the above statement, "While Wikipedia has rules, the rules there to facilitate the writing of a high quality encyclopaedia. If it should happen that obeying the rules does not facilitate the writing of a high quality encyclopaedia, then users of whatever level are allowed to use their judgment and act in the best interests of the project." However, if invoking the ignore all rules rule in what you believe is the service of the encyclopedia results in vehement and impassioned opposition, it is likely that the ill will, conflict and discord generated outweighs the possible benefits of the action. WP:IAR must be invoked with boldness and caution. FCYTravis 02:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving toward addressing these concerns

Instead of voting on motions to close and stuff like that, I think we need to spend some time analyzing everyone's concerns instead. Only after we finish doing that will we have a clear idea of where to proceed from here. This section is thus for anyone who wants to to present their analysis of the above concerns and what they want of others.

Philwelch's analysis

We must separate two distinct questions from one another here and address them separately:

Do userboxes—and certain types thereof—have a place on Wikipedia?
Is it acceptable for admins to undertake admin action unilaterally knowing that such action will be contested by others?

The first question is under discussion at Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. I, for one, would like to ignore that question on this RfC.

The second question is far more important to address. The underlying tension of this RfC isn't about userboxes, it's about authority vs. consensus. Casting it as process vs. result is a bit of a misread in my analysis. It's one thing to delete crappy pages that slip between the cracks of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, but would never survive AfD. It's another thing to delete things that good-faith contributors actually want to keep, things that you know will cause a ruckus if you delete them. The first is an example of ignoring process but respecting the views of others; the second is an example of ignoring the views of others.

Kelly Martin may be right in saying that userboxes have no place in building an encyclopedia. But I speak for many users in saying that she is mistaken in imposing that opinion on others without discussion or consensus. It frightens us that Kelly Martin chooses to enforce her own opinion instead of seeking and enforcing a community consensus, and we believe that unilateral exercise of authority has no place on Wikipedia. I am an admin, but I don't want Wikipedia to be a place where admins do what they want with no regard for anyone who disagrees.

I don't want to make it seem like I'm denigrating Kelly Martin's dedication to this project. I'm sure she did what she did out of good faith. All I want is for everyone to understand our concerns—to understand not only that people are frightened and upset, but also why we're frightened and upset.

— Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 04:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Drini

The first point raised it's outside of the scope of this RFC. This is about Kelly Martin's actions, not about the worth of the userboxes. The big mess in the previous RFC was caused because lot of people were discussing about the value of userboxes instead the actions of KM. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you can separate the two issues, given that the principal defence of Kelly Martin's actions is that the userboxes were harmful to the project and that Kelly has agreed that the deletion was out of (normal) process. In order to resolve the RfC, there has to be some implicit finding on the issue of the merits of userboxes, even if it is not a definitive policy. David | Talk 11:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zocky's analysis

This RFC was about a specific incident, which has now been addressed - the templates were restored and the original RFC established that there is no consensus for deleting them in such way. With that, this RFC has run its course. Editors who think that any further sanctions are required should pursue that with a request for arbitration.

Other concerns which people are trying to address on this page go beyond Kelly Martin and thus beyond the scope of this page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin. The question of userboxes is being constructively discussed at Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. Questions of authority and consensus should be discussed in suitable places, like the Village pump or centralized discussions and properly linked from places like Wikipedia:Current surveys.

Zocky 05:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony Sidaway

RfCs of this nature tend to be about important issues. I was once the subject of an RfC that was about deletion policy. This one is about the use we make of the tools. Kelly deleted some templates where there had been severe resistance to enforcing our copyright policy, and also some that were clearly only there to enable political factions and the like to unite. She was unquestionably right.

The tools: categories and templates in this case, are here for the purpose of craating an encyclopedia. Where they are used to create a kind of homepage on Wikipedia, they may be tolerated, but only on the presumption that they will never be abused. Use of userspace must never be permitted to compromise the content of the encyclopedia. The community is useful to the encyclopedia and exists only as long as it continues to act in the interests of the encyclopedia. The interests of the encyclopedia trump those of the community every single time. Members of the community must live with that, or leave. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Drini, I have to disagree with his belief that the mess in the previous RfC had anything to do with userboxes--rather, I think it is that many editors seemed to believe that an RfC is a place to conduct some kind of personal vendetta, and the userboxes that are pivotal to this case were discussed rather too little. The reason for Kelly's actions was the presence of unsuitable userboxes, and so that must be a primary focus, if not the most important one, of this RfC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to note that Tony's belief that userboxes "must be a primary focus" of this RFC contradicts the plain reading of the majority of opinions here. It seems clear to me that the concerns are a mixture of incivility, disruption, misapplication of WP:IAR, misuse of administrator powers (including blocking without proper cause), and public expressions of contempt for the opinions of her fellow editors. To be perfectly clear, I am not making those charges myself, but simply summarizing the "Concerns against Kelly Martin's actions," above. Looking at the various analyses in this very section, we see a number of respected editors, some of whom explicitly disclaim any interest in the issue of userboxes qua userboxes, bringing up these same substantial and troubling issues. Tony is free to believe that this is all about userboxes, of course, but he is wrong. The funny thing about consensus is that one party doesn't get to dictate it. The community has overwhelmingly said that the issue of userboxes qua userboxes was left behind ages ago. We should listen to what they are saying, instead of pretending they are talking about something that is easier to dismiss. Nandesuka 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Civility

While some matters are debatable, and ought to be exposed to Consensus, Civility and Copyvio are not. There is simply no questioning the fact that significant minorities have been demonized, oppressed, or marginalized by the particular religious and political groups identified. The question is not whether the templates would have survived an RfD, but rather whether the community can accept as reasonable Kelly Martins conclusion that the promotion of religion and politics on Wikipedia is Incivil. Whether or not I agree, I clearly understand her point and find it more than reasonable. Move on. Benjamin Gatti 05:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it has been established that a userbox stating that I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is promoting that belief system to anyone else, or that FSMism has demonised, oppressed, or marginalised anyone, or that my holding that belief is incivil. But, again, I don't think this RfC is about the boxes themselves, it's about whether deleting large numbers of things without first seeking consensus is a good idea or not. (Phil: if you move the comment this responds to over to the talk page, it's late, my brain is mush and I can't quite tell if they should go there or not, please move mine too, (and you can delete this parenthetical) thanks!) ++Lar: t/c 06:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no prospect of moving on- I mean the analysis of Benjamin Gatti is spot on, and the oppression is near total. I believe a cursory knowledge of Google results over the past year show a withering in rankings for all historical questioning of anyway one religion. Apologia is pretty much in charge of the first so many pages, so you'd learn little. The central Renato Boccardo (qv) effort is working very well, and will be in charge here without anyone even figuring it. This box removal is like the first scout putting their nose over the hill, and it is not at all sure there are any troops in reserve. A scout here or there can be picked off. In the real world abuse enquiries/lawsuits, it's been called document war- retain or hide or destroy docs, and deny and prevaricate and counter with propaganda. Oh yes-it happens here. EffK 09:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Policy As A Whole

This rfc has progressed past userboxes, it's even bigger than Kelly Martin now. What this is about is leaders of our community feeling that they are justified in doing whatever they wish regardless of any policy if they have a whim, as seen here,here, and of course, with Kelly's original actions. What we need is a defined, clear and open process in regards towards building policies so everyone, even Jimbo can follow them. If we don't have this, mark my words -- we will be in this same position again, regardless of who we're talking about or what they've done. Please, take this incident as an impetus to reform how we govern ourselves before self-governance is impossible. karmafist 13:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Steve Block

Regarding the notion that "unilateral exercise of authority has no place on Wikipedia", I'd have to say that that is exactly what wikipedia is built on, the unilateral exercise of authority being the ability for anyone to edit. With regards deleting things that good-faith contributors actually want to keep, again, this is something that happens everyday in articles, since we assume every edit is in good faith we are constantly performing such actions. Kelly Martin's actions are not unrepairable, and should be seen in the context of Wikipedia as a whole. Whilst I agree that Kelly Martin should be censured, I believe this RFC is enough censure. I am unclear as to how Kelly Martin has disregarded the people with whom she disagrees. She has simply disregarded their opinions.

I believe, when assesing this matter, we have to consider that there are ways and means of doing things. Some people will see a problem and try and fix it. Others will see a problem and seek opinion on how to fix it. We should not prefer one option over the other, and in fact, Wikipedia sanctions both approaches, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be Bold. In instances when people get it wrong, we simply revert and discuss. It appears Kelly has, through her actions, brought a problem or two to light.

Finally, if people are frightened and upset at the removal of user boxes, I would have to wonder at their reactions when edits are removed from article space. We don't own these user pages, we're in a wiki, anyone can edit anything, let's remember that fact, address the problems raised here and move on. Kelly Martin has surely been made aware of the fact that she operated without community consensus, and that she has, in so doing, brought the disapproval of members of the community. Steve block talk 14:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to Make a Point- Focusing on the Consequences, Not the Action

In the actions and subsequent comments that Kelly Martin has made, I see a very dangerous double-standard that I feel needs to be addressed. I write these comments here, to bring to light a consequentialist viewpoint on what has transpired. For the record, I use none of the userboxes that Kelly Martin deleted (or if I did, I didn't notice their disappearance), nor do I really care about the templates themselves. I believe that, in this issue, userboxes or a policy regarding userboxes, or even a policy regarding making policies are actually not germane to the true nature of the problem, but rather a distraction from a key guideline (vital to and already accepted at Wikipedia) that's been neglected in discussion (as far as I can tell).

It's my belief that Kelly Martin's reasons for her actions do not hold up to analysis (this is relevant to the argument as a whole).

Firstly, she cites civility as being a major basis for the deletes. I find this sadly ironic given her comments in defense of her actions. Her statement regarding holding certain Wikipedians in contempt is an indirect, thinly-veiled, yet biting attack at those who disagree with her, primarily by labelling them as editors who are not here to write an encyclopedia, a gross assumption. Logically, taking her statements that her actions were not directed at those who are here to write an encyclopedia, one can only assume that those her actions were directed at were those who are not here for that purpose, thereby belittling the hard work of many contributors simply because they strongly disagree with her. A quick look at the edits of many of those present in this RfC shows that her comment is not only in poor taste, but patently false.

Secondly, Kelly Martin cites a comment made by Jimbo regarding leaving one's personal politics at the door when entering Wikipedia as being the source from which she derives a non-consensus based policy. Jimbo's comment is about promoting community and "kindness and love." Has these actions promoted such a goal? I submit that quite probably these actions have caused more division and strife than any one of those templates have. If such is the case, what was really gained? It was obvious that rampant deletion of the userboxes would cause a great deal of dissension, so I assume, seeing as she is an intelligent and experienced user, that she did it knowingly. From her comments, it not only appears that that is the case, but that she seems to have fully intended to incite controversy in her statement:

Screw process. Those templates are crap and should be deleted.

Even if, by some chance, she did not realize the impact her actions would have, such a claim now is irrelevant as the consequences have already been made manifest. Yet, she insists she will continue to pursue her policy, regardless of objections made by a significant number of agitated users. More than that, she takes ZERO responsibility for the consequences saying, "it was not [her] who responded." To me, this is a tragic dereliction of the responsibility that I believe is inherent in a position of trust such as an administrator. As someone placed in this trust, she IS absolutely accountable for predicting the responses of other people, in the interests of Wikipedia as a whole. Consensus, one of the most basic principles that Wikipedia thrives on, necessitates the accounting of other people's responses; disregarding that is not consensus, it's partisanship. I can only conclude that either Kelly Martin's claim that she acted on the spirit of Jimbo's comments is false or that she misunderstood its true meaning.

What does this mean? It means that Kelly Martin did not really delete the templates for the sake of civility or community (even if she does not or did not realize this herself at the time). In actuality, this entire situation seems like a classic example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Kelly Martin is clearly against the use of the templates she deleted and feels that they violate policy. She may be right. That is irrelevant, however, as her actions have clearly had a negative impact on the community as a whole. That is selfish, and, as I said above, not a reflection of consensus, but of partisanship. That in itself isn't a good thing. What troubles me the most, however, is her subsequent refusal to accept responsibility for these consequences.

That must be addressed. How, and to what extent, I will not venture to say, at least for now, but I can say with much certainty, that how it is addressed is very critical to how we treat such breaches of guideline in the future.

Sincerely, -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation you cite from Kelly Martin is taken out of context. It did not represent her motives/purposes in general, but referred to a small subset of the overall group of userboxes. That subset was created frivolously and clearly violated Wikipedia policies concerning image use and promotion of commercial products/services. There has been very little particular dispute, so far as I can see, that the speedy deletion of those templates was appropriate. It is extremely disturbing that botn forms of the RFC concerning Martin have centered on misquotation or misrepresentation of her comments on the matter. Monicasdude 15:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

When I read the quotation, I read it in context. Personally, I feel that the attitude towards that subset was reflective of her general motives. People can read the quote for themselves here. Her comments in response to the original RfC and in defense of her actions have all been fairly consistent. I think claiming that the RfCs center around misquotation or misrepresentation is in itself misleading. I have yet to read any comment by Kelly Martin acknowledging that her actions were harmful to the community or that she should be held accountable for them and THAT is what my argument above is referring to.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking over the edit history of User talk:Kelly Martin, it seems to me that what happened was that Kelly deleted Peter Zed's userbox templates for violating copyright policy using fair use images. It is, I think, generally accepted that whatever one thinks of userboxes, they should not have fair use images in them. When some users raised concerns, she referred also to Jimbo's generalised statement that Wikipedians should leave their POV behind when editing. One editor then referred to a political statement template as an example which might be subject to deletion, if this policy was strictly kept. The mass deletions of userboxes expressing points of view started the next day. There is probably a fairly obvious conclusion to be drawn from this, but I think the important thing is that the quote "screw process" should always be specifically applied to the PeterZed created templates. David | Talk 15:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]