Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2

Comment on Sam Blanning Response

Comment on Sam Blanning Response: To state the following ...I don't think that Kelly Martin is actually suggesting that a policy was formed at Wikifest... correctly would be to say "Kelly Martin said discussion occured at Wikifest on this matter and she has therefore generated a policy based on that discussion." per this (which is cited above). --MECU≈talk 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I understand happened, and I tried to make it clear that I understood that - perhaps my wording wasn't 100%. My central point stands - whether the policy was decided at some con in America or whether discussion took place there which led Kelly to make a policy, everyone who didn't go to the con is completely in the dark, and that group of "everyone who didn't go to the con" consists disproportionately of a) non-Americans and, perhaps, b) those who are not as involved as others in Wikipedia but will still feel like they should have an input. Certainly I had no idea that if I wanted to discuss fair images policy regarding sports team logos, I should have gotten time off work so I could buy an expensive plane ticket to Florida or wherever. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this in the correct place. I didn't mean to imply in any manner that your entire (or any other section) of your response wasn't valid, I just thought the way you stated that line was slightly different than the case as presented, thus, my attempt to state more matter-of-factly how it was made. I think the rest of your statement was spot-on and agree wholeheartedly, but cannot sign since I signed above. --MECU≈talk 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty certain you're welcome to sign as many outside views you like (though I would say that now :-)) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the rule is that users are requested to edit no more than one view, but that they are welcome to sign as many views as they find agreement with. That is part of the consensus building process - to see what statements by other users you can support, even if they differ slightly from the way you would have put things. Johntex\^talk 04:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Having everything done in the open is a very egalitarian and idealistic view, but in the real world, it doesn't particularly work, and some things are necessarily done without the participation of everyone. Life isn't fair; if you can't make it to meeting (or you can't make it to the voting booth), you can be expected to be left out of some things. --Cyde Weys 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To fail to make it to the voting booth on voting day is a choice: You made other priorities higher than your desire to vote. My failure to attend Wikicon was also my choice. However, the difference is that it was not announced that a vote on this matter would be taking place at Wikicon in advance. Thus, is it my failure to vote on this matter, since I didn't know the vote was going to take place? I doubt it: I was excluded from being able to vote. I would be fine with this should it be known that I am at least represented (in theory at least) at the vote. Hence, your example that not everything can include everyone is perfectly valid. The US Congress operates on this policy, but at least I get to help pick who attends this meeting. Even still, the most important (arguable though) decision to be made in the US -- The election of the President -- attempts to include everyone who is valid (felons and minors excluded). We have the capability to include all those that are interested here on wiki, and why not take advantage of such? We shouldn't leave anyone out if we can at least offer them the chance to vote. (I'm speaking of general items. Some items shouldn't be allowed in this manner, like legal needs and operating the foundation: but even still, canidates are taken for the board...) --MECU≈talk 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting can only take place at voting booths (ignoring postal votes and other innovations for the sake of the analogy). However, Wikipedia policy can be made in many places, and the best place to make Wikipedia policy is still, uh, Wikipedia. Incidentally, when I last voted the voting booth was on campus and I went in my lunch break. It was not thousands of miles away across a bloody great ocean and I didn't have to get time off work in order to make my puny voice heard. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time for a policy that policy has to be discussed in plain view of Wikipedians, except when it comes down from WP:OFFICE. rootology (T) 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny so many people signed on to Sam's response. You all seem to be in the dark on the fact that it's been fairly officially decreed and backed up by consensus that for pragmatic reasons discussions of policy outside the wiki are quite valid and appropriate and that such discussion does not need to be reduplicated on wiki to be valid. Go look for Jimbo's comments on the issue, he stated them quite clearly and attempts to require all policy discussion on wiki were soundly defeated. I happen to think it's better if off wiki discussion is at least summarized on wiki to facilitate on wiki collaboration and consensus gathering, but I'm fully aware that on this point I'm strongly in the minority, and the powers that be do not agree with me. To the specific topic of this RfC people need to read the points brought up by InkSplotch at the bottom of the page and the Signpost's coverage of Jimbo's comments on fair use. Kelly did the right thing. - Taxman ^Talk 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to discuss Wikipedia policy anywhere in the world. But the discussions that matter most should take place on Wikipedia, allowing all Wikipedians to participate. And almost all the time that's how it does work. Haukur 20:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of people are upset at her unilateral "I say what is policy" assertation, and the implication that people beyond her would have no input or room for discussion in the apppropriate venue--the policy page/policy talk page--on what was being reinterpreted. rootology (T) 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinions are not policy unless Jimbo says they are. Which he may do, but doesn't always. And Kelly Martin's interpretation of Jimbo's opinions comes even less close to being policy, or at least not the moment she types it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. (Oh, this is the talk page? I thought that sentence was part of Sam's statement. It certainly should be. Or get cast in bronze or something. OK, let me talk then.) In this case, I think KM was actually right in her interpretation of the Fair Use policy, but she should said that was what she was doing, not "Star Chamber has decided". KM has experience, respect, all that ... but not WP:OFFICE. This was not an emergency calling for drastic action. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that Jimbo's statements are not policy unless he states they are policy. A useful quote by Jimbo is:

...as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think."[1] - Jimbo Wales

So, let's focus on presenting our own views. Johntex\^talk 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Gender

Incidentally (completely irrelevant to the above), I can't imagine how Johntex's reference to Kelly as a 'he' can be interpreted as rudeness. Kelly is both a girl's and boy's name and she doesn't seem to state her gender on her userpage. I made the same mistake (now corrected). Just occasionally, an extra userbox can be useful... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I corrected my (s)he above since I now know. I think it is more proof of how willing Kelly is to "fly off the handle". --MECU≈talk 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• When I read that line in the RFC, I went to User:Kelly Martin and was unable to determine gender. If it is not on the user page, which seems to be the obvious spot, any assumption made by the reader should not be seen as a possible slight/attack/endorsement/support. And if one takes offense, one should be more clear. Incidentally, my brother, mentioned in my original comment/rant, has an equally mistaken name, so, based on my personal experience, I drew the same conclusion that Kelly would be a Mister, and now stand corrected. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't to my recollection met or interacted with Kelly Martin before. I did not know her gender, so I went to her user page and I still could not tell. Therefore, I tried to word the RfC to avoid all pronouns and that is why I kept repeated Kelly this, Kelly that. Unfortunately, I allowed an incorrect pronoun to slip through. No offense was intended and I have apologized to Kelly on her Talk page. Johntex\^talk 04:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly has been subject to some pretty bad trolling in the past, part of which involves denying that she is a woman. It's right nasty and it's understandable that she gets upset. Of course none of you meant anything like that. Haukur 16:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that... though of course that says more about the chauvanism (sp?) of the troll than anything else. I fixed the Mr./Mrs. thing on Attic Owl's comment too, assuming his good faith (even if it was rather angry good faith). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(Which, upon reading the topic below, wasn't a valid assumption, but it's always better to assume it anyway). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment in my response was intended merely to set the matter straight, not to accuse anyone of anything. It pains me that y'all are not even willing to accept my statement on its face, and instead must read some sinister meaning into the plain language of my words. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Kelly, but you said "I will charitably assume that Johntex is merely ignorant of my gender, rather that trying to be rude in some way" (emphasis mine). If it takes "charity" to assume something, it indicates that it would be easier to assume the alternative, which in this case, as you laid out, is that Johntex was being rude. I have no idea whether what the Wikitruth trolls say has anything to do with this and don't care, but you sign under a gender-neutral name and make no indication of which is the right gender on your userpage, and as 80% of Wikipedians are male, it does not require "charity" to assume that Johntex made a mistake when he assumed you were part of the 80%. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sam. If someone is "charitable" in not believing something, that means that it would, at the very least, not be unreasonable to believe it. I cannot think that there is the faintest possibility that Johntex was trying to be rude in some way, so there was no need to introduce that possibility into the discussion. From what I can see, this is quite a civil RfC, and was prepared thoughtfully, even though I disagree with the certifier. I can accept that Kelly did not mean to imply that it would be reasonable to believe that Johntex was being rude (note that I don't say "I will charitably assume that she didn't mean to imply . . ." !), but I think it was badly worded. It's quite likely that the Response was written hastily, as there was not a lot of notice that this RfC was going to happen. Perhaps, Kelly, you might be willing to strike through the second sentence of your response. I could endorse all the rest of it. And I'm sorry to hear about the trolling. AnnH ♫ 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

She could have worded what she said more clearly and came across as slightly hostile. Given the fact that she's a transsexual, she undoubtedly is for good reason predisposed to suspect people referring to her with the wrong pronoun as being an attack. There's no reason to dwell on it, matter resolved, let's not pick on a single word when there are more important issues to bicker over. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it that she's a ---. Most people doubt girls are online. There's a famous article OMG Girlz Don't Exist on teh Intarweb!!!!1 Anomo 20:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Considering the tone of the Johntex's statement, I think she was being pretty charitable. One might "charitably" assume that she included the word "charitably" without intending to be hostile, which, charitably speaking, might have been justified. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely non-AGF. Transgenderism may very well be an obscure concept to any number of WIkipedians; I've encountered this before. Since I can't rely on policy to protect me, I'm going to be forward: what gender does Kelly Martin identify with, so I may fix my comments as needed? Karwynn (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin is female. --Cyde Weys 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed g2s's endorsement

ed g2s (talk · contribs) endorsed Kelly Martin's summary thusly: "'I am aware that many editors hold my opinions in high esteem, and I try to refrain from making such declarations when I am not certain that the declaration is in the best interest of Wikipedia' basically says it all." It is indeed a telling statement. Unfortunately, it fails to address what ought to occur if others disagree that the declaration is in the best interest of Wikipedia. Personally, it'd just be nice if Kelly Martin just recognized that her statement on the Logos talk page appeared to be unilateral and intimidating, and that it could have been phrased better. Powers 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It was unilateral, and it was intended to be intimidating. I make no apology for either. When people foolishly insist on their right to do things that are clearly against policy, and don't stop when asked nicely, the next step is to ask them less than nicely. The NEXT step will be blocks. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't particularly intimidating since you're just saying it's policy and threatening people with blocks which will probably be reverted since you will seem to do them to whoever disagrees with you. Attic Owl 02:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"It was unilateral, and it was intended to be intimidating"... good grief. I've worked for bosses like that, and found that (1) I didn't like it and (2) they're usually wrong (the more unilateral and intimidating, the more wrong, as a rule) and (3) the department was performing well below capacity. Man, people come here to get away from bosses like that, don't you get it? Herostratus 05:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way we can fire Kelly, Hero? Attic Owl 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't. You have the right to leave and the right to fork, of course. Feel free to craft your own wiki with galleries of unfree images. Mackensen

(talk) 11:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins can be de-sysopped for abuse of power, if sufficient evidence were brought to ArbCom. Just saying. The only "permanent" spot on WP is Jimbo's. rootology (T) 16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the resources to make a wiki of this size, including copyrighted images or not, so please don't present that Hobson's choice as a real one. Attic Owl 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And be sued into oblivion ... people don't realize that there's lots of fair use stuff we only get away with by virtue of being Wikipedia. If you just ran any old private site with a fair use gallery of images you would probably run into legal trouble very quickly. --Cyde Weys 13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pfft, in that case YouTube wouldn't exist, and nor would Geocities or a host of other Internet content providers that denounce copyright infringement and then carefully look the other way. Copyright holders can't be everywhere at once, lawsuits cost money, a lot of copyright holders (e.g., most individuals) aren't in any position to sue anyway, and precious few of the remaining would press their case after you took down the images. You'd have to have deep pockets for them to bother after that point, even if it would be a sure win, because if you don't have enough money to cover their legal costs the entire enterprise becomes counterproductive. Being Wikipedia makes people more likely to sue, not less, because they know perfectly well that Wikipedia could make however many millions the settlement or judgment called for by putting up ads.

Stressing the legal threat to the WMF only encourages people to attack our fair-use policy on legal grounds at points where the only defense is ideological. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is a legal problem, why doesn't Wikipedia rely on say, lawyers, instead of shemales from Chicago using intimidation tactics? Attic Owl 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, name-calling does not help anyone. While I vehemently disagree with Kelly's actions in this case, calling her names is highly uncalled for, rude and inappropriate. -- Masonpatriot 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not ture. Adminship can be revoked. Johntex\^talk 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Cyde Weys 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

INTERNETS. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You think intimidation is a valid tactic? And unilateral actions? Powers 14:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer came there none... Herostratus 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Herostratus Here. Cyde, what did you mean by this, can you explain:

• "Actually, that's not true. Adminship can be revoked." - Johntex
• "LOL." Cyde Weys

Maybe it had to do with the indentation, which implied that Johntex was disagreeing with Masonpatriot's statement about NPA and possibly tying something into Kelly losing adminship? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Hope that's it. Herostratus 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Diff

Here [2]

In regards to the WP:CIVIL charge. She/He is a candidate for an office, questions to candidates are non incivil, acting in such a way towards those merely asking a question is incivil. Attic Owl 02:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Tony Sidaway's endorsement

• Comment on this quote: "Kelly is to be commended on coming up with a good, solid policy. It would take a few sticks of dynamite to shift it." made by Tony Sidaway.

• If this was a policy, I would support Kelly's very strong position, even though I disagree with it. However, it is not policy, and the manner in which she has asserted a single editor's ability to formulate policy and the very possessive control she has taken on this issue is part of the many reasons this has moved to an RfC. — MrDolomite | Talk 02:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't it though? As I understand she basicaly clearified / interpreted a few points from existing policy. Namely that a) Galleries of fair use images are not allowed, b) Fair use images are not to be used purely for decoration and c) repeated re-insertion of copyrighted material removed in acordance with policy is a blockable offence. So she is basicaly declearing how she intend to interpret and enforce these existing policies (defining team logos used in an article that list the results of some league or competition as a gallery/decorative use) rather than inventing some brand new concept like some people here seem to acuse her off. Though granted she chould have explained this better and in a less confrontational way... --Sherool (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy. That may not have been clear before Kelly said it, but it's obvious now. --Tony Sidaway 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, its your interpreation of policy. Johntex\^talk 14:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If so then it should be discussed and approved by concensus on the policy page or directly by Jimbo or Brad. A handful of admins do not get to decide to simply implement wholesale new takes on policy unilaterally. rootology (T) 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We already have a consensus for the copyright policy. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Throw the group a bone, Tony. Where? If it was from the WikiConference 15 minute meeting with Jimbo, then say it. If it is somewhere on WP, then say it. — MrDolomite | Talk 06:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We evidently do not have a consensus for this portion of it, even among long-time good-faith contributors. That should be clear from all of this. What we need at this point is Foundation action, not consensus. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the use of shortcuts as links within documents

Shortcuts are really designed to save typing when you need to consult a document. If you can remember the shortcut it saves you a bit of time. Please don't use them on the wiki to refer to a policy. If you mean Wikipedia:Assume good faith, then say it, don't come out with some gobbledygook such as WP:AGF. It's looks ugly and it's utterly incomprehensible to anybody not in the know about that particular shortcut. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the short-cuts to be prettier than big long links. You are weclome to reformat them if you wish. Most people know what the abbreviations mean very well. The fact that Kelly does not know what WP:DR means or that it is policy are particularly telling in regards to how she can be so misguided in her attempts to make policy. It is particularly troubling that someone who wants to have a seat on the board is apparantly ignorant of the dispute resolution process, and of the need for openness and community involvement in crafting policy. Johntex\^talk 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read my user page? Did you see the part about how I was an Arbitrator for a few months last year? I wasn't on the arbcom panel at Wikimania because I happened to be walking by in the hallway and they needed someone to babysit one of the potatoes.... Kelly Martin (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on User:Philwelch's view

"Policy discussions happen off-wiki for a reason: wikis are awful for facilitating discussion". Never heard that. They're certainly tolerable, and they happen on-wiki for an even better reason - Wikipedia is on-wiki. Anything off-wiki is not. If you're a Wikipedian, you go to en dot wikipedia dot org. You may, if you a) hear about them b) can be bothered and c) can stand the pointless WikiDrama that makes up 99% of the content subscribe to mailing lists and IRC channels, but they are secondary to the wiki, and cons somewhere in America shouldn't even appear on the map.

And as for Mackensen's endorsement: "The lack of commentary on the rightness of the policy in question by the other responders is telling. I fear that they'd support a bad policy produced by "good" (in their view) processes". Yeah, why not. People on the Internet always seem to know my thoughts better than me. Myself I was initially thinking "This is a good policy implemented in the most cackhanded way imaginable, and Kelly should be castigated for obscuring the good of such a policy", but the Internets hath spoken. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, within the first fifteen minutes of a meeting with Jimbo at Wikimania we had come to an agreement whereas weeks of online arguing had previously proven futile. You could ask Raul654 about his opinion on this on issue. --Cyde Weys 13:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think consensus on a policy can be reached within 15 minutes IRL with a number of people that can be counted on one's appendages when it couldn't be on-wiki, then perhaps it wasn't. --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 02:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'd say it was. I was there. We came to a substantial agreement on the meat of the issue in the first fifteen minutes, and had either agreed on or had outlined the options for further discussion on the secondary issues in the next thirty. This was a debate that had been raging for weeks on the wiki and on IRC without significant progress. Getting everyone together in a room with a good moderator (thanks, Michael) was what it took to reach consensus. See also meatball:GetARoom (damn, meatball is full of good stuff!). Kelly Martin (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That certainly does clarify things. "we" != the-thousands-of-other-users. --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 03:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, Sam. As Kelly says, she simply thought it appropriate to make a declaration of my intent to enforce what amounts to existing policy by creating a new, specific policy: that galleries of unlicensed team logos are not acceptable on league or conference article pages, and to put everyone involved on warning that reverting any edit removing such galleries is a blockable offense. This policy actually flows from generally accepted policy prohibiting galleries of unlicensed media of any sort, and from generally accepted policy permitting the aggressive blocking of people who wilfully violate copyright policies.

In short, the opposition to Kelly's actions and statements flows from ignorance of existing policy, the purposes of Wikipedia, the place of discussion in the formulation of Wikipedia policy, and the evident misconception that the wiki is some kind of bureaucracy. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If there was one thing that could have been done differently is that we all get some heads-up about a discussion like this so we could, at least, make our thoughts or feelings known before this meatspace pannel took place. I could not go to Wikimania itself, but I would have loved to put in my two cents or more about an issue as important as this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It would not surprise me in the least if the group of Wikipedians that looks upon Jimbo as not just as Chairman of the Board of Trustees but as "God-King", and cannot distinguish between what Jimbo believes and what Jimbo makes into Wikipedia policy, was disproportionately present at Wikiwhatsit. Of course such a group would be more likely to come to what they saw as a conclusion. That doesn't mean that if you go back to the wiki and tell pretty much everyone from Europe, Africa and Asia "Hey y'all, we done just figured it out! Prepare for shock and awe blocking if you don't do this!", they're going to react with "All praise be to The God-King and His Heavenly Choir!" --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, it really doesn't help your cause to blather on thusly. I suspect you'll find that most of the people at Wikimania are exactly the sort of people who are constantly questioning Jimbo's wisdom, rather than blithely accepting his edicts as writ absolute. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, it is not ignorance of but a disagreement on the interpretation of policy that sparked the debate. That has been made clear multiple places in this discussion and in the others that have been linked. Please do not imply that we are ignorant simply because we disagree. z4ns4tsu\^talk 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I call it ignorance. --Tony Sidaway 00:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Gee, then there is quite an epidemic of ignorance going around. As an example, if a large portion of a class fails to understand a concept, should it be attributed to ignorance of the class participants, or should the instructor attempt a different method? Not every instructor is successful with every class. And as Tony has mentioned here and here, he is not responsible for educating editors on policy. No problem, Tony, not all admins have to do everything; some are recent change experts, some are XfD participants, others are newbie helpers. However, I would hope that someone of the 980 admins currently on WP would be able to assist improving the understanding of copyright as it applies to images and logos to a wider editor audience. Cuz it's part of the Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset#Really_really_important_rules. — MrDolomite | Talk 06:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Did I comment here?

I'm confused... I thought I had commented here earlier this morning, but it doesn't show up either on the page or in the history. Did something strange happen?

(Note: it's entirely possible -- even likely -- that I forgot to save the page after reading the preview, but thought I'd ask). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no deleted revisions, so unless you said something so terrible it was oversighted, I think you just didn't actually click save page. --Cyde Weys 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I figured as much. It was 4:30AM, and I was as yet not sufficiently caffeinated. Was just wondering if the page had been massively vandalized, requiring an edit-history cleanup or something of that nature. SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on something Cyde said

Cyde Weys, in endorsing Philwelch: "In this case I do believe that the people arguing for fair use galleries are here for the wrong reasons, or at least, aren't here for the right reason, that of creating a freely redistributable free encyclopedia." I strongly object to this characterization of my purpose on Wikipedia. I don't feel I've exhausted my right to have good faith assumed. The facts, as I see them, are thus:

1. We have non-free images on Wikipedia, such as logos of companies, sports teams, and other organizations.
2. We use these images because such logos are essential to identifying and describing the organizations. They convey important information about the brand image and promote recognition of the organizations when encountered in other media.
3. These non-free images need to be kept to a minimum because we are trying to create a freely redistributable, free encyclopedia.
4. There is a dispute over what constitutes "minimum". We certainly could go through and remove all non-free images from every article. However, it's (apparently) been determined by consensus that doing so would do too much harm to the encyclopedia, by inhibiting its value to users. The dispute is -- how much use is too much, and how little is too little?

I am disturbed that so many supporters of Kelly's actions seem to honestly believe that the detractors are so because we want gratuitous, widespread use of non-free images. Not a single one, that I've seen, has taken the time to recognize that reasonable people can disagree regarding how much use is acceptable. We've already established that some use is acceptable; now we're just haggling over the details (shades of Winston Churchill  ;) ).

And of course, there is the issue of how Kelly's decision was presented; I still am amazed how few people recognize that it could have been done more tactfully, and with better explanation. Even Kelly has admitted that intimidation was her intent. How intimidation became an acceptable administrative tactic on Wikipedia boggles the mind. Powers 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with Powers here. I posted this on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_User:Cardsplayer4life_by_Kelly_Martin, but I think it's relevant here as well. Though I may disagree with the outcome of the "policy" dicussion, the hostile way which Kelly Martin chose to deal with this does not assist reasonable editors and admins that just want to work to clarify the issue and, in the end, make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. The bottom line is that Kelly had other options, and she chose the one that blocked a dedicated editor (User:Cardsplayer4life), aggitated those that disagreed with her interpretation of policy, and opened this entire issue up to outside scrutiny. To say that this was the only reasonable way to achieve her policy goals is patently untrue and a bad faith argument. In the end, you reap what you sew. -- Masonpatriot 15:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the use of intimidation (and especially the intent to intemidate) are definitate problems with Kelly's approach to the issue. I also feel that you have hit at the true heart of the root problem. The two sides of this issue seem to be taking an "all or nothing" approach to the issue while the history of fair use is filled with examples degree not fact. It is not so much whether or not protected material was used but the motivation behind its use and the extent to which it was used that are the important facts. I will admit that having twelve to sixteen logos for other teams on a single season's page may seem excessive, but no middle ground has been suggested that could alleviate the disagreement. While I am not confident in the success of such a sugestion, I am going to go place one on the mediation page now. z4ns4tsu\^talk 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't solve everything with a compromise. Sometimes one side is just right and the other is just wrong. There is no middle ground here involving fair use galleries; it's not as if, oh, twelve to sixteen is bad, but eight is okay. Just don't do it! --Cyde Weys 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "just right and...just wrong" in issues concerning law and policy. That is why the adversarial judicial system exists and is used in most Free countries in the world. The attempt to reach a compromise is never wasted if taken on in good faith and with the goal of resolving dispute. As for the existance of middle ground, I guess I will just have to prove its existance to you. Give me a little bit and I'll post up a link to the case law governing fair use. z4ns4tsu\^talk 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a few bits of law involved, but it's primarily a moral issue. Also, while it's good to discuss things and work towards comprimise where appropriate, this is one case where the issue has been discussed ad nauseum. --Interiot 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as "just right and...just wrong" in issues concerning law and policy." What a load of cobblers. "Right" doesn't get the Foundation sued and Wikipedia taken down and wiped; "Wrong" might well do. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-set of tabs Morals can not be involved in a discussion of policy because moral systems are neither universal nor enforacble on the general public. I agree with you that the issue has been discussed ad nauseum, but no one from either side has attempted to resolve the issue. We have simply had rhetoric spouted and reitterated from both sides that has done nothing to reach agreement or resolution. The problem comes from different interpretations of an aparently poorly written policy. Such interpretations can only be merged by the introduction of a compromise. If you don't think the compromise will work, say so here, that is the proper place. z4ns4tsu\^talk 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Policies based on morals are often enforced on non-public property. I can't go on a World of Warcraft server and start swearing, not because the law says that swearing is illegal, but because World of Warcraft has said that they wish to promote a family atmosphere. Here, Jimbo has said that he wishes to promote free-content, and many experienced editors agree with that, for a variety of reasons. There are lots of game servers that allow swearing, and there are lots of community-content sites that allow non-free images. Maybe you'd prefer to use one of those.

My understanding of policy is that it only appears vague because apparently it hasn't been stated forcefully enough that this project intends to be commited to free content (although I thought it's been stated really pretty forcefully). I don't think there's room to compromise all the way to the uses being suggested in the Mediation Cabal. This issue has been discussed in many different places, there's no central place to discuss it. The only point is to try to explain why the goals of Wikipedia are the way they are, in hopes that editors will better understand the reasons for those goals.

Anyway, I'm going to go bang my head on a wall now... --Interiot 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it's like everything I said just got sucked into a vacuum and never read. In brief: Wikipedia happens to allow non-free images. The question is not one of "Hey, let's find as many non-free images as we can and plaster them all over Wikipedia so it looks keweler!" vs. "We are restricted to using free images in every and all cases, even where there is no free equivalent." The question is "Here are some constructive, encyclopedic ways we can use non-free images that greatly enhance the encyclopedia" vs. "Here are some other constructive, encyclopedic ways we can use non-free images that greatly enhance the encyclopedia." Reasonable people can disagree on which precise uses should be tolerated on Wikipedia and which should be excised. Powers 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't emphasize how important the free content movement is to Wikipedia. It was one of the central points of Jimbo's speech at Wikimania and a lot of other free content people were around - Brewster Kahle, Lawrence Lessig, etc., and they gave the plenaries. Hell, even Richard Stallman made an appearance (though he wasn't a speaker). Some of the points that people are trying to argue in this fair use galleries thing fundamentally go against the goals of the project. --Cyde Weys 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If Jimbo wants to outlaw fair use, he should come out and do it. Until/unless he does, our policy is that we permit fair use. The logo discussion is a perfectly valid discussion about guidelines for how and when we make use of fair use in this sort of case. Johntex\^talk 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the current policy is that we permit fair use when necessary and when no free alternatives exist. In the case of image galleries it simply isn't necessary. Jimbo also went on record at Wikimania saying that when free images exist, even when they are of lower quality than fair use images, we should favor the free. --Cyde Weys 18:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

First, there are no free alternatives to logos. Second, an opinion Jimbo gives at a conference is not a policy. I say again, if he wants to come and say "___ is policy" he can do so. Otherwise, he is stating an opinion. We can/should listen to and consider his opinion, but if we should make up our own minds. Johntex\^talk 00:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for including unfree images that is good enough to force us to use them. Logos are not needed to create good articles. As for Jimbo, he obviously prefers to exercise his full powers as little as possible. However, if the community cannot resolve problems on its own initiative, he is capable of stepping in. I want to see us fix this problem without his intervention. This insistance on hanging onto the supposed 'right' to widely use unfree images of logos is detrimental to the health of Wikipedia. I am prepared to delete them wherever the 'fair use' criteria set forth in law and Wikipedia policy are not met. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (that "some ... points ... go against the goals of the project"). But what about the remainder? Also, I'm not sure if your comment, Cyde, was in response to mine or not. Powers 18:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Inksplotch's statement

Inksplotch quotes Jimbo, but I don't think the third quotation applies. Jimbo seems to be specifically speaking of cases where there are free equivalents possible (not even available, just possible). This is obviously not the case when it comes to logos. Powers 16:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a free equivalent possible in this instance: not using the logos. Since they aren't actually adding anything to the article other than decoration, the alternative, not having them in there at all, is better, because it doesn't need a flimsy fair use claim and the article remains much more freely distributable. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That argument could be made about every image we have. If Jimbo or the board wants to step in and say we can't have any fair use images, they may do so. Until/unless they do, Jimbo is stating his personal opinion, which he admits to be at one extreme end of the opinion spectrum. Hi opinion is not policy. Johntex\^talk 16:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what he meant, Cyde, if you'd actually read the quotation. He was referring to restricting use of non-free images as an incentive toward the creation of free ones as alternatives. How does not using an image that can never have a free image made as an alternative serve to promote that goal? And Johntex has a point as well -- the argument "it's better to have no image at all" fails to address why we have any fair use images at all. Powers 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You are discrediting yourself by failing to see any distinction whatsoever between valid fair use images (say, Raising the flag on Iwo Jima) and galleries of sports team logos. It's not black or white; your straw man is that we can either have fair use images or not, and if we can have them then we can have all of them. That is ludicrously, ridiculously untrue, reflects poorly on this discussion, and is a logical fallacy to boot. --Cyde Weys 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not my straw man. That's the straw man that certain people have raised in support of Kelly Martin so that they can burn it down as evidence she was right. It is a false dichotomy, which is a fallacy, but it's not one I'm using. The Iwo Jima image has obvious historical use, and isn't at issue here. What I don't understand (this is actually covered in my new section below) is why, for example, a fair use image on Rochester Red Wings is allowed, but the exact same fair use image can't be used next to the "Rochester Red Wings" entry on the International League article. It's the exact same image, and it's used for the exact same purpose, as far as I can tell. Powers 19:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In the article that led to this discussion, it wasn't an image "next to" an entry for a team. It was a giant two-inch-wide logo standing in a nice gallery of other two-inch-wide logos without any other information other than the name of the team. In the case where there is a table of teams in a league or conference or locality, with a variety of information, I think there may be a valid fair use argument for displaying a small (quarter-inch high or so) copy of the logo for identification purposes. But the gallery usage is not that; it's clearly decorative and adds no encyclopedic value. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, Kelly. So part of the issue is the size, and part of the issue is the location of the images relative to other team information (in other words, the inclusion of other identifying information along with the logos). There may be a couple of other parts, but those seem to be the big two. So, can you see why this seems to be just a matter of degree, and why, while the lack of an exception for fair use galleries seems obvious to you, why it might not be obvious to everyone? (Just as an example, on Atlantic Hockey, I had always interpreted the logos as identifying rather than decorative, assuming that the gallery was just a different display method chosen for whatever reason. Each logo was labelled with the college name, and they were displayed in the same order as the other two lists on the page, making correspondence among them simple. A switch to putting them into one of the tables seems trivial to me, beyond perhaps the size issue, and that's why your declaration has confused me so. Does that make sense?) Powers 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Stating that the alternative to a logo is the team name is not correct. For instance, saying "Colorado Buffaloes" cannot possible replace the use of a logo. Using words to replace a logo would have to be something of the sorts: The logo of the Colorado Buffaloes is a buffalo in profile shown in solid black from the side on a white background with the letters C and U interlocking with the U crossing the C which is higher and to the left which are gold in color. You cannot summarilly describe everything there is about the Colorado Buffaloes without using the logo that is used to symbolize them. I doubt anyone would dispute this (but if you do, please speak up) and this is why fair use images must be allowed on Wikipedia. I could describe a hexagon, but showing it to you would have much greater meaning and purpose. MECU≈talk 19:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And the above argument is why we allow the use of the Colorado University logo on the article about Colorado University. It, however, is not a valid argument for the use of the Colorado University logo on any other article on Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious flaw in that logic is that articles spill over into multiple pages. The Colorado Buffaloes are discussed in considerable detail at Colorado Buffaloes, 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team, University of Colorado, perhaps other pages as well... The logo may deserve to be on all those pages. It's use is no less proper just because we have divided our articles into bite-sized chunks. Johntex\^talk 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How many instances of an unlicensed image do you think "deserve" to be on Wikipedia. Surely one is probably too many. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you think we should have no unlicensed images at all then? That is a very extreme position to take? Please let me know when you are attempting to delete Image:IBM logo.svg and Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg and Image:EIIR-02.jpg and Image:Oxfordcrest.png so that I can show up for the discussion. All of those images, along with hundreds of others, are unlicensed images that greatly enhance our project. It will be a sad day for Wikipedia if you ever get your way and have them all deleted. Johntex\^talk 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to know

OK, I hate all the nitty gritty of dissecting everyone's statements and having statements dissected in return. I've done too much of that already. Leaving the civility issue and the policy enforcement issue aside for the moment, here's what I'd like to know: What, precisely, is the significant difference between an image inlined on a page normally and an image contained within a <gallery /> tag that makes the former an accpetable exception to the fair use guidelines and the latter unfailingly and unarguably not? I personally recognize that either may or may not be an acceptable exception, depending on the myraid other factors found at our fair use criteria -- but apparently there's something about the <gallery /> tag that automatically overrides all of the possible exception cases. What is that something? Powers 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The something is the fair use provision that the image itself must be discussed critically. It can't simply be used as decoration, which is basically what a gallery does. --Cyde Weys 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the gallery tag as such, but rather any collection of unfree images without any kind of acompanying commentary that is the problem (a classical example beeing a "gallery of screnshots" section in a video game article). Wether or not the gallery tag was used is irrelevant. --Sherool (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That'd be lovely, except that's not what Kelly Martin decreed in her new policy. Powers 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe we're intended to use common sense. "Gallery" means "large collection of things suitable for public viewing", not "something made with the <gallery> wikitag". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Always? A gallery is always decoration? Or just 99% of the time? Powers 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

An unfree image is just decoration any time a compelling 'fair use' justification has not been made for the particular use of that image in that context. Galleries by their nature do not provide the context needed to justify fair use. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking...

Since this involves a block applied by Kelly and other threats thereof, shouldn't it be listed under the "Use of administrator privileges" section of the master RFC page, instead of the "General user conduct" section? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The RfC does not concern Kelly's recent block of Cardsplayer4life, which followed the actions described in this RfC.

3:47, 9 August 2006 Kelly Martin blocked Cardsplayer4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Intentional insertion of prohibited unlicensed media gallery.)

22:27, 8 August 2006 Johntex (New RfC)

Upon examining the case I'm at a loss to see what area of conduct it does concern, since the main complaint seems to be merely that Kelly holds, and has expressed, an opinion that differs from that of the complainants. --Tony Sidaway 21:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I've seen people calling for desysopping over less. --Cyde Weys 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Beggin yer pardon, but I believe the complaint also involves Kelly's threat of blocking for taking action against her opinion, and the aggresive way in which it her threat was announced. You can disagree that it was a threat, or that it was overly agressive, but you can't disagree that it's part of the complaint. =) Powers 00:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't RfC an administrator for threatening to block. That's what administrators are supposed to do. It's our job. --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the aim of the RfC is a gauge of civility and perceived overstepping of bounds... Rereading it all, her wording seemed to have caused the fracas. A good action in enforcing existing policy, but declaring statements that read to the 'common' users with an "I am the Wikipedia" tone aren't really needed or warranted. Any user can of course make up a new policy or interpretation of policy but it's not policy unless Jimbo, the legal team, or concensus says it is. Consensus is not one. And an admin's role is to enforce policy, not "ban". Unless I'm misreading everything Wikipedia is. Good action in the end, but could have been handled much better. rootology (T) 00:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah me, my legs are old and tired, and I walk with a zimmerframe, and I remember when you could buy a tin of cat food for a few shillings, and I also remember when adminship was a mop and not a flaming sword. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from what Sam said, there's also the fact that I did not say "The complaint also involves Kelly's threat of blocking." The issue is not that she might block a user. That is indeed what admins are supposed to do, and I'm appalled you would assume I thought otherwise. The issue is what she threatened to block for. Powers 00:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what I find so puzzling. Why shouldn't an administrator block for blatant and deliberate flouting of the copyright policy? --Tony Sidaway 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to play Devil's Advocate at this point, perhaps it was because of the context of the situation. The issue had the appearance of specifically uncharted waters with these logos to probably most people. There was talk, more talk, and no concensus. Gallery goes in. Kelly takes it out, the back and forths begin, she declares the new policy, User reinserts content, blocked. Perhaps--here's the DA--the User(s) saw her statement as invalid and unenforceable, as historically individual admins and users don't set policy in such a fashion, and the perception that admins are bound to policy the same as everyone else? Just sayin', in 20/20 it looks like that's what happened. rootology (T) 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But that's what's at issue, Tony -- you keep reasserting that image galleries are such a painfully obvious violation of the fair use policy that only a complete moron could possibly disagree -- and this RfC, and the comments herein, clearly demonstrate otherwise. The issue is that Kelly threatened to block for violating her interpretation of policy -- whether she (and you) considered it obvious is not an issue. In retrospect, it's clear it's not obvious by any stretch of the imagination. Powers 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You say you keep reasserting that image galleries are such a painfully obvious violation of the fair use policy that only a complete moron could possibly disagree. Those are not my words and definitely not what I have been saying. Please find another straw man to beat up. --Tony Sidaway 14:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

From Wikipedia:Vandalism Copyrighted material vandalism

Knowingly using copyrighted material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user.

The outside view by Herostratus ignores the fact that this has been going on for weeks. Jkelly 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it does. To quote:

Blocks and block warnings should not be used in these circumstances until the editor has been individually engaged and, at the very least, informed of the circumstances.

There's grounds for disagreement with Herostratus's view, certainly: the question of whether or not edit summaries qualify an adequate attempt to "communicate to the user," for instance. Also relevant, I should think, is that while the overall discussion may have been going on for weeks, User:Cardsplayer4life has a grand total of one edit to the article in question in the past three years, so it seems fair to assume that he was not a party to the problems prior to that fact. I don't think it's entirely fair to assume that he was willfully engaging in vandalism. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Herostratus' view devoted to that particular case? I was under the impression it was a reaction to a warning from Kelly Martin that blocks could ensue from reverting unfree gallery removal. There is certainly room for people to reasonably disagree on whether Cardsplayer4life was sufficiently warned or not. Jkelly 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the one case, it's that... I mean, new anon penis vandals get a warning template and a second chance, and often a third chance, before they are blocked. Is a long-term productive editor not entitled to the same courtesy. If edit summaries are sufficent, maybe we don't need the warning templates. But I don't think that you can have a meaningful dialog through edit summaries. Herostratus 19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that edit summaries are no way to have a conversation. We need some better way to make it crystal-clear that reverting unfree-image cleanup is just not okay... perhaps a series of warning templates is in order at this point. This is really just one point in the larger disconnect between editors who don't really make any distinction between free and unfree content and those editors, who are often but not always admins, who are trying to clean up what has gotten to be a very difficult to manage mess. We are largely still operating as if most people here are working to give away a free, reusable encyclopedia, as if most editors here think of themselves as part of the open source / free culture movement, and as if most users are reasonably savvy about copyright and licensing (or will take advice if they are not), when none of those are really the case. I suspect that we will, in the end, need a technical solution to this larger problem, as neither page protection nor blocking are very good tools for it. At the moment, however, they're really all we have. Of course, if you have a magic wand somewhere that we can wave and everyone will suddenly realise that we're supposed to be conservative about fair use to the point that even one serious question about an image should be enough for us to not be republishing it until the issue is settled, I would definitely go for that. Jkelly 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"We are largely still operating as if most people here are working to give away a free, reusable encyclopedia, as if most editors here think of themselves as part of the open source / free culture movement" We are? Maybe "we" better wake up. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some la-di-da "free culture movement" love-in. I'd say that many, many editors think that the free-image-only policy is asinine -- which it is, obviously, if you want to build a first-rate encyclopedia. If you're here to do other things than make the best possible free encyclopedia, then -- to borrow a nauseatingly common theme from the other side's advocates -- the door's right over there. Herostratus 06:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This comment - asking for people who agree with current WP copyright policy to leave - was extremely rude, uncalled for, and reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You really, really, don't get it. Please look over the keynote speakers at Wikimania. Please look over Jimbo's plenary. The free content movement is the only thing that even allows this encyclopedia to exist. Without GFDL, we'd be a total and abject failure. --Cyde Weys 06:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you, GDFL! Do we owe the free content movement anything? Yes, our thanks. Thanks! Now can we make an encyclopedia? I get that the foundation has drunk the kool-aid. I don't have to like it. There's no good reason the encyclopedia has to be freely redistributable by third parties. There just isn't, is all. But whatever. Herostratus 06:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I don't want to pursue that line. Getting back to the RfC... I don't mind the policy that much, or enforcing it, which I do. It's really the whole attitude problem thing that frosts me. But people aren't going to change, so whatever. Herostratus 07:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus is completely right. The GFDL gives other people the right to redistribute our content. That is fine, we all signed up for that. The GFDL does NOT state that we have to lessen the value of our current work in order to make it easier on the re-users. They need to take responsibility for their own use of the work we create. Johntex\^talk 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not going to turn into another CDDB. Are we here to merely make Jimbo's organization successful? Or are we instead here to benefit all humans? Read the opening plenary. The material we're creating here can and should be distributed far and wide. It's very shortsighted to focus only on how useful the encyclopedia is to you right this instant. --Interiot 06:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense for the people who agree with this project's principles to be invited to leave. It is the people who disagree with them who should be invited to exercise their m:Right to fork. Jkelly 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The five pillars talk about building an encyclopedia under GFDL, and being civil. You violated the fifth pillar with your remarks. Johntex\^talk 20:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The fifth pillar specifically states that it applies to everything but the other ones... I'm sure, however, that if you go through my contribs you could find me violating WP:BOLD or WP:IAR or something, but I'm unclear on where such a discovery might get us. Jkelly 20:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the word again?

What do you call it when a blocked editor edits from an IP to reinstate the edit for which he was blocked in the first place? There's a name for this, it's right on the tip of my tongue. Oh yes, sockpuppetry and block evasion. Of course, since those people who decried KM's "unilateral" action probably won't take her word for it; will they accept Mackensen's confirmation? But I suppose the block and several dozen entries at WP:ANI were "insufficient warning", just as the warnings on the article talk page and edit summaries were insufficient. The way I see it, the seven admins who endorsed unblocking Cardsplayer4life after his non-apology and non-admission of wrongdoing owe Kelly seven apologies. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I think my comment here was about 25% snarkier (?) than necessary, upon reflection. Thatcher131 (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Has it actually been checkusered? Aside from the anon IP undoing the KM edit how do we know that is him? rootology (T) 01:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I checkusered the IP. It's him. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never had any interaction with you directly before that I recall--and take this at face value: I have no problems with you personally at all. But... I'm a stickler for neutrality and propriety. Would it be possible to just get a neutral/3rd party CheckUser user to confirm? Not calling you a liar, but the last two times I piped up to lend support one or way or another on a behind the scenes Wikipedia thing it turned into not just a nightmare, but had people screaming all sorts of accusations. Just that way everything would be "above board" and no one could come back after you to say anything negative later. rootology (T) 01:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen confirmed. And for what it's worth, Kelly certainly doesn't lie about stuff like this. --Cyde Weys 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, Mackensen has access right? I wasn't sure, as he didn't say it was him, just it looked obvious based on the edit history. But if he's one of the guys, good enough for me then. rootology (T) 01:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Mackensen is a former arbitrator (like Kelly), and as such, has CheckUser access. --Cyde Weys 01:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally cool-- I know only a few (8?) people have access to it, so you have to be on the general up and up to get access. I seriously (as I know a few editors who have contributed here I think dislike me) have no history or issue with either Kelly or the blocked guy. I was just curious. Kelly/Mackensen, good catch. And really stupid of the blocked guy. rootology (T) 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fourteen. --Cyde Weys 02:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So you checkusered the editor you've been in content dispute with and who you then subsequently blocked? That's a gross abuse of both admin tools and of CheckUser tool. After that incident I think you should be stripped of both.  Grue  05:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Thumbelina 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how he ended up blocked before, Cardsplayer4life definitely deserves what's coming to him now. Can't play the innocent new editor card after all of this. Certainly WP:POINT abuse and outright lying after this edit, which to me equals not good WP:FAITH. Thanks for letting everyone know, and thanks for the independent checkuser verification. The less ammo (or in this case non-ammo) tossed into the fire, the better chance of focusing on the issue and not all these tangents. Oh, look, a butterfly.... :)  — MrDolomite | Talk 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rereading the newer stuff since I went out, makes me wonder if this wouldn't have been better served as on RfC on when to/not to present a context of changing policy interpretations, rather than all this nonsense. rootology (T) 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I do not support in any way Cardsplayer4life using a sock-puppet to evade the block. However, a call for apologies from people who argued against the block ignores the time-line of events. The block occurred first, then the sock-puppetry. Therefore, the sock-puppetry did not lead to the block and the sock-puppetry is irrelevant is considering whether the block was valid or not. The sock-puppetry does not change the fact that the block was invalid. Johntex\^talk 04:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Sophistry. The block was valid. --Tony Sidaway 04:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Based on what, your say-so? Not a very convincing argument, I'm afraid. Johntex\^talk 05:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  "1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.; 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument." Do admins or editors get to change or reinterpret policy on the fly? No, thankfully. The argument seems to be that the block (at the time of the blocking) was based on the fact that Cardsplayer4life violated a set in stone policy. Fair use is set in stone but the specific instance was up in the air, and the block based on everything we've seen was based on Kelly's assertation that she "made up a new policy" to paraphrase what she did. Tony, your statement is actually the dictionary definition of sophistry. Kelly, nor you, nor myself, get to declare a new policy and have it be enforced. Jimbo or the Foundation get to do that. I am a regular editor at this time. You are are a regular editor with a couple of extra buttons. Kelly is a regular editor with a few more buttons than either of us. None of us get to declare new policy and have it be enforceable by fiat. If you disagree, you're regrettably wrong. rootology (T) 05:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Oh what nonsense. Policy on Wikipedis isn't "set in stone". It's a wiki! I find the level of ignorance about Wikipedia policy quite surreal. --Tony Sidaway 05:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  So you are saying that any user by fiat can make up new policies and have them be enforceable? That is nonsense. rootology (T) 05:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  I'm saying nothing of the sort. It would be really quite frustrating trying to educate you about how policy is made on Wikipedia, but fortunately that is not my responsibility. --Tony Sidaway 05:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  I can/have done my own reading, thank you. But by saying your saying nothing of the sort, you're now engaging in double speak. It's a simple/yes no question, Tony (and anyone, really). Can a user decree a policy or interpretation of a policy by fiat? If the answer is "no", then it's "no". Simply put--and like I said on my comment--the action taken on removing the content in question was Good, the declaration that the new policy was law was bad, as Kelly, myself, yourself, nor anyone else outside of the people that constitute WP:OFFICE can make such a statement and have it have any actual weight or value. This is not an indictment of anyone: it's simply what from what I've read of all the policies since I've joined of how things are supposed to work. I have no problems with admins--I have a problem with people scoffing at process, concensus, and the majority with any viewpoint or attitude that any one user can arbitrarily implement such things that are not approved of by the majority or WP:OFFICE. If I'm way off base than I invite anyone to correct me (and please let me show were on the site it says that I'm wrong).

  I don't want this to come off as a polemic as that's not my intention. Summary (again): good edits/control of a fair use violation, bad, bad, bad implementation of it's handling and a 100% inappropriate way in which it was presented, with a declaration of new policy that Kelly has no authority to make. rootology (T) 06:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Even though I support the factual basis behind the decision Kelly made, I agree it could have been handled better. The difference is in your last sentence. She didn't declare it unilaterally, she just summarized and decided to enforce what had already been decided. - Taxman ^Talk 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Even if he was not blocked before, trying to use a sockpuppet to evade a block, and from looking at the way the talk page message was worded, the short block was needed. Cards should have tried email or some other communication, but what he did was not acceptable. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if the block was questionable, the unblock was based on Cards' statement that he would keep his head down from now on but that he read the policies and decided he hadn't violated any of them. Why that was taken as an apology and expression of good faith I don't know, but the IP edit clearly demonstrates this editor has all along been more interested in a confrontation and making a point than in writing a good article. And look at this edit to Southeastern Conference on August 4, [3]. That's right after Ed 2gs got taken to ANI for deleting galleries. And Cards' reverted galleries at three articles yesterday, not just one. [4] [5] [6] So this is not some holy innocent. He knew what he was doing; had known for 4 days that it was contested and controversial; pushed the issue on three articles to make a point; and was more than unrepentant. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

State of RfC

All that being aside, Requests for Comment... They're designed for reviewal of actions and, via instruction and such social constructs as DissuadeReputation in the event that someone is being a stubborn jerk, or ReinforceReputation (something like that) in the event that people act in a fashion the community feels right... I expect Kelly hate to pile up here regardless of the actual chain of events, I expect the usual fanatical calls for deop and absolute condemnation by the community at large and by higher authorities, turning RfC into a tool for conflict escalation instead of conflict resolution... And in advance, I would like to say the following: Sigh

There were many calls at Wikimania to dissolve RFC as it's turned into more of a shitfest than anything approaching conflict resolution, and Avillia here shows exactly why. --Cyde Weys 01:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If requests for comment are gotten rid of, then a lot of disputes would just have to go straight to Arbcom. Mediation isn't always suitable - for mediation there must usually be no more than two clear tpositions and a middle ground between them. In RfCs like this, we have multiple points of view and very little middle ground (there is no middle ground between "Editor is blocked" and "Editor is not blocked", nor between "I make policy" and "I don't"). As I said in my endorsement, it would be a poor editor who used the minority of bullshit as an excuse to ignore the rest.

When someone does something controversial, people are going to bitch. You're not going to stop that by getting rid of RfC. RfC makes sure that as much of it as possible is in one place, that it's structured, that people have to collect their thoughts before hammering the keyboard (as they only get to write an outside view once) which means the responder doesn't have to repeat his defence so often, the requirement for two certifiers weeds out a lot of genuinely frivolous RfCs, and finally, the endorsement system means that those who do come out with bullshit look very lonely indeed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some RfCs are shitfests, some are constructive, most are a mixture of both. They can be constructive if respondants a) take the time to look over things carefully, b) consider both sides (remembering that the dispute is between fallible humans) c) and then try to lay out the arguments in a neutral, calm manner, and d) suggest a resolution. It helps when respondants are actually outsiders to the dispute and don't have a long history with any of the disputants (otherwise it's not really an "outside view"). I think they're certainly worth keeping as an available option, though when they do turn into shitfests, it would probably be a good idea to de-list them and bump them up to arbcom. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I also note that contrary to Avillia's prediction, only one outside view mentioned de-sysopping, and no one else endorsed it. I have to object to this section header, though, Cyde; it's not very civil. Powers 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's better than threatening him with an asbestos chainsaw. At least I try. And as for the threatening desysopping ... now Grue is doing it too on this talk page. We're all having a good laugh about it, believe me :-P Cyde Weys 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pulling on my hip waders and wallowing in here, I think this is a valid discussion topic, as in my following of RfC proceedings on a regular basis, I've often wondered just what the intended outcome is in the long term. What I've seen often is that an RfC is filed against an editor who's been involved in a conflict, that editor says "Piss off" to the folks who are trying to use this as a method to explain the problems they've had with the editor, and it goes nowhere at all. I've seen a number of cases where the editor in question has packed up and buggered off, and a precious few where the editor actually learns something. But, most of the time, if it's a contentious issue, it winds up in arbitration. And nowhere is there actually a finite resolution from the RfC.

I suppose the preference would be for the editor under discussion to recognize that they need to adjust their approach to the project and make those necessary changes. (In this case, that's exactly what I hope will be the outcome; as I said in my comment, Kelly appears to be a solid administrator, but has generated some issues in her approach to dealings with the community in general that may be of benefit to give consideration to.) But in a case with lots of outside views, there's no general comment that can be taken away from the situation. Perhaps a positive change would be to have some sort of coordination for RfC that could monitor the cases, and at some specific point close them, then generate a summary to point out the key points that were brought up so the editor has something finite to work with? That would give closure to each situation, and also ensure the commenters that they haven't just flung keystrokes into the ether. Just a thought, anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Gracious.

The truculent tone with which this discussion is approached by certain long-time and usually well-respected administrators shocks and saddens me. I can't see the sense or good in it. KWH 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Any RFC involving high-profile administrators inevitably turns into a shitfest because all of the snipers in attendance can't resist a chance to get their shots in. I can't particularly blame administrators for responding in kind. --Cyde Weys 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

From reading your comments here and on your talk page, I gather the impression that you feel you are elitist since you are an admin and that non-admins are nothing more than a nuisance. If more admins are like yourself, I have no desire to be one.--NMajdan•talk 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Most admins are not elitist like Cyde and Friends, and this is something to be very thankful for. --Anonymous Coward

You can't? KWH 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Amazing how much of this could be avoided if certain admins didn't act as if the way we do things here doesn't matter, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a mistake for admin appointments to be lifetime ones. It seems to breed an untouchable attitude and mindset. rootology (T) 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright and fair use is a foundation-level issue, not a local wiki issue. --Cyde Weys 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But that's not what's being discussed. It's behavior and the ability of people to announce newly enforceable variations (however good or well-intentioned) by fiat. rootology (T) 17:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That is irrelevant to the greater issue here, though. Kelly Martin isn't the foundation, for instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That is whats confusing me. I was under the impression this discussion was not about the policy discussion that caused it but by the actions one person took in enforcing that policy.--NMajdan•talk 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a distraction, the discussion is about what you described. rootology (T) 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no "discussion" here, just Kelly being brusque and bold and then a lot of people congregating on this page to snipe at her. --Cyde Weys 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's apparent that you don't understand the problems that are being described here. What can we do to help you understand? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly what's going on here. Some people are pissed off that their page decorations turned out to be against our fair use policy, so they vociferously complained about the bold admin who enforced that policy. And then a lot of other people with unrelated grudges against the admin joined in on the "fight" just to get their licks in. There's nothing here remotely approaching a reasonable discussion. If anyone here had actually wanted to resolve anything, they went about it entirely the wrong way. --Cyde Weys 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears you actually completely fail to understand the situation. This is about an administrator deciding that she had the right to arbitrarily create policy out of what would be accurately defined as thin air to 99.99% of editors here, and then start threatening and doling out blocks when challenging it. This is about an administrator again deciding that how we do things here as editors and administrators did not apply to her. This is slowly becoming about administrators who seem to think that this sort of activity is not only okay, but should be applauded. You're right - this is probably the wrong way to have gone about this, given the record of the parties involved. At this point, maybe the next level up is what's truly appropriate to resolve it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell me Cyde, since you have such great insight into everyone's motivations, what is my grudge about? KWH 18:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're generalizing. Some people just like arguing. --Cyde Weys 18:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I assure you that I do not. KWH 18:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For my edification ... what's your horse in this race? Do you not like our fair use policies? --Cyde Weys 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you consider my contributions, you will see that I have in fact upheld "our" fair use policy and explained it to other editors many times, and I take a fairly conservative approach to it. My "horse", if you want to call it that, is that I dislike the amount of blood that I have seen shed on the fair use issue, largely through administrators taking what I consider an aggressive tone with others when "explaining" this policy. This begins with Ta bu shi da yu's adventure in deleting fair-use TIME covers from a few months ago, continues with Kelly, and now yourself. As I said, I cannot see the good or sense in it. I am going out of my way to get involved in the matter because I think it causes a lot of bad mojo. That does not completely capsulize my thoughts on fair use, free culture, and the best way to practice both on Wikipedia, but it might give you the idea that I am not some malcontent trolling sniper who got my userbox deleted. KWH 18:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the right way? Not trying to troll, but genuinely curious what you think. rootology (T) 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Contacting someone in private is a much better way to go about this than an RFC. This thing was elevated to RFC instantly and could have been resolved a lot better by simply chatting up Kelly on IRC, for instance. --Cyde Weys 18:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IRC discussions of actions taken on Wikipedia are bad as they lack the transparency for community oversight/archival. rootology (T) 18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, they also tend to work a lot better, because then you don't get all sorts of malcontents and snipers latching on. Which would you rather have, a transparent shitfest or a private resolution? --Cyde Weys 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, for good faith for everyone, for anything that will have lasting effects on the project, I believe full transparency would be in order. If it was discussed on IRC that would be fine, if that was listed as an official avenue of discussion, but then that avenue of discussion should be officially logged for review. Basically, secret things are bad things. If someone is blocked/unblocked, or if a new change is implemented into how things are done that affect a great many people, it should be at all times 1) publically documented; 2) justified within the bounds of what is appropriate to happen on the project. Is that unreasonable? rootology (T) 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

At what point during Kelly's on-wiki discussions did it show any evidence that she was willing to actually discuss it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Basic fair use policy isn't up for discussion, it's a Foundation-level issue. --Cyde Weys 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly has no more authority than anyone else--she is has no authority to make statements like "I made this a policy" and have that mean anymore than if I had said it, or you, or Jeff. rootology (T) 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can say "I'm making this a policy". Whether or not it sticks is something else entirely. And for what it's worth I do believe that Kelly's word use in this situation was unclear. She wasn't actually making a new policy, just declaring her intent to enforce an existing one. --Cyde Weys 18:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We again agree. The application of it, however, is certainly up for discussion in some areas, and the way it was handled in this instance was not appropriate. And, frankly, when Kelly barges in and gives an "I'm making the policy, and you shall obey" attitude, it's not appropriate or helpful and transcends any fair use issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it would be nice if Jimbo would step forward and make that proclamation, but he's a very busy guy, and he doesn't have time to get into discussions on every little policy. So he largely leaves it up to the people he trusts to take care of stuff like this, userboxes, etc. Quoting Tony Sidaway, I don't particularly think this was so outrageous as everyone here believes ... "Good grief, how dare we take immediate action to stop people persistently and knowingly putting unlicensed material on a free encyclopedia." --Cyde Weys 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(Killing indent) This, again, is not about the fair use policy. It is what it is, and while Wikipedia is overly agressive about it, it's how the Foundation wants to do things, and we play by their rules. I cannot stress this enough - this RfC is not about fair use, but about the conduct of a "high profile" admin who again presented her own views on things in a rude, agressive, and threatening manner, and then started doling out blocks to those who dared challenge her. This is starting to become how the community does not trust Kelly Martin to do the right thing, or, when she's in the right, do it properly. You bring up the userboxes - imagine if Kelly didn't just go on a deleting spree and instead, oh, I don't know, talked about it. Maybe it wouldn't have taken 7 months to resolve. How many more times is the community supposed to tolerate it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with badlydrawnjeff. I get the sense that anytime I disagree with Cyde or Kelly I am immediately categorised as a sniper or a troll. I believe this is a strawman argument they use to undermine the credability of their critics. The irony is that i agree with the their policy stances, but I do disagree with the way they handle situations and people. In short, they are very good at pissing people off and seem to enjoy doing it. This is disruptive. The other strawman, in this case, is the fair use issue. This is not under discussion and this seems to be clear to all, except those who are trying to cloud the real issue. So again, we disagree with the way she (and others) handle situations and people. In short, she (and others) are very good at pissing people off and seem to enjoy doing it. David D. (Talk) 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with badlydrawnjeff. This is only one of multiple instances where a very limited number of people bevave really badly and their defence is, "But I was right." We don't allow "correctness" to get in the way of a 3RR block for example, and attempts to re-frame the argument thusly are either simple obfuscation or serious lack of mental multi-threading. - brenneman {L} 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh?! Speaking of non sequitur ... I don't think 3RR was even involved in this case, because we blocked the people inserting the fair use violations before anyone could reach 3RR. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said there was a 3RR violation. What I think Aaron meant was that we apply 3RR uniformly whether you were "right" or not, and yet "I was right!" is an acceptable defense for some other actions. Hence the "for example". -- nae'blis 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And here is exhibit 1 for "simple obfuscation or serious lack of mental multi-threading.". David D. (Talk) 12:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And Exhibit 2 is a display of ad hominem with no contribution to the argument whatsoever. Exhibit 3 is a display of hypocrisy by Cyde regarding Exhibit 2 .... Cyde Weys 13:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The topic of discussion was, as i wrote above, "In short, she (and others) are very good at pissing people off and seem to enjoy doing it." None of you have addressed this point, instead you divert the argument and latch onto side points. This IS obfuscation. How is it ad hominem to point out that you are not discussing the point? This page is one huge diversion from the original argument. It's stacked with stawmen and shoaling (is that even a word?) red herrings. Are you going to address the point? David D. (Talk) 15:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe Cyde and I were addressing Arron's comments, not yours. So, you seem to be saying that Cyde & Kelly are purposefully disruptive, enjoy being so, and perform, what, character assasinations on their detractors? I'm not sure how this cannot be seen as an attack, or what, really, anyone can say about it. --InkSplotch 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was the same as Aarons, 'some people are behaving badly'. It does not have to be that way. In fact, when it is that way it slows down the whole process of getting people on board. Userboxes being the classic example. If one, behaves like a bull in a china shop it takes three times longer to achieve the goal. This RFC is about how to go about implementing policy in a way that will not piss people off. Clearly this is a skill that some people do not have or do not choose to use. It's a shame since a reasoned and patient approach is always better, especially in a project like this where there is a very limited hierarchy.

So it seems that the 'higher ups' are just writing this whole RFC off as an 'attack'. I think that is a big mistake, especially if this bull in a china shop approach to management becomes a trend in this project. Wikipedia relies on knowledgeable volunteers to write its articles. With the current attitude you'll be left with a bunch of bureaucrats managing RFC's rather than content. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While I think there's some good discussion going on here, I think there's more personal attacks being flung around. Too much noise, not enough signal, as it were. I suspect the big problem lies in people talking past each other. One side wants to focus solely on Kelly's approach, and ignore the circumstances (the fair use issue). The other believes the circumstances is inextractable from her approach. That's just one philosophical difference I see, at the very least. But you're accusing people of deliberatly obfuscating issues, attacking other's credibility and character, and taking delight in being wilfully disruptive. Those are attacks. I really don't see how they add to this discussion, or could hope to find resolution in an RFC. --InkSplotch 16:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are viewing criticism as attacks. I have tried to be constructive but I find it frustrating to be editing in an environment where these arguments keep breaking out. It does not help when I see the same cast fanning the flames. There seems to be a sense of I am correct and hence I can be rude. This is not acceptable. You want a specific example? See this exchange [7], [8], [9], [10]. We need our admins to be aware that such comments are NEVER justified (And I gave that tame example specifically since that is where it always starts). Isn't this why we have WP:CIVIL in place? I don't feel that my comments here have been particularly harsh, and if I can't say them here, where can i say them? Personally, I think there are too many silly games going on in the background. The Kelly B/R list being a classic example. This type of behaviour by admins, who run in cliques, is going to give good editors second thoughts about contributing when they regard the apparent objectives of this project. At present it looks like a playground. David D. (Talk) 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone thinks they're right, no one thinks they're going "too far" trying to resolve things, but if we keep our heads cool, sometimes new ideas can sink in. I see even from your examples, Cyde expressing the same feeling you are...it's frustrating having to go through the same events over and over, when nothing seems to change.

As for your comments, Cyde's comments, anyone's comments...well, again it's a matter of opinion, isn't it? For me, I don't think a thesaurus softens an insult (although I've seen some creative ones on this page), so I'm looking at the finer distinctions "that's stupid" versus "you're stupid". And since there's no handy meter or flag to distinguish the admins from not around here, I just hold everyone to one standard. --InkSplotch 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's a matter of opinion, but if there are enough people getting annoyed then it might be time to recalibrate. This environment is not the best for communication and it is very easy for people to get the wrong end of the stick. For this reason alone i think people need to tread more carefully and certainly be more patient. For the record, I agree with Cyde most of the time. Whether I agree with the admins or not, however, I do find myself questioning their methods more often than i'd like. David D. (Talk) 18:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, "we apply 3RR uniformly" except we don't, do we? We have exceptions, namely vandalism. We have, in other words, classes of infringement that (regardless of intent) trump even concepts like wheel-warring. Vandalism. Copyright. Illegality. And regardless of if copyright or other laws are knowingly broken (i.e., Wikipedia is sued), the Foundation wants us to err on the side of caution. So far on the side of caution as to not even go near these issues. I know many people here don't like the "but I was right" defense, but there's many issues where Wiki can't afford to be wrong. Even a little. --InkSplotch 14:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, and there has to be clear intent for the edit to be vandalism for it to be exempt from 3RR. Obviously there's some difference of opinion on what Cardplayer's intention was, and a large contingent of commentors would rather discuss the method of implementation than the rightness/wrongness/truthiness of the policy as enacted. -- nae'blis 16:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many want to discuss the method of implementation, while others feel it's impossible to isolate this from the other factors you mention. I'm in this group, which predisposes me to dislike hypothetical questions. "Is Kelly Martin rude?" seems an...insufficient question if you don't wish to discuss the purpose/intent behind her actions. --InkSplotch 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The actions of the Foundation, question for all

Cyde, I tried to ask Tony above but got basically blown off. Do you think it is appropriate or within the bounds of policy for any user outside of the Foundation itself to announce new policy or interpretation of policy, and have it be considered an enforceable policy, with no discussion or concensus on Wikipedia? rootology (T) 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "blown off"? Ordinary users make Wikipedia policy minute by minute. That is how it has always been done. I don't think one can put it any plainer than that. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that I can declare any of the following today and have it be considered policy?

1: New policy: All users must type something in edit summary; blank summaries are no longer allowed. Failure to do so three consecutive times on a given article is a grounds for a ban.

2: New policy: Any block of a user by an admin for a given edit now must include the IP they edited from, as well as their username.

3: New policy: Any admin is subject to recall and a new RFA if thirty or more Wikipedians sign on to request that recall.

Is that what you're saying? Or would my three above policies require concensus to be enforceable? rootology (T) 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying "Ordinary users make Wikipedia policy minute by minute" does not mean the same as "the next pronouncement you make will be policy."

Anyone can declare what he believes to be policy, but all policies require consensus to be enforceable. Kelly's policy pronouncement has the twin advantage of enforceability and consensus: we've done this kind of block in the past without controversy, and editors have been sanctioned by the arbitration committee for repeatedly flouting it, and we all recognise the necessity of the copyright policy. Kelly's major crime here seems to be that she declined to engage in shilly-shallying and declared an obvious elaboration of existing Wikipedia policy in the face of considerable and determined ignorance. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can say "I'm making XXXXX policy." Whether or not that is enforced is entirely different. Those three things you just mentioned aren't going to be happening, so realistically, they're not policy, whether you say they are or not. Now what Kelly did with fair use is completely different. --Cyde Weys 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can they not happen? If I write up each of them today, and posit them for discussion, and concensus says "Yay" to them, why would they not become policy? Mass concensus > any one user (regular or admin) except on legal or Foundational issuesrootology (T) 18:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was that consensus is not going to say "Yea" to them. --Cyde Weys 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Time will tell... rootology (T) 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, I don't understand the purpose of #2 at all. And whose username and IP address are you referring to, the blocking admin's or the blocked user's? --Cyde Weys 19:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the "blocked" party. I.e., if you block MrVandal for whatever, his IP should be blocked as well unless there are extenuating or reasonable circumstances why it shouldn't be blocked as well--but the default should be to get the IP too, and if a public portal IP is blocked in the process, that can be undone seperately after if needed. The basic idea would be so that they couldn't sockpuppet or anon their way back in. It would have stopped half the AN/I drama over this in it's tracks for example if Cardplayer's IP were blocked as well for the 24 hours. rootology (T) 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny that, by asking questions about the policy rootology has made, you seem to have conceded that policy can be subject to incorrect interpretation, and also that (heaven forbid it!) policy established by means other than Jimbo or Foundation fiat can be reasonably questioned. And by leaving your edit summary blank, you are blatantly and intentionally flouting that policy. Myself and many others have been discussing rootology's policies off-wiki and we came to a consensus that they should be enacted in less than 14 minutes. (N.B.: Take this with the joshing good humor with which it is intended, but do not miss the point.)KWH 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside I've actually begun developing one of them now and will post it for consideration probably in a couple of days. rootology (T) 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's the IP address one I'd say drop it, it won't succeed for a variety of reasons, including: administrators don't have any way of knowing which IP address an account is editing from, accounts can edit from a wide variety of IP addresses (particularly in the case of AOL or people who move around a lot between home, work, school, and computer labs), and it is also against our privacy policy. We don't just give up people's IPs like that. --Cyde Weys 20:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the IP address one, actually, but that makes sense. Because if you were to block MrVandal, and have that block automatically take out the given IP he was coming from, it would open up a bigger still can of worms as only people with the check user access could then theoretically appropriately undo the IP block if it took out a huge range. Got it. rootology (T) 20:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to understand, the Foundation is very unorganized, and they don't really go onto particular wikis and tell them, "Our Foundation's principles must be applied". It's up to administrators "in the know" to enforce that kind of thing. --Cyde Weys 18:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally understood, but I'd still be curious what you think. Is it appropriate or within the bounds of policy for any user outside of the Foundation itself to announce new policy or interpretation of policy, and have it be considered an enforceable policy, with no discussion or concensus on Wikipedia? rootology (T) 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a new policy, not by a long shot. Just because a lot of users were unaware of our stance on fair use issues does make them any less applicable. Kelly was the bold one who stepped forward and said, "No more fair use abuse, you moose." Okay, scratch that last part. --Cyde Weys 18:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say this was a new policy, I said up-page it was a new (or perhaps evolved is the better term) interpretation of the policy. But you still haven't answered my question. Is it appropriate or within the bounds of policy for any user outside of the Foundation itself to announce new policy or interpretation of policy, and have it be considered an enforceable policy, with no discussion or concensus on Wikipedia? rootology (T) 18:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already addressed why your loaded question is flawed. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more valid. Please listen to my responses rather than repeating yourself. Do you know how policy is made on Wikipedia? Do you know what policy is? Here's a hint: policy isn't necessarily what is written down on the Wikipedia: space "policy" pages. Actual fair use policy has been the same way for a long time now; that Ed finally got around to modify our sports articles to abide by it and Kelly finally got around to blocking violators of it doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that there is anything "new" about it. --Cyde Weys 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this will be completely fruitless, as you're unwilling to discuss the principle I am asking about, which basically amounts to, "When did Kelly, or any other admin, get authority to make sweeping proclamations that affect 99% of the user base?" This is similar to the User Box thing, as alluded to Jeff above, and demonstrates that yes while she is bold, it seems to be an overstepping of the bounds of her level of authority. rootology (T) 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're operating under the misconceptions that Kelly did this unilaterally. Far from it. She was merely the one to step forward and make the announcement. --Cyde Weys 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but where is this documented or detailed beyond her sudden announcement? That's the problem--Kelly is not the foundation, no one admin != anyone else on the project. That the problem; the perception whether or not it's true that she did this unilaterally. If she did not, please cite where/how this was not unilateral in the main part of the RfC as a comment. rootology (T) 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not unilateral because it was discussed by a fair number of administrators both on IRC and at Wikimania. The proof that it isn't unilateral is that it is now being enforced by many more administrators than merely Kelly. You're probably right in saying that she could have been more clear than saying, "This is how it is because this is how I say it is" rather than "how we say it is". --Cyde Weys 18:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Have the relevant policy pages all been updated to reflect this change with the specifics? rootology (T) 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly know, we have sooooo many policy pages and so many of them are terribly out of date. We actually had a serious talk at Wikimania about sitting down and rewriting them all from scratch, merging them to decrease the sheer mass of size as appropriate. I don't know if this is going to happen, but it should. Most active administrators pretty much know what policy is without having to use policy pages. It's a shame that the pages are out of date, but they are really suffering from years of cruft and too much explicitness about the rules. --Cyde Weys 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've found that while I personally prefer very simple principles to operate from, there are many people that need explicit rules. I guess it's just a personality thing. So, I wouldn't say that the rules are too explicit, but that they need to flow from the general principles in a manner that makes sense and so that specific applications of the principles can easily be found by those looking for specifics. Sxeptomaniac 20:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rootology's question

For anyone else to answer if they wish: Do you think it is appropriate or within the bounds of policy for any user outside of the Foundation itself to announce new policy or interpretation of policy, and have it be considered an enforceable policy, with no discussion or concensus on Wikipedia? rootology (T) 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just to check, the "Foundation" is this list? or is there a better one to use? — MrDolomite | Talk 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what I've always understood it to be, yes. rootology (T) 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The Wikimedia Foundation is a corporation. Like any corporation, it has shareholders, which as I recall include contributing members of all Wikimedia projects (e.g., you). Like most large corporations, it has a board of directors, which you linked to. Also like most corporations, it has employees — Brion and Tim as techs, Danny as office-person, and Brad as general counsel and interim CEO. And like most non-profit corporations, it has many volunteers who are delegated official duties. The corporation itself is a so-called "legal fiction".

    The President of the Board of Directors, by convention, is accepted as speaking for the Foundation when he explicitly declares something as policy. The four official employees are generally given the right to speak for the Foundation on their particular issues. Various volunteers, such as the three who are currently coordinating the Board election, are also given such rights. A majority vote of the Board is what delegates all decision-making, and is the ultimate voice of the Foundation; it can, for instance, overrule Jimbo Wales, and no doubt it has many times in the past.

    Given the above: if either Jimbo Wales or Brad Patrick stated that such-and-such is or is not fair use policy, it would be accepted as "the Foundation" saying it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

*Seeing as this is basically the statement of dispute, my answer is no, as previously stated. — MrDolomite | Talk 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC) strikeout, new comment coming by  — MrDolomite | Talk 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• There has been discussion on Wikipedia and consensus has been growing. There may not have been as much discussion as you might have liked or a consensus as clear as you might have liked, but that's different. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply, but my question here is not specific to this instance, but in general, as related to this RfC. rootology (T) 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is always acceptable to declare something policy without a formal consensus-gathering process. As Kelly says, policy pages are descriptive and not prescriptive. If something clearly has consensus without a poll, it can be assumed to be policy. If a lot of people disagree, then it inherently doesn't have consensus. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, sort-of. I'd qualify the latter statement as "if there is significant reasonable disagreement" instead of "if a lot of people disagree."

I think the main thing emerging from this RfC is that a lot of people are simply harping on their personal distaste for the very act of stepping into a debate and declaring something along the lines of "enough discussion, we now have a policy", as if this were something that mustn't ever be done on Wikipedia. Obviously they're entitled to their opinion, but it isn't really conduct that can be resolved within this community. The community does love to suck on the teat of debate, and it needs constant kicks up the bum to keep it focussed on the task in hand. This problem of focus isn't about to go away, it's going to become more important as the community continues to grow numerically. We need people like Kelly. --Tony Sidaway 14:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of outside view by Tony Sidaway

I think the outside view by Tony Sidaway is only periperally related to the RfC. He spends most of his time talking about a user block which is not the subject of this RfC, and which didn't even occur until this RfC was under way.
Tony only says one thing related to this RfC at all, which is to encourage removal of unlicensed content. I think he may have forgotten that unlicensed content is allowed on Wikipedia if it is used within policy and guidelines.
What Kelly did was to pounce upon a discussion of what those policies and guidelines should be, and to rudely declare that no other opinions mattered but hers. Tony's "outside view" is not really on point to the matter at hand.
I suspect he is just trying to drum up some support for the idea of being bold, but being bold has limits, and Kelly crossed to the wrong side of them. Johntex\^talk 21:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks. Unlicensed content is never, ever to be used on Wikipedia without a solid justification. Kelly correctly "pounced" on a stupid and dangerous situation involving misguided and frankly stupid editors who think that unlicensed content has a place on Wikipedia. This is precisely the point. Wikipedia is The Free Encyclopedia. Those who want to engage in activities that would make a less-than-free encyclopedia can take the free content and do what they like with it under the licence. Meanwhile Wikipedia itself will remain free. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlicenced content has a place on Wikipedia. If you want to make an encyclopedia containing only free content then you can of course take the free content and make a fork. Haukur 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Here comes that straw man again. Read what Tony Sidaway said again very very carefully, because I think you may have missed it: "Unlicensed content is never, ever to be used on Wikipedia without a solid justification" (emphasis mine). Your constant misrepresenting of other people's viewpoints serves only, and exclusively, to discredit yourself. --Cyde Weys 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony talked about "misguided and frankly stupid editors who think that unlicensed content has a place on Wikipedia". Well, it does have a place as Tony seems to suggest himself in the earlier part of his comment. That's all I was pointing out. I don't think I "constantly misrepresent other people's viewpoints" and I rather take offence at the accusation. If you have any particular examples where you feel I misrepresented someone's viewpoint then please send me an e-mail or take it up on my talk page. Haukur 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As I remarked earlier, this is becoming somewhat surreal. You claim that "it does have a place", well no it doesn't. Really it doesn't. It's a cancer and it will be removed. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The way your message was threaded it looked like you were responding to Tony's comment about "Unlicensed content is never, ever to be used on Wikipedia without a solid justification", not the comment on the main RFC. Still, please stop throwing out the straw man saying that people want to remove all freely licensed content; no one is saying that. You're turning this into black and white when it is anything but. --Cyde Weys 22:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to that comment as my quote above indicates. But I will admit that this is getting somewhat confusing - presumably you're missing a negative in your mid-sentence above. Haukur 22:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you two may be talking past each other ... you both might want to make sure you are using the same definitions of unlicensed and fair use. --Cyde Weys 22:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Cyde, that is a good suggestion. Tony, since you used the term first in your outside view, can you please explain your definition of "unlicensed material"? Johntex\^talk 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fair use" is a legal defense against a writ for copyright infringement. "Licensed" in the sense that I mean it is "distributed under a licence compatible with the GFDL, or else in the public domain." --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you agree that un-licensed images are usable on Wikipedia if they are used according to our policies and guidelines? Johntex\^talk 22:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a meaningless, pointless question. Only a court can provide the answer. We don't want our policies to be decided by courts, so we should avoid the use of unlicensed images. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I will re-phrase the question: Do you agree that our policies and guidelines allow for certain uses of un-licensed images? Johntex\^talk 23:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I

Again, an utterly meaningless question. See above. --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "See above"? There is quite a lot of discussion on this page. To what portion are you meaning to refer? Also, do you think you could possibly refrain from characterizing other people's questions as "utterly meaningless"? Johntex\^talk 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't very productive for either of us. Either you understand that we're severely limited in what we can do with other people's intellectual property (and of course Wikipedia policy can never give us the right to use that property) or you do not. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No one's disputing that. However, what's muddy is where those limits lie. Yes, the eventual goal is to not have any "unfree" images. In the meantime, we need to figure out where policy allows the usage, and where that line lies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We've already figured it out and have begun the enforcement phase. --Cyde Weys 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So we're told. At some point, someone will decide to inform the rest of us, and probably without being rude and obnoxious about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this sound to anyone else like other similar sagas we've had in the past, with almost the exact cast of characters? - brenneman ^{L} 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The other "sagas" seem resolved at this point. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's good or bad that I'm a new character in the cast. Powers 02:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolved in what sense? The suggestion that (for example) the problems with userboxe creation were greatly exacerbated by this "I have the power" mentality with regards to application of sysop privledges is a common one, repeated on this very page. The number of people who object to the methods, the voices that suggest that handeling things carefully, respectfully and politely would avoid many many more problems than it causes, are legion. Dreadfully in the minority are the bull-in-a-china-shop crowd. - brenneman ^{L} 02:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As BDJeff asked, when do the rest of us get to find out where the line is drawn? And why the line is drawn there? Powers 02:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't like to draw strict lines on Wikipedia; it would give the trolls something to aim at. --Tony Sidaway 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 has it about right. There are many reasons for drawing the line here, see the arguments in favor of free culture. We want our work to be freely available to everyone. Freely licensed work means that Jimbo or sports teams could go insane tommorow, and our work would still be available without restriction. --Interiot 03:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be all right with that as long as it was consistent, and as long as people realize that it would require removing most logos (both corporate and non-corporate) entirely, or at least a sitewide effort dedicated to finding sources discussing the logos critically and incorporating that discussion into the related articles. Powers 14:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't necessarily want that. I think we've become fixated on logos, as a community, because a lot of our editors come from the wider WWW community which tends to emphasize decorative and visual aspects of material, and doesn't have the free content ethos we have. While there are some few essential items (for instance, the historic Kent Gavin seal clubbing photograph, the powerful 1942 Philip Zec cartoon showing a shipwrecked seaman, captioned: '"The price of petrol has been increased by one penny." Official) where I'd say that there is a strong fair use argument, we shouldn't be using unlicensed material as frivolously as we have done in the past. But that's just my persoal opinion. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that we shouldn't use unlicenced material frivolously and should work on removing existing frivolous use. But we would be much the poorer without any unlicenced material at all. We obviously need to have quotations of text (fair use) and it's also reasonable to include images where a) they significantly add to an article and b) no freely licenced alternative is possible and c) we are confident that a court would uphold our fair use claim. I think it's good that we confront our fair use material honestly and carefully tag it as such. On the German Wikipedia we pretend that if you take a picture of a logo then that picture can be used without restrictions - or that the logo isn't copyrightable anyhow, or whatever fantasy allows us to have logos in articles while still claiming that there are no unlicenced images. See [11] and [12] for examples. Heh, or the main page Haukur 15:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with RfCs is that cogent, calm, and insightful comments like this one from Tony, and an earlier one from Kelly tend to get lost in the shuffle. Powers 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Time for "last call"?

To quote a band I'm sure most of you don't listen to:

Last call for alcohol

Last call for freedom of speech

Drink up: Happy Hour is now enforced by law.

I'm gratuitously quoting Dead Kennedys lyrics here because it's clearly time to wrap things up on this RfC (and also because I'm always looking for a good opportunity to quote Dead Kennedys lyrics). Kelly has plenty of helpful and unhelpful things to think about, and this really isn't the place to argue (endlessly) about the meaning of adminship, the value of RfCs, fair use of images, what the Oracle at Delphi thinks Jimbo meant, etc.

Keg's kicked fellas! Go on home, log in, and get back to the serious (yet fun) business of building an encyclopedia! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This has been open less than 48 hours. It should be held open at least 2 weeks to ensure that people have taken time to think over the issues, as well as to allow for comment from people who have not been on Wikipedia in the last couple of days. Johntex\^talk 23:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Two weeks? That's a chilling thought. =) Powers 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not time for last call yet, though my personal prescription for the current {{bonked}} condition of this RfC is take two alcohols and a WP:Wikibreak. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If memory serves the subsequent lyric is about the construction of a specialized form of screwdriver involving the addition of a "jigger of formaldehyde from Elvis Presley's brain we got in the back storeroom." Not sure this RFC has quite yet attained such a surreal state but time will tell. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the version of the song. Another has it one part Jack Daniels, two parts purple coolaid, and a jigger from formaldehyde from the jar of Hitler's brain. Yum.

My point was that this RfC seems to be moving away from "personal conduct" and further and further towards a policy debate. Policy debate is good, but maybe not so good when it's sprinkled with occaisional slaps at the user whose conduct (good or bad) has only tangentially to do with the subject of debate. SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any substantive conduct issue. Kelly expressed an opinion, some people disagreed with her and made this RfC. We disagree with one another all the time--it's silly to start a RfC where this is the only problem.

Fortunately the thing hasn't been completely useless. Just about everybody seems to agree with our existing policy that people can be blocked for egregious copyright infringements, and there is no real chance of the opposition changing this policy, even if for some reason they disagree with Kelly's right, as an editor of Wikipedia, to restate and interpret policy. --Tony Sidaway 16:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong... the policy discussion here is both interesting and informative (I get the feeling I'm pretty much a newbie compared to the interlocutors here). But then it's the same thing all over again: policy is being discussed, debated, and (perhaps) decided on this page, rather than "in the open" somewhere. So next time it comes up someone will be blocked, and when someone else says: "hey! why'd you block that guy?", someone else will say "oh, we discussed that months ago on Kelly Martin's RfC."

Should this be linked from the Village Pump? Or from the Fair Use policy page? The debate, discussion, and consensus-building on this page is of pretty good quality, but why does it have to be mixed up with this RfC? You see what I'm getting at here? --SB_Johnny 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The next time it comes up, I think it unlikely that it will be questioned at all. Blocking for copyright infringement is already fairly common, as a glance at the block log will show. Not all of Wikipedia policy is written down. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the unwritten policy an epic poem in dactylic hexameter transmitted orally from generation to generation by trained bards? Can we get a recording, or is it too long? <g> KWH 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It tends to turn up in arbitration cases, which is I suppose why I'm more aware of it than most (I'm a clerk to the Arbitration Committee). For instance, the principle that the Three revert rule is an "electric fence", and not an entitlement to three reverts per article per day, was a piece of unwritten policy that was only committed to words following an arbitration case during which certain parties had persistently edit warred while attempting to "game" the policy by limiting themselves to three reverts in each twenty-four hour period. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the word again, Part Deux?

In the spirit of Cyde's mention of people talking past each other; while that discussion, and many others here, have merit and are very important to the WP product itself and the WP processes, I am donning my Captain of the Obvious costume for a moment to remind participants, myself included, of the ...

• Statement of the Dispute Kelly Martin has stated that she is forming a new policy in order to close off ongoing discussion pertaining to an issue. Both the tone of the statement and this method of creating policy have been questioned.

The word I was looking for is focus, definition #5. I guess my edit was more on target than I would have liked, and has become one of the saga's which brenneman had mentioned. To paraphrase my own words, I admit I have WP:DICKed and definitely need more time to look at the WP:TIGERS and WP:COOL while I have A nice cup of tea and a sit down. Good night, and good luck, see you next week. — MrDolomite | Talk 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the Foundation?

I asked Jimbo and Brad to look at the discussion a couple of weeks ago, while it was still festering and hadn't yet exploded, but they never replied. Since this is a dispute over whether something qualifies as Foundation policy, could some more people ask Jimbo and/or Brad to either make an official, public declaration of policy on this matter, or else say that it's up to the community? Did anyone else try that before making or endorsing unilateral declarations of interpretation? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, August 4, 2006:

We're not fundamentally about having a really pretty encyclopedia, we're fundamentally about having a free encyclopedia, and in the end that's far more pretty, if you ask me.

So, we're making progress there, and in my view, in the coming year, we're going to do a lot more. I think by one year from today, we'll be able to stand here and say, other than the daily nonsense that goes on as people are sort of struggling to figure out what a new image is and things like that, I think we're going to have a really good comfort level that our images are all properly tagged and fair use is not just what's legal for us, but actually a very narrow group of fair use images, images which are necessary for us to use.

--Interiot 05:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading tea leaves about "What would Jimbo do?" is a a waste of time. Not to mention that (as previous encounters show) people tend to choose to interpret them only in support of their own positions. In the absence of direct comment, I'd much rather we engaged in meaningful discoure as opposed to the appeal to authority. - brenneman ^{L} 05:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What part of "actually very narrow fair use images" is open for interpretation? That seems pretty crystal-clear to me. --Cyde Weys 06:14, 11 August 2006

It's clear that we're meant to just charge out and make up some rules on the fly and then enforce them? Because, gosh, that's not clear to me in that at all. When you're falling back on vague statements from the Oracle as your defence, you're on damn thin ground.

• We've already got fairly strong fair use policies, and the blocking policy already explicitly states that anyone who re-inserts an image while it's being discussed is prone to a block.
• This isn't an RfC on the fair use policy, it's an editor behavior policy, so discussions about possible future policies that Jimbo thinks will be in place are only a diversion.
• Not an admin privledges one, mind you, so discussions of the validity of the block seem diversionary as well.

It's been said many times, but it's worth saying again: You can do the right thing in totally the wrong way. Focusing with admirable steadfastness only on the outcomes and on fair use questions is a tacit admission that the methods were appalling.

brenneman ^{L} 06:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Two questions

In an attempt to cut through some of the crap let me pose 2 questions to Aaron.

1. Do you believe that Kelly's policy is fundamentally correct and are just upset at the manner in which it was imposed, or do you believe that galleries of fair use images should be permitted?
2. Given that the discussion lasted over 2 weeks, and there was a small number of participants, some of whom are hardcore believers in the use of galleries to make the encyclopedia pretty (as opposed to the very narrow use policy implied above), a simple numerical consensus was unlikely. How would you have dealt with the issue, and when? Thatcher131 (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

These are both "Mr Burns, your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight-train" questions. They indiscriminantly mix multiple concepts and false assumptions. I'll attempt to pull out the threads and give complete answers.

1. Looking over Kelly's recent contributions there are no edits to any policy pages. There's a very interesting draft of a power consolidation idea at User:Kelly Martin/Policy council which appears to contradict both our tenants against instruction creep and not being a beauracracy, but no policy written that I see.
   • I'll presume that the trivialising nature of the phrase "just upset" was unintentional. I have yet to see a cogent defence of the manner in which Kelly conducted herself, the disrespect that she showed to other editors, or of her apparent incomprehension regarding what is and is not policy.
   • While the policies and guidelines are always descriptive as opposed to proscriptive, the cries of "policy is not what's written" fail to give credence to the collaberative nature of wikipedia editing, the problems inherent with inconsistant application of tacit rules, and the quite reasonable expectations of fairness and transparency that those on the recieving end of policies have.
   • The false dichotomy that is presented many times here is the "with us or against us" of fair use terrorism. It is quite conceiveable that one can feel strongly about copyright compliance and still feel that someone with the attitude towards admistrator privledge demonstrated here should not be weilding it.
2. This is the "Oh yeah smart guy?" and what I would have done has nothing to do with this request for comment. But since I've got balls as big as church bells and I'm always happy to provide people with ammunition, here goes. I cannot of course be sure what I would actually have done. I'll try not to overthink it in order to give a reasonable response, but in all likelyhood this will be a better course of action than I would actually have committed.
   • Rolling back the clock, let's presume that it is 15:06, 8 August 2006. The Wikipedia:Logos page was at its this state, and the talk page was like this.
   • The blocking policy page at that time stated quite explicitly that "If there is a dispute in good faith over whether a work can be used, editors should err on the side of caution, and remove the disputed work from articles until the issue is settled. Editors who persistently insert disputed material, after having been warned, may be blocked to protect the project."
   • Making a note of this blocking policy section on the Logos talk (LT) page, I'd have stated that in enforcing existing policy and as there was a reasonable doubt as to the fair-use status of these galleries, I'd be removing them.
     • I'd have removed all galleries of sports team logos I could find. In each case I'd have made a note on the talk page of the article in question pointing to the LT page, asking that all comments regarding the removal be addressed there. If I were really thinking, I'd have started compiling a list of diffs of me removing them at LT as well.
     • If the galleries were replaced, I'd have made a further note on the article's talk, on LT and on the user's talk page. The note on the user's talk would have stressed that we take copyright very seriously, and pointed out that blocking for potential copyright violation was well within policy. Eg "Even if you're right mate don't edit war over it or you'll get blocked. The policy says you have to wait until we work it out."
     • This is not a content dispute, so if the behavior continued, I would have blocked the user for three hours after a single warning, while making a note on the Adminstrator's notice board at the same time. I'd have given warnings and applied escalating blocks if the behavior continued, making notes to LT and ANI every time.
   • I'd also have attempted to widen the audience at the LT page. The note at the Adminstrator's notice board would in all likelyhood have done so, but notes on the village pump and the fair use page would not have gone astray.

I hope that fully answers Thatcher131's questions, still having very little idea what relevence that his to this request for comment.

brenneman ^{L} 15:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You say "I have yet to see a cogent defence of the manner in which Kelly conducted herself". Do you understand that there are a lot of editors who have not yet seen any meaningful criticism of how Kelly Martin conducted herself? --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet, I'd wager that if Aaron had done as he said rather than Kelly having done what she did... I bet we wouldn't have had an RfC on his behavior. =) Powers ^T 02:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still in considerable doubt as to why we have this RfC. It seems to have no substance at all. Nothing about Kelly's actions was in any way problematic. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So, basically, we've come to the conclusion that I am not Aaron Brenneman. This particular fact, while personally very fulfilling, is not news. Aaron has his way of dealing with the Wikipedia community, and I have mine. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the Rfc in great detail, I concluded that it is your way of dealing with the community that is the primary problem.--MONGO 06:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you say that. From my point of view, my methods seem pretty effective. If I were to conduct myself the way Aaron would have me conduct myself, I would be far less able to implement necessary changes in policy. Which is probably why I've successfully implemented policy changes on several occasions, and Aaron has been able to do so not at all, as far as I can tell. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia. It is not a manners workshop, nor is it a mutual admiration society. I am not overly concerned about what a tiny minority of Wikipedia's editors think of me, no matter how loudly they bray, because I know that what I'm doing is for the betterment of the encyclopedia. There are a number of trite phrases that apply here ("You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" is a good example). Not everyone on Wikipedia can get their way. It's not my job to ensure that everyone is happy. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself..."Looking over the Rfc in great detail, I concluded that it is your way of dealing with the community that is the primary problem". Not sure I can elaborate on it much more than that. I completely disagree that policy can only be changed by bulldozing your way through this project.--MONGO 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the things I've noticed about life is that problems usually don't get fixed until someone pushes hard to raise awareness of the problem and the need for a fix. Being overly polite does not fix problems. Those who push hardest to fix a problem are often vilified at the time and later, even though the solution comes to be accepted, and even praised, later. Hang in there, baby! (although you are doing just fine.) -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, MONGO. This Rfc is mostly about manners. I agree with the policy, but not Kelly's implementation of it. Looking at her history, Kelly was (and continues to be) one of Wikipedia's most influential contributors and administrators. However, to quote Spiderman: "With great power there must come great responsibility." It can't be that hard to implement good policy. Most editors will follow, and there are remedies for those who abusively disagree. Finding a non-confronational way is (in my opinion) a standard that all administrators should strive for. Kelly has (again in my opinion) decided to assume bad faith and unilaterally draw a line in the sand, daring anyone to cross. Kelly is beyond all shadow of a doubt one of the people who keep Wikipedia running, but I urge her to remember that we lowly contributors are the life force of this project. Danielross40 11:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't overestimate her contributions or underestimate yours.--MONGO 13:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I really wish people would stop quoting silly movies as if they were descriptive of real life. What next, the Simpsons guide to Wikipedia? Nobody has a responsibility to pander to the oversensitive.

As for the false accusations of bad faith, they beggar belief. Stop wracking your brains to manufacture petty piddling grievances, and the perception of a "problem" will go away. --Tony Sidaway 11:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about Winston Churchill: "The price of greatness is responsibility." -- nae'blis 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Better. Kelly can hardly be accused of abusing her powers or exercising them irresponsibly. Rather, she's upset some people by exercising them appropriately. That's fine in my book. Those who were upset, it seems to me, needed a good lesson in what Wikipedia is and is not about. --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, the problem is an intractable one, between a group of people who feel that effectiveness and efficiency are to be the primary concerns in running Wikipedia, and those that feel that communication and community should be equally, or even more highly, valued. Criticizing people in the former group for being incivil, rude, insensitive, or brusque is pointless, because they're doing it for the good of Wikipedia. Fortunately, there are enough people in both groups that the Wikipedia as a whole stays mostly on a middle course. Occassionally, however, we get problems like this one, and some people seem drawn to it like iron to a magnet; there seems little choice on these occassions but for the first group to say "Just leave us alone to keep the Wiki running; keep making your silly edits to frivolous articles if you must, but we know what's best" and the second group to say "Take your heads out of the sand and try to appear a little less sanctimonious once in a while," with the twain never to meet. Powers ^T 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this reflects a fundamental schism within Wikipedia: there are people who believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia being written by a community, and people who believe that Wikipedia is a community that happens to be writing an encyclopedia. (Both of them are wrong: by and large, the people writing the encyclopedia are not part of the community at all.) The communitarians grossly overvalue the importance of the community in writing the encyclopedia, because they are either ignorant of, or choose to ignore, the fact that most of the edits to the encyclopedia come from people who are not members of the community. Most editors edit a small number of pages, rarely participate in talk pages, and almost never participate in discussions other than on talk pages. The community does play a significant role in maintaining the encyclopedia (in that they are responsible for most of the vandal management), which is important, but they are not the primary editors. Of course, at this juncture someone will point to some prominent Wikipedian who does both -- but that's one in a drop. Simon Pulsifer, who has some 80,000 edits and is somewhat active in the community (although not all that much!), is still a tiny fraction of all edits committed to article space. Based on my experience and the statistics I have seen, I would conclude that most of the people yelling for more respect for the community are more interested in the community as a community, rather than out of any true concern for the encyclopedia itself. We could destroy the entire community and Wikipedia would not stop as a result. We'd have some vandalism issues for a while, but those would sort themselves out over time. I am simply tired of the widely-spread but false belief that the "community" represents all editors of Wikipedia; it doesn't, and its members need to stop pretending that it does. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I rest my case. Powers ^T 17:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a somewhat unusual way of looking at it, I would think. Certainly, the majority of edits may come from people who are not part of the "community" (although that's a semantic debate in its own right); but not all edits are of equal value to the encyclopedia. I suspect that if you examined a more limited set of edits—editors responsible for writing or maintaining FAs, for example, or people working on collaborations, or doing peer reviews, or helping with WikiProjects—you would find that a much higher proportion would self-identify, at least, as being part of the "Wikipedia community." Kirill Lokshin 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you review the research that SethIlys presented at Wikimania; the results of his study would probably surprise you. Major article editors are surprisingly uninvolved in the community. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was at Seth's talk, and I don't really see how it's relevant here, as it assumes that raw content addition is necessarily the most important aspect of creating the encyclopedia. As I mentioned above, it's the people who turn the material that has been added into actual high-quality articles that I'm interested in; and nothing in Seth's results seems to indicate that said contributors are necessarily the same ones that excel in sheer volume of added text. Kirill Lokshin 01:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is clear that quantity does not equal quality. I think there is a good chance that most quality edits come from those who are somewhat part of the community. I don't think these editors need to be treated with kid gloves but the repeated low tolerance for dissent or ignorance will drive such users away. It's a thankless task and the last thing you need is terse comments from established wikipedians. No one is suggesting that the application of policy should slow down. But how the other editors are informed about such changes should always be with a patient direction to a valid argument. Phrases such as "I am right", or "I know what I am doing" and worst of all blocks are not acceptable. This is the whole basis of the civility issues that are one of the five pillars.

Of course the root of these problems is due to the 'community leaders' having to repeated themselves ad nauseum. In general they know what is right, having discussed it many times before, but are not willing to keep arguing for the rationale. Worse, in some cases they insist they are right without even listening to other peoples opinions. In these cases, rather than biting people the least they should do is politely explain by referring to a page of their (or community) rationale, preferably with examples. Unfortunately it is more usual to bulldose through the ideas with the attitude of "I know what I am doing". This is all about communication or more to the point, lack of it. David D. (Talk) 22:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pointless getting into an argument about who edits the encyclopedia and who belongs to the community. That there is an ongoing problem with increasingly petty complaints from people who consider themselves to be part of the community, about people who announce or execute Wikipedia policy, is a fact. --Tony Sidaway 20:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see "announce" at How are policies started except for by "Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers". --Aaron Brenneman 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And yet we always have and always do announce policies. Not all Wikipedia policy is written down. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're painfully stretching the word to mean "the discussion that takes place before a policy is accepted" I find that questionable. Please do give examples of policies that have been announced by other than the people noted above. And who is "we" in that sentance? - Aaron Brenneman 13:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh do stop being silly. All of our written policies are announced on the wiki, otherwise they wouldn't be called "written policies." The "we" in the sentence refers to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but "announce" and "bury in a comment on some talk page" are not quite the same thing. (This is, of course, not a problem exclusive to this case, or to any particular admin. I wonder if we need to have something like the Signpost, but to do a weekly summary of changes/clarifications/whatnot to policies; it's pretty difficult to keep up with them otherwise, especially when the policy pages themselves don't get updated to reflect the changes.) Kirill Lokshin 13:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, Oh do stop being rude. I'll take your non-answer as meaning that you in fact do not have any other examples of policy being declared by fiat. If you're going to play the "words mean whatever I want them to" game, please do it somewhere else, and restict your comments here to those that are grounded in facts. Additionally, the reliance on the pathetic fallacy and anthropomorphisation of "Wikipedia" are the heralds of a weak underlying argument. - Aaron Brenneman 14:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "policy by fiat" might be overstating it a bit. The template for CSD-I6 ({{Fair use in}}) says that fair-use images should only be used to illustrate the object in question, otherwise the image can be speedy deleted, and that any other uses of this image may be copyright infringement. This use was definitely not to illustrate the object in question. Is it that big of a leap to say that the image can be speedied, to saying that users can be blocked for repeatedly reinserting it in the article? --Interiot 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole "Policy by fiat" thing is complete nonsense. All Kelly did was announce a perfectly sensible codification of existing practice. Nearly all of our existing policies have been made in this way. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no question that she did the right thing. I sifted out the rhetoric about her action and surmised that what the main complaint is about her attitude. I based this on her responses here. Look, others have had Rfc's filed about their actions, both you and I have for instance, and in these examples, we generally agreed to make alterations to how we go about things. I see no evidence that Kelly will stop being either sanctimonious or condescending, and that simply isn't what I hoped to see happen here.--MONGO 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sanctimonious, condescending, presumptuous, arrogant, call it what you like, it isn't a conduct issue on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Aaron, finally catching up and rereading this. Each defense of Kelly's actions, whether in regards to her incivility or overstepping bounds has boiled down to empty, vacous word games or basically can be read by any half-intellegient person as "how dare you pick on an admin!", "how dare you pick on Kelly!", or the amazing "LOL" implication by Cyde up-page. rootology (T) 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you give an example of incivility by Kelly in this instance? And yes, indeed, how dare you pick on an admin simply for announcing a policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(comment by Interiot, moved up)

Was that a reply to me? Because I'm not talking about fair use and this RfC itself isn't about that, it's about Kelly's tone, behavior, etc. rootology (T) 15:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. What, precisely, was uncivil about the behavior by Kelly in announcing her policy? --Tony Sidaway 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So what was the block for? I see no reason for dialog at that point. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Which block? Kelly's block of Cardsplayer4life at 03:47 UTC on 9 August 2006 ? As she noted in her summary, "Intentional insertion of prohibited unlicensed media gallery." --Tony Sidaway 16:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So dialog was inappropriate? David D. (Talk) 16:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The word "community" was not exactly essential to my comment, and I didn't mean it solely in the sense Kelly Martin has interpreted it, but then I haven't been doing a very good job of making my points on this page, it seems. Maybe I could rephrase my comment as "editors who favor pillar #3 versus those who favor pillar #4." Or something. Powers ^T 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

...is backlogged for over 3 weeks. If sysops indeed take copyright infringment seriously and immediately, then someone should go and clear up all these reported problems that are blatant! - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear. rootology (T) 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I took care of a day's worth, though I must admit, I'm not sure I understand the insinuation above. There's a lot of work to be done, and people only have limited time. So I can perfectly understand how someone takes these issues very seriously (for instance, Greg Maxwell), but doesn't have the time to work on all facets of this issue, and thus, chooses one of them to focus on, such as fair use image galleries. --Cyde Weys 22:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bearcat's statement

Bearcat says: "the law governing fair use explicitly states that a copyrighted image only meets the definition of fair use in a discussion of the thing itself; it does not meet fair use policy if it's being used to illustrate a different topic, even if that topic is a related one." I'd be interested to see a source on this, not necessarily because I doubt it's true; I'm just curious on the wording. Regardless, however, of how accurate this assessment of the law is, there is still a legitimate question over the intepretation of it and how it applies to, for example, sports leagues. Take, for example, a league article that discusses each team's history in the league, along with perhaps intraleague rivalries and a comparison among the league's teams. Logos in that article would indeed be appearing with a discussion of the things themselves, as much as they are on the teams' main articles. Surely they wouldn't be disallowed in that situation? Powers ^T 01:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To attempt to keep this discussion on-track, could this be movd to the fair use talk page with a link from here? If no one screams, I'll do it myself.
brenneman ^{L} 01:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also curious. I scoured both WP:FAIR and WP:LOGO (Admittedly, policies which are of generally little importance to me in the process of editing.), and I couldn't find the sentence(s) which "explicitly precludes the use of "fair use" logos and photos in any context other than the specific article about the specific topic." in either. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As four of us (so far) have endoresed Bearcat's summary, I think it should stay. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 09:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume he meant my comment and subsequent discussion moreso than Bearcat's statement. However, I'd worry about my comment getting lost on the Fair Use discussion page. I have enough trouble getting replies here. =) Powers ^T 12:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn's endorsement/general statement

I'm not gonna get real involved in this, but I felt like I should explain my endorsement - orphaned endorsements are a pet peeve of mine. I strongly recommend Kelly Martin change her tone and allow for consensus-building discussion rather than acting unilaterally. Unwritten policies cannot be reviewed or edited by the community and are not valid reasons for blocking. If someone would direct me to discussion/voting or whatever goes on for the Board of Trustees elections (if they aren't already finished) for my own reading purposes, I'd greatly appreciate it. Any comments related to my endorsement will find me quicker at my talk page - I don't anticipate it being notable, but hey, no reason not to make myself available, right?  :-) Karwynn (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thought:These sort of comments [13][14] make me think that this is not a slip-up of policy; moreover, it seems to be a lack of understanding or possibly even respect for the civility policy or dispute resolution. I've seen countless disputes, some very divisive, some including disputes over WIkipedia policy, both with admins involved and without, that were solved without sarcasm, disdain or intentional intimidation. Intimidation and not-so-light-hearted sarcasm only serve to inflame and alienate people and cannot be productive. The way to solve disputes is not to use scare tactics and take advantage of one's position as an administrator to supercede civility and mutual respect as equals. Tactics like intimidation that specifically target another user's feelings rather than their claims are counterproductive, inflammatory, and just plain mean. I've seen several vandals-turned-legit editors, even if they have to get a username - what would the effects be on that sort of "transformation" if {{test}} were replaced with "If you so much as misspell another word in one of your edits, you and your IP address will be banned forever. Your kind are not welcome here!" Working together is always better than pulling rank and being closed to discussion. Intentional intimidation is not acceptable in dispute resolution under any circumstances. Karwynn (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have copied this last paragraph to an outside view, I'm interested ini what people think about this intimidation factor. Karwynn (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The real point of the RfC

• Statement of the Dispute on the RfC is "has stated that she is forming a new policy in order to close off ongoing discussion pertaining to an issue. Both the tone of the statement and this method of creating policy have been questioned."

As apparently some people are hell-wrought to sidetrack and dissuade this into justifying actions based on their friendships with the subject of the RfC.

Comments like these, and apparently the fact that this was NEVER posted to the Policy prior to this. Policy--especially such important policy--needs to be done right, by the books, and in the right venues. If a group DID decide this outside of Wikipedia, it needs to be posted and explained STILL in the right venues. Right venue does not equate to one admin saying "I AM THE WIKIPEDIA" essentially. Kelly is NOT the Foundation and despite what any one (or small cabal) of admins think, no one person is above process or more than the collective whole. As I said in my outside view, the end result was Good, and to take a cue from what others said, the execution was Bad to Atrocious, depending on views expressed throughout. Can anyone honestly defend a superior tone such as these? That is the problem, and going back to look at the initial unilateral tone and behavior that spawned the user box mess and months of fighting, we have an established trend of a Wikipedian (to quote MONGO, a widely respected admin in most circles) going "bull in a chinashop" on her peers. This is good why?

• From here: "Anybody who wishes to create a policy contrary to the one I have crafted is welcome to try."
• From here: "You are all hereby informed that any admin may block any editor who reverts an edit removing a gallery of team logos from a sports league, provided that the edit removing the gallery clearly indicates in its edit summary that the use of logo galleries in sports league is prohibited by Wikipedia policy." and "This has gone on too long; it ends now."
• From here: "This issue was discussed and decided at Wikimania." and "This is now policy."
• From here: "this was discussed and decided at Wikimania during a copyright panel: you may NOT do this. anyone who reverts this article to include the gallery WILL be blocked."
• From here: "discussions may not continue forever" and "It is also not a loudocracy." Apparently, however, when certain admins feel that they can be the loudocracy, it is fine? rootology (T) 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Root, I've liked your edits, and certainly don't question your good faith, but I have to say, I just don't see that this is a serious problem. Sure, it would be preferable for Kelly to have used a slightly softer touch, and it might have been better to say "interpretation of existing policy" instead of "policy," but I don't see any of your examples as even approaching the bounds of civility, particularly if one concludes (as we both have) that Kelly's ultimate decision was basically right. It seems to me that if people assumed a little more good faith with regard to Kelly herself, this wouldn't be a 70K flamewar. YMMV, of course, TheronJ 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Like yours too Theron, you're amazingly level-headed and even-handed (whilst I tend to favor a hammer, sometimes...). But the Statement of the Dispute on the RfC is "has stated that she is forming a new policy in order to close off ongoing discussion pertaining to an issue. Both the tone of the statement and this method of creating policy have been questioned." That's the issue--it wasn't a CIVIL violation but it WAS incivil by her own admission on this page (see Karwynn's section above this one). The method of policy creation/modification is what's most troubling to me overall--the fact that this was deemed to be right "IRL" and the only proclomation was that, basically, Kelly said she's making a new rule. She'd been back for several days or longer from Wikimania? What was the great difficulty in her--or any of the hundreds of others there--to post this to the policy page if it was such a great, amazing, pressing matter of life and death? And please, everyone, spare us the "not all of policy is on Wikipedia" nonsense; it's become an empty neologism on the level of "POV pushers" at this point. rootology (T) 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Theron, on the other hand, if Kelly assumed a little more good faith with regard to other users she would have a better strategy of informing people of policy changes, rather than acting like a "bull in a chinashop". You are effectively asking us to ignore her bad faith comments since she is correct. I would ask her to think about how she can be more effective in wikipedia without stirring up a hornets nest everytime she launches into her policy enforcement mode. If she just toned it down a bit she would probably be highly respected. David D. (Talk) 16:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

David, I'm already highly respected, in large part because I don't "tone it down" to protect the feelings of people who think that they have some God-Given Right To Be Consulted On Every Matter. I am not obliged to get permission before taking action on Wikipedia. I am charged, as an administrator, to exercise the authority I have been given with due concern for the best interests of the encyclopedia. I act as I see fit toward that goal. If my actions harm Wikipedia, then I assume that I will have my authority taken away. That has yet to happen, and frankly I don't think it's going to any time soon, either.

In this particular case, there had been a sterile edit war and a sterile discussion going on for at least a month. It was obvious to me, and should be obvious to anyone who looks, that the trenches had been dug and nobody was going to budge. Previous attempts (mainly by others, not so much by me) to reach a consensus had failed. The Gordian knot had been tied but good. I did what needed to be done: I cut the knot. And yes, some people complained. Some because they were on the losing side of the decision, and to them I say tough; maybe you should have cooperated in an attempt to reach compromise, instead of deadlocking the discussion in your infinite stubbornness. Others, because they don't like it when they feel left out of the decision making process, and to them I also say tough; maybe next time you'll consider being bold when the situation calls for it, or at least you'll do something other than stand around impotently reciting chapter and verse from the Holy Book of Wikipedia when what is really needed is for someone to make a decision.

Finally, I think it does Wikipedia good to "stir up the hornet's next" every once in a while. You people get too complacent, too convinced of your own moral rightness as you run around chanting your holy verses. And all the time you're running around accreting more and more layers of stifling bureaucracy on top of what is supposed to be an exciting, fun project to write an encyclopedia. Once in a while we need to burn off some of that bureaucracy, and I, for one, don't mind a weenie roast once in a while. Marshmallows, anyone? Kelly Martin (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"You people" going on about our/their God-given moral-rightness and holy verses seems a little extreme - who exactly does that extend to? Myself? If so, I think that may be a bit of an exaggeration, and it's this sort of mindset - "they're just whiners, why can't they just see that I'm right?" - that hinders discussion, thus hindering consensus building, thus hindering cooperation in encyclopedia authoring. Disdainful exaggeration makes Wikipedia quite a bit less fun, as does intimidation tactics. Taking a long-running dispute and saying "Fine, no agreement? Then this is the way it's going to be. And I'm not going to write it down anywhere, so you'll just have to swallow it without any input". People aren't saying you need to consult, they're sawying they need to be able to add input if they seek out the means to do so. You seem to have cut them off from any possible means of doing so, thus acting unilaterally and against the concept of consensus.

I'll be honest, I know and understand little about the actual policy being discussed, but your method of handling all this comes off as improper. Specifically, the intimidation and blocking. I elaborate in my outside view and in an above heading about intimidation, but what thing I didn't include is this: being bold is a guideline that applies to all users. In your "boldness" in bypassing and even cutting off discussion, complete with unnecessary disdain and dismissiveness, you used administrative tools to do so. That's what really seems improper to me more than anything; if it was true, productive boldness, it could've come from any old editor. But your brand of "boldness" was only effective if you blocked people who disagreed with you. That's not boldness, that's misuse of admin tools. Karwynn (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at Kelly's block log. Quite a number of people have disagreed with her, but the only person she has blocked recently had already knowingly added considerable amounts of unlicensed material to several articles. In performing blocks in such circumstances she has the explicitly stated support, on this RfC alone, of ten experienced administrators. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn, Tony is right--we need to stop talking about the block per se. Again, "has stated that she is forming a new policy in order to close off ongoing discussion pertaining to an issue. Both the tone of the statement and this method of creating policy have been questioned." That's what we are here to dicuss. rootology (T) 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. I still don't like it, but that's not what this RfC is for. Still, all the threatening to block in place of discussion seems like borderline misuse of admin authority, but I scratched off my comments about the block. Karwynn (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's telling that you're attacking me without any knowledge of the dispute that I stepped into resolve. You claim that I cut off discussion, but you don't even know if there was any discussion to cut off, or if that discussion was actually productive (hint: it wasn't). As far as I can tell, you're just here to jump on the "jump on Kelly Martin" bandwagon. Now, I understand why this is fun: to many people in the Wikipedia community, I represent an authority figure, and it's always fun to try to tear down authority figures. But it's not productive; in fact, it's really a form of trolling (which, judging from your block log and recent contributions, is something you're quite familiar with already). Also, I have never blocked anyone for disagreeing with me. I have no need to do that. I have blocked people for violating policy -- and who may or may not also have disagreed with me -- but the reason for their blocks was because they violated policy, or otherwise did things to harm Wikipedia, or individual Wikipedians other than myself. If someone is attacking me and I think they should be blocked for it, I have always asked another admin to do the block. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't, and I trust their judgment to do what's right for Wikipedia, just as they trust mine to do the same.

As to hindering discussion: the roving posses of conformity controllers do far more to hinder discussion than anything I've ever done. There's how many kilobytes of discussion on this talk page now? Do you really think that my actions hinder discussion? It seems to me like they engender it. And anyway, there is a point in every discussion where further discussion is unproductive. Unfortunately, as a community we're not good at seeing when we've crossed that point, and even worse at deciding that it's time to make a decision. We have this silly belief that consensus will arise after sufficient discussion. This isn't even true when you have discussions in person, and it's even less true in online forums. Issues can be, and on Wikipedia often are, discussed far beyond the point of usefulness. Unfortunately, we've built up a culture of antidecisiveness and of timidity, and that culture hampers us continually. I don't like it, and I won't stand for it. Someone around here has to show some decisiveness once in a while, and if nobody else will do it, well, then, I will. If you don't like it, then feel free to ask the Arbitration Committee to remove my sysop rights. I don't think they will. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold up. I'm not attacking you, nor do I stand by my comments on your block (you edit conflicted me, see my reply above.) Nor do I wish you to be sesysopped. YOu are way jumping to conclusions here, and frankly, are coming off a bit.. assumptive? I don't know if that's a word, but you aren't listening to me, you're assuming. WHy I would have any reason to jump on a "take Kelly down" bandwagon? Try assuming good faith, it can work wonders for dispelling distressing suspicions. My comments here are sincere and should be taken at face-value, without any hidden motives or agendas. I just think you should rethink the way you deal with disputes. As far as me being a troll, my recent contributions have been pretty much flawless in the "Am I trolling?" department, so I really don't know what you're referring to. I won't go into the blocks, but I'm not gonna sit here and get insulted as a troll. If you think I'm trolling, take the appropriate dispute resolution steps and file an RfC or RfAr so that it can be discussed openly instead of me being subjected to mere drive by accusations like these. Karwynn (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)