User:Improv/Quotes/kelly martin rfarb 03jan2006

Kelly Martin and Snowspinner

 * Wikiproject:Userboxes
 * Potentially dozens of others at Requests for comment/Kelly Martin and Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3
 * Wikiproject:Userboxes
 * Potentially dozens of others at Requests for comment/Kelly Martin and Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3

(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.) , 
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

Statement by karmafist
I'm not a direct party, but i'm part of WP:UB, which for all intents and purposes is, and I'm very concerned in regards to recent events. Snowspinner and Kelly Martin deleted several dozens of userboxes in the time around the end of 2005, in the belief that they were justified in doing so. A record number of endorsements against Kelly's actions were endorsed in Kelly's rfc, and a related rfc was moved against Snowspinner for multiple blocks and deletions having to do with Kelly's rfc. However, both rfcs have gotten out of control, but not resolved.

Needless to say, if accepted, Kelly must be recused from this matter. It's my belief that this issue may decide the legitimacy of all processes on Wikipedia, determining whether or not certain people are above the need for working within any structure. karmafist 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One point. You say, "needless to say, if accepted, Kelly must be recused from this matter" as if she wouldn't. I'd like to think she's the sort of person who would. Or don't you trust her? Rob Church Talk 18:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2
I stand by my actions as being in line with Wikipedia's core purpose of writing an encyclopedia. None of the userboxes I deleted served in any way to help write an encyclopedia. Userboxes are a symptom of an illness in the Wikipedia community: specifically, the development of a faction of editors who put the community ahead of the encyclopedia, and who spend more of their time on Wikipedia playing about in the community than they do either editing the encyclopedia or in the unavoidable management of the community, and in fact create more trouble for the people who are tasked with managing the community, through their constant creation of petty and irrelevant disputes. Furthermore, I am very concerned about the potential for the use of userboxes as mechanism for dividing the Wikipedia community into ideological factions. I have no objection to making the "community" "fun" for people, but reasonable limits must be drawn lest we turn into another Slashdot -- which has long since lost its original purpose of providing timely news on tech issues and has degenerated into a discussion forum.

I urge the Arbitration Committee to reject this Request for Arbitration on the grounds that there is no remedy which the Committee can reasonably order which will serve any purpose in this situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Snowspinner
Ooh, wow! I haven't gotten an RFAr in ages! Phil Sandifer 02:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask, more seriously, by what standard is the matter not resolved? Did I delete a bunch of userboxes while I wasn't looking after the RfC was filed? Was my RfC changed into something about the userboxes in the first place? I thought it was about the "help userboxes" template I deleted. But, really - shouldn't there be, you know, some kind of ongoing dispute instead of a one-time disagreement before there's a RFAr? Phil Sandifer 02:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by a bystander
I recognise that making a statement at this point may cause me to be a party to this arbitration if it is accepted, but I do not feel that the ArbComm should accept this arbitration at this time, the RFC has not run its course, nor has the discussion on proposed policy changes around userboxes run its course. Those should be allowed to proceed. ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:BorgHunter
Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy, as it stands, demands that all disputes be brought through first talk pages, then a RfC or RfM, and finally, if all else fails, to the Arbitration Committee. As such, the question must be answered, before the Committee takes the case, has the rest of the dispute resolution process been exhausted? Nevermind anyone's personal opinions on userboxes (which were irrelevant in the RfC, and are irrelevant now), or their personal opinion on the deletion process as it stands. Has Kelly Martin's request for comment failed?

It certainly has produced a nearly unprecedented amount of conflict. I am not going to assign blame for any of this disruption, and I would also like to apologize to Kelly Martin for the results of this dispute, which has irreperably tarnished her reputation in this community. That said, I stand by my original statement in the request for comment I brought to Wikipedia, and continue to maintain that the userbox deletions were improper. However, the situation as it stands is indeed stable. Kelly Martin has not deleted a single page since the RfC against her began. She has continued to act in good faith throughout her RfC, with some minor and forgivable lapses of civility therein. She has also proposed a policy regarding the creation of userboxes, which was one of the alternatives to mass deletion I offered at the beginning of the RfC. In short, Kelly Martin has indeed acted in good faith to reach consensus since the request was filed, and I thank her for that. Although she has remained unapologetic for her deletions, it is not required for any user to apologize for actions he has taken. Again, regardless of her attitude, she has thus far accepted the result of the RfC (which can easily be said to be against the deletions, at least until consensus has been reached), and has not made any attempt to undo the actions of other editors who have recreated the templates. This request for arbitration is unnecessary, and only serves to divide the community further on an issue which has already brought about a maelstrom of controversy. Requests for arbitration are only appropriate if requests for comment have failed, and there is no evidence that they have done so. Only another unexplained deletion on the scale Kelly Martin was originally planning could be used as evidence that arbitration is necessary.

I join Ms. Martin in urging the Arbitration Committee to reject this request. It is a waste of the time of the Committee, and a waste of the energy hundreds have already poured into resolving the situation, and would undoubtedly pour again if another forum were to be opened regarding her behavior. &mdash;BorgHunter (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by brenneman
While this was entered into in haste, I'd urge the arbitrators (including TK) to try and see the forest for the trees. This has very little nothing to do with userboxes, and the respondants' focus on that issue is either a deliberate attempt to divert discussion away from their behavior or an indication that they are unaware of the results of this behavior.

Like it or not, we have two classes of contributors to wikipedia. The seven hundred or so admins (with the active number being much lower) and the several thousand "regular" contributors. While this "should be no big deal" it clearly is.

The overwhelming majority of the work that actually builds this encyclopedia is done by those people without access to the restricted functions. The writing of articles, the uploading of images, the creation of redirects, checking spelling, verifying facts... none of these require any shiny buttons. What they do require is time, patience, and some sense of satisfactions from the continuing experiance. If these individuals are going to be expected to keep putting in long hours slaving over the hot keyboard for no pay, they must be appreciated, and kept happy.

They are also reminded frequently enough that there are rules that they must obey. Some of these rules are about content: They must use a neutral tone, they must cite sources, etc. Many of these are about behavior too: be nice, edit respectfully, etc. Even if they don't personally get the rough end of the pineapple, they see plenty of people who do. Guidelines for behavior are a good thing, and are critical not only to the smooth operation of the encyclopedia's content, but to the continuing cheer of it's contributors.

However, when both the content and the contributor are dismissed out of hand, feelings will get hurt. Warning, blocking, and finger chaking happen all the time to people who aren't carrying the mop, and it's pretty fair to expect that those who do wield it will have some checks and balances on their behavior. But they don't.

The measures that are applied to admins are all peer pressure. If there does not exist even the appearance that we respect the non-admins as much as we do the admins, if we don't even pretend that there can be some consequences for what is perceived as uncivil, diresprectful, abusive behavior, what are we going to tell the little people? Especially for those admins for whom social measures have no effect?

The continuing climb in standards at WP:RFA is one symptom of this malaise. Since there is no effective way to control behavior once you've been given the mop and bucket, people don't want to give it to anyone they can't trust implicitly. Unless the ArbCom is willing to demonstrate that there does exist some review not only of the actions of it's de facto upper class, but the manner in which they are carried out, it will bode poorly indeed for the future of the project. - brenneman (t) (c)  02:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved party &mdash; and an admin &mdash; I concur with Aaron's incisive synopsis. This has absolutely nothing to do with userboxes, and everything to do with the evidently widespread perception that there has been an abuse of privilege.  While the RfC page is, of course, full of the usual trolls and people with axes to grind, it is also full of an unprecedent number of good editors who don't normally involve themselves in the "meta" aspects of the wiki.  I don't believe that any of these people are crying crocodile tears over their beloved userboxes; many of them, myself included, have explicitly claimed a dislike for them.  What is at issue, it seems to me, are (a) the initial ignoring of rules, which might have not been such a big deal if it had not been followed up with (b) what can only be described as threats and misuse of the "block" button and (c) the lack of even the merest pro forma nod towards building consensus.  While we can't expect our admins (or any editors) to be Caesar's wives, I think we can expect more from them than we have gotten here.  In summary, what I ask is that whether the arbcom accepts or rejects this case, they do so on the basis of the actual issues that have activated so many normally disinterested editors, rather than on the basis of "Oh, this is just about userboxes, and those are silly."  I agree that userboxes are silly.  This cacaphony is not about userboxes.  Nandesuka 03:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% with both Aaron and Nandesuka. This is about the nature of the relationship between admins and the rest of the Wikipedia population. Do admins act as tough-minded drill sergeants who resort to whatever means necessary to smack dumb, raw wikirecruits (i.e., the other 99% of Wikipedians) into line, or are they stewards who help newer Wikipedians get the hang of the place through consultation, advice, and only when those have failed, the use of special admin privileges? I like Kelly, and I like many of the admins who are dismissing the RfC as the whining of useless newbies, but this is about a lot more than userboxen. Babajobu 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I join completely in the above, with especial regard for Aaron's summation, and ask the arbitrator's to consider my outside view at Ms. Martin's RfA as a supplemental statement of these same concerns. Users will leave in droves if some sense of accountability is not restored.  Complainants must be recognized as, for the most, sincere members of the community, and not "witch-hunters," etc. Xoloz 08:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:NicholasTurnbull
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? &mdash; Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violence in Peace and War


 * WTF? Too deep. novacatz 09:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ..."Because regurgitating someone else's words makes you intelligent." -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  12:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, placing a mere quote was rather arrogant of me. Let me explain.

Whether or not Kelly Martin's actions were incorrect (I am of the view that they were not, but that perhaps better communication would have helped) the amount of ill-will that the furore has created has outweighed any damage an administrator could have likely caused by themselves (well, before being reverted, blocked or desysopped). Regardless of whether destruction is caused by "unilateral admin action" or by vitriol and bad faith being slung around the RfC, the destruction is the same: users get upset (and sometimes leave, e.g. User:Firebug), pride is hurt, opinions are dashed, characters are injured, and - above all - the community is wrest apart, little by little, due to this conflict. In fact, what is most patently clear is that Kelly's actions were the mere spark, and Kelly would have, I am certain, never intended such a ghastly outcome; and that is what I think is important. It was not Kelly's fault that users have become too attached to their user-boxes, and too infatuated with process over getting the job done. This has been taken beyond all sensible proportion, and extended into something that resembles a bloody first fight. The destruction has been wrought, but not by Kelly; it has been wrought in the "holy name" of user rights, admin accountability, and the upholding of process. I implore the arbitrators to take heed of this. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A firm round of applause for this gentleman. Rob Church Talk 18:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Zscout370
The RFC that was filed in the case against Kelly is pretty much a 200 KB muckraking, disorganized, bloodthirsty pile of garbage that I have seen. It is going nowhere, no solutions are being proposed for Kelly to correct any wrongs she might have done or ask for anything to be done. It has been taken over by lynchmobs, looking for blood, and pretty much this mess needs to end, now. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 08:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Dmcdevit
While I as well fail to see the benefit of a case against Kelly Martin, I urge the arbitration committee to consider Snowspinner's administrative actions here. He has, and after the filing of his RFC by the way, engaged in multiple wheel wars at WP:RFC/KM and Template:Help Wikiboxes, been (rightly) blocked for 3RR at WP:RFC/KM, and then promptly blocked the admin who blocked him, not to mention the original two punitive blocks that were a part of the RFC (each of which turning into wheel wars, in which he was reversed by three separate admins, and proceeded to reblock each reagrdless) , after which he proceeded to block another editor for the same reason. After this, he unimaginably goes on to defend wheel warring, saying: "The only way to oppose it is to wheel war and push on with no regard for the consequences." May as well include Karmafist in arbitration as well, as Snowspinner's partner in wheel warring. Dmcdevit·t 08:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Adrian Buehlmann
The question here is whether that "kill with an axe" attitude, which has also been shown by Snowspinner in the past, is appropriate for the userboxes case. It might be for that template:if desaster, as this was based on good faith combined with the fear to place too much burdon on the servers and the clear inability to decide how bad the situation for the servers is by consensus (though a more civil approach to communicate with the worker bees and a bit more willingness to take care about the hairy details would certainly have helped a lot). The case is whether we should endorse that admins are allowed to leave the track of calm explanations and good arguments. No doubt, it is a hard work to convince the community. But ignoring it and even fighting against it using admin tools is wrong. However, I think this request already has served it's purpose and that the ArbCom is the wrong tool to resolve this dispute. This matter really has to be decided by the community. And it certainly will be. Adrian Buehlmann 09:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Doc glasgow
I hate pointless userboxes, and so have some sympathy with Kelly's actions. Snowspinner's deletions (if not his blocks) were perfectly in order. However, I'd strongly urge Arbcomm to take this case, or, if they feel unable, to request a statement from elsewhere. As has been said, this isn't about userboxes, it is about how decisions are made and power is exercised in this project. Is it bureaucratic process or arbitrary decree; is it the consensus of the mob or a cabal? These issues keep arising - and if not dealt with at some point, then this community will rip itself apart. Arbcom can run from this unpleasantness, but they can't hide. --Doc ask? 16:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Haukur
I have taken no action and made no comment related to this case until now. I have no past history of conflict with anyone involved. I have never voiced any opinion on userboxes.

I would intuitively expect the Arbitration Committee to accept a case which involves a substantial wheel war (which can be seen, for example, in Phil's contribution log by which I don't mean to pass judgment on his actions).

This may have started as a relatively trivial disagreement about what people have on their user pages but it escalated into a case involving multiple contested administrator actions (deletions, blocks, unblocks and page protections). When administrators are in open conflict there are only two higher authorities which we can resort to and the ArbCom is one of them.

Nevertheless I think the ArbCom should not accept the case unless, in the judgment of its members, accepting it would be more helpful (or less harmful) than rejecting it. Nothing good is likely to come of this either way and the ArbCom must decide what path will ultimately be least harmful for the encyclopedia and the community that is writing it.

I don't feel I have the requisite experience or familiarity with the workings of the Arbitration Committee and the boundaries within which sysops operate to make a recommendation but I hope the members of the committee, all of whom have a great deal of experience and who were elected for their judgment, will consider carefully whether to accept or reject this case. - Haukur 17:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Rob Church
Theresa Knott said it best. Get a grip. Too many users need to re-check their facts. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, nor is it an experiment in anarchy or a micronation. The community is not more important than the encyclopedia, and if it keeps thinking that, then it needs dissolution. Fact is, this is a Request for Lynching. It's been established that such things lead to no good. Get on with what we're here for, or sod off. Rob Church Talk 18:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Zzyzx11
I recommend that the ArbCom should stay out of this affair. It has already divided the community. A ruling on either side will divide it even more because there does not seem to be any remedy that can be helpful to the project as a whole. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Mackensen
This view is intended primarily as a response to Rob Church and by extension to Theresa. The issue here is not one of whether userboxes are a good thing or a bad thing. That's something that needs to be–and should be–hashed out elsewhere, preferably at the relevant WikiProject. Only through the engagement of fellow Wikipedians is it really possible to discern what is valuable to the community and what is not.

The essential issue, then, is trust and accountability. Kelly Martin decided, essentially on her own, that many of these userboxes were bad things and therefore ought to be deleted. Conversations both on and off Wikipedia leave little doubt that she was convinced of the rightness of her action. The difficulty is that it is not at all clear that she acted with consensus, and if my three years here have proved anything, it's that the most controversial act possible, and therefore the one most dependent on consensus, is deletion.

If an article is altered, that's not a big deal. Anyone can do that, and anyone can see the edit history. Deletion, however, like blocking, is an executive power reserved specifically to administrators. I've always viewed this as a trust, something given to me by the community. Therefore I execute it according to the community's wishes, and not by my own lights. Places like AfD, RfD, and TfD were created as a means for divining community consensus in these matters–especially as the size of the community grew exponentially.

The proper thing to do, I think, would have been to list these templates on TfD. That's what it's for. The community's views could have ascertained. It would have been slow, it might well have been acrimonious, but in the end we could rest content with the knowledge that it was legitimate. That is not possible here. For all those who applaud Kelly's actions there are those who, like myself, are troubled by her arrogant assumption of power and implied assumption that her views were superior. The storm that followed surely indicates that there are fair-minded people out there (including some thirty administrators) who do not agree with her actions, even if they agree that userboxes are silly and unnecessary.

This brings me to the point: why the Arbitration Committee must consider this case. That Kelly stopped when the community reacted does not undo the damage. The message sent is that admins can act precipitiously so long as no one complains. This seems arbitrary and illegitimate. The Arbitration Committee must decide if it is proper for an administrator to act like this. Even accepting the case only to find in her favour would carry greater weight than an outright (and contemptous) dismissal. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please point out why you feel ArbCom needs to step in before any other steps take place?--Tznkai 19:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/2/0)

 * It's bad enough that I have to deal with fuckloads of crap all the time when people are warring over articles. But this is too much. You want us to arbitrate over the behaviour of people who delete stupid templates from userpages ? I don't give a damn. I'm here to make an encylopedia.  I refuse to think anymore about this "case".  Reject, not something I feel we should deal with.  Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Recuse, obviously. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Recuse. I talk with Kelly enough that I don't think I could fairly hear this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject. I read through the whole Kelly Martin RFC, and I think this just about sums up my views. Raul654 19:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)