Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:52, 10 August 2006

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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\ 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, Misplaced Pages policy can be made in many places, and the best place to make Misplaced Pages policy is still, uh, Misplaced Pages. 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 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 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to discuss Misplaced Pages policy anywhere in the world. But the discussions that matter most should take place on Misplaced Pages, 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 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 00:11, 10 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 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\ 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 | 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 | 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages' 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

If this is a legal problem, why doesn't Misplaced Pages 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\ 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

INTERNETS. --Sam Blanning 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

Another Diff

Here

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 Misplaced Pages 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\ 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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\ 14:03, 9 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 - Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, the place of discussion in the formulation of Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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\ 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 Misplaced Pages: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 | 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 | 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 💕." I strongly object to this characterization of my purpose on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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, 💕.
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 Misplaced Pages boggles the mind. Powers 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with Powers here. I posted this on Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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\ 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\ 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 Misplaced Pages 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\ 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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and which should be excised. Powers 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't emphasize how important the free content movement is to Misplaced Pages. 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\ 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\ 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 Misplaced Pages. I am prepared to delete them wherever the 'fair use' criteria set forth in law and Misplaced Pages policy are not met. -- Donald Albury 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\ 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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\ 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How many instances of an unlicensed image do you think "deserve" to be on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages if you ever get your way and have them all deleted. Johntex\ 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)

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages" 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

Blocking

From Misplaced Pages:Vandalism Copyrighted material vandalism

Knowingly using copyrighted material on Misplaced Pages in ways which violate Misplaced Pages's copyright policies is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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\ 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\ 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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, . That's right after Ed 2gs got taken to ANI for deleting galleries. And Cards' reverted galleries at three articles yesterday, not just one. 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 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 | 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 💕." --Cyde Weys 18:41, 10 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 Misplaced Pages? rootology (T) 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "blown off"? Ordinary users make Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages? Do you know what policy is? Here's a hint: policy isn't necessarily what is written down on the Misplaced Pages: 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)

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 Misplaced Pages? rootology (T) 18:35, 10 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)