Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin/original

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment | Kelly Martin
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fys (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 31 December 2005 (→Outside view: my view). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

  • protecting and unprotecting pages
  • deleting and undeleting pages
  • blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Kelly Martin has abused her sysop powers by deleting userbox template pages out of process.

Description

Kelly Martin recently began a wide-scale deletion of many of Wikipedia's userboxes. (See the log under Powers misused below.) These deletions occurred out of process, and the stated reason (on Kelly Martin's talk page) is that "Those templates are crap and should be deleted. No point in wasting TfD's time with them." [1] (That same diff also contains the sentence "Screw process," something ill-befitting someone whose duty is to uphold process on Wikipedia.) She further asserts that the templates should be deleted "per recent comments by Jimbo", though these comments were not linked to, and it should be noted that Jimbo's comments do not a Wikipedia policy make. [2]

Powers misused

  • Deletion (log):

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

  1. Template:User Communist
  2. Template:User antimonarchist
  3. Template:User Catholic Evangelical
  4. Template:User Anarchosyndicalist
  5. Template:User AI (Amnesty International)

It may also be of interest that while she deleted many of the supposedly "crap" userboxes, several very prominent ones were left undeleted. Under Wikipedia:Userboxes/International Politics for example, {{user Chinese reunification}} was deleted with the rationale "states a political or religious affiliation". On the other hand, {{user independent Taiwan}} was not. Since these 2 templates are located close to each other, I don't see how one could have been deleted while the other not, if the reasons are really as she cited. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location was untouched, where almost every single one of the userboxes show a political affiliation. {{User AmE-0}} was unceremoniously deleted with the cryptic message: "Not."

Applicable policies

Wikipedia deletion policy (and CSD) do not cover "use of unfree images," "incivility," or "political content," especially in templates intended for use in the User: namespace only. The templates she deleted were not sent through templates for deletion, and were deleted unilaterally without any attempts to gather consensus or even, originally, explanation as to why all these userboxes were suddenly disappearing. Kelly's "Jimmy Wales made some comments" defense only arose after she was questioned as to why the userboxes were being deleted, and in any case, Jimmy Wales alone does not dictate policy for Wikipedia. (Even if he did, the policy is not yet listed anywhere.)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [3] User:Grue made the original comment asking Kelly to cease. The reply was "Screw process," etc. [4] Grue's response: [5] Kelly's response, which says that "Putting policy over result is wrong": [6]
  2. My comment asking for a reason these had been deleted: [7] A response to User:Dbiv asking for Kelly to follow proper procedure: [8] Kelly's claim that she is enforcing policy: [9] Two responses by User:Miborovsky and myself: [10] [11]


Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Grue  22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Miborovsky 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC) (My comments in green)[reply]

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Seancdaug 22:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Morgan695 22:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sceptre (Talk) 22:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mike Dillon 22:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oscarthecat 22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fang Aili 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

The templates I deleted were those that:

  1. contained a non-free or unsourced image (thereby violating the fair use policy);
  2. expressed a political, ideological, or religious opinion (thereby tending to categorize Wikipedians by affiliations not related to Wikipedia, which Jimbo himself has expressed disapproval recently on wikien-l); or
  3. in my opinion, expressed incivil or offensive content.

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

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

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

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

Outside view by David

There has been a profusion of Userboxes recently - most of them benign. However, when they get on to expressing purely opinions, they run into the realm of becoming ways of Wikipedians organising by POV. This happens especially when the Templates include a Wikipedian Category, as most of the deleted ones seem to have. I've no problem with stating facts about a user's background on a userpage (and you may note my own user page has a statement of fact about my political membership), but that is fundamentally different because it does not necessarily tell you where I will stand on an issue. This is becoming an area in which people have just signed up to display their opinions. If not checked now, the day will soon come when there's an easy way to organise a swamping of an AfD debate, or even worse, an RfA. Kelly Martin has acted to stop this profusion.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. David | Talk 22:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin/original&oldid=33422534"