Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:21, 9 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)