Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 23 July 2006

User:Kelly Martin/Vacation

Note: Please do not make requests for the use of CheckUser rights or administrative assistance here unless it's related to a matter I've already engaged in. Requests for checkuser go to WP:RFCU; requests for administrative assistance go to WP:AN. Thank you for your cooperation.

Note: I may remove comments that are inserted without a section header. Please be nice and create a new section if you want to leave me a comment. If you add to an existing section, I may miss your comment.

Thanks

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm not sure how much of that energy/courage/insanity I have left, either (well, definitely the insanity :-) but I take it one day at a time. Catamorphism 16:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Check user

Can you look on Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/SuperDeng? User:Mackensen suggests to contact you directly (do not ask me why). Thanks in advance abakharev 02:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gurch

I've left Cyde a message about this; it's intended for you also, so I'd be grateful if you could take a look when you have a moment. Thanks – Gurch 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on Cyde's page. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not just recreate that page? I don't think they had any basis to delete it, let alone speedy delete it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

my name on a list

Hello Kelly, I'm curious as to why my name was on a list in your user space. What was the purpose of this list? Themindset 01:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kelly, I'm curious as to why my name was on a list in your user space. What was the purpose of this list? Given Cydes comments there is no reason to stay silent. Many are saying that we should assume good faith. In this case the obvious answer to such a statement is why? The well of good faith is not bottomless, as you have just found out. David D. (Talk) 15:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why the above two comments are (at least initially) word-for-word identical. In any case, there's already an explanation given in this edit. Michael Slone (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because i copied it, and repeated it for emphasis. David D. (Talk) 16:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is why I keep my list on paper :) --Doc Tropics 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of useful thing that wikis are supposed to be good at, though. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Even as I entered my edit I realized the major drawback to keeping "Mixed Nuts" on paper: I can't share it! --Doc Tropics 16:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to DRV

Hi, I really appreciate being elevated to Q4, whatever it is, but I'm afraid I'll stick with the deletion as a G4. You can always take it to DRV, you know. Or undelete it thirty times, because eventually I will get tired, but it isn't like I'm going to be restrained by 3RR for deleting an enemies list I happen to be on. Call it a "point of personal privilege," if you like. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonk away. And don't forget to clean up when you're done. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, do you just have a passion for generating Wiki-drama, or what? If so, this list was a brilliant move. -GTBacchus 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no intentions of creating wikidrama. I'm just trying to use wiki techniques to assist me in my duties on the wiki. Why these people are so intent on making that impossible, is beyond me. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Apparently, people's normal reactions are "beyond you". If you understood people a little better, you would have easily predicted that this would have created controversy, but you didn't. Now that it has, are you going to continue to mismanage the controversy into a full-fledged train-wreck, or what? Here's a big clue - anything with the impression of secrecy about it isn't going to go over well here and you should have known that. Now that you know it, act accordingly, unless your goal is to generate more drama. You know what quells drama, and makes it go away? Candid openness. Increased communication. Not dismissing people's actions as "beyond you" when you could display diplomatic understanding instead. -GTBacchus 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I realize that there are people who will react badly to such things. Tough. Let them. I will not reduce myself to their lowest common denominator.

Here's a clue, for the terminally clueless: There are LOTS of secret groups and activities within Misplaced Pages. I am part of some of them, and not parts of others. I deliberately never intended that list to be secret; if I had I would have put it on my personal wiki, or just on one of my computers, or somewhere else where nobody but who I wanted to see it could see it. I'm not stupid. What I do not understand is why these... people are so intent on interfering with my efforts to administer this project as best I can. It certainly causes me to question both their judgment and their good faith -- and to that extent this episode has been beneficial to me, as it has exposed several more people who I clearly should not trust. I do not regret anything I have done, and I have no intention of altering my conduct for their benefit. If they don't want Misplaced Pages disrupted, they can bloody well stop doing it. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're saying that you don't care how much drama and heat you generate, because it's other people's fault. That's really dumb. Right after asserting that you're not stupid, you go on to explain your utter lack of understanding of human nature. Since we're trading hints, here's one: if you really don't understand why people are doing what they're doing, then you'd do well to find one before trying to deal with them. It will make you a more effective administrator. Right now, you're acting like an incompetent administrator, because you are sustaining and escalating this situation rather than competently defusing it. Is this really the best you can do? A good administrator doesn't create such situations in the first place, because they have the foresight to avoid them, knowing that they're damaging to the project. -GTBacchus 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it's damaging to the project. Actually, I think the outcome of episodes like this is a net benefit to the project, because invariably we cast off a few useless users who are only here for status and identify a few more problematic individuals who are not trustworthy so that the rest of us can watch them more closely, while at the same time having little or no effect on the actual editing of the encyclopedia -- something I suspect you will find that most of the people whining about my list do relatively little of anyway. I could benefit the project immensely (and resolve this entire situation) simply by banning a small number of exceptionally problematic people, but the community (being shortsighted and focused on things other than the best interests of the project) would object too strongly.

The real problem is that too many of our administrators are too puffed up in their own importance, and think that their petty little toys are actually important to Misplaced Pages. They are wrong. What matters to Misplaced Pages are the thousands of mostly faceless people who actually write our content. Most of whom are not administrators, not because they aren't capable of it, but because they don't want to be. And I can't blame them; becoming an administrator puts you in the company of some pretty odious people, and you don't have the choice to avoid them, either. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent explanation of where you're coming from. Thanks for the food for thought. I don't agree with you, but I don't have any further reply right now. -GTBacchus 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages with these lists. Just stop, and go back to improving articles. Jonathunder 18:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one disrupting Misplaced Pages; that distinction belongs to the people who are running around making threats and deleting stuff out of my userspace because they don't understand what it's for and aren't willing to either assume good faith or accept my statement that I have no malicious intentions. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem accepting that you had no malicious intentions with that list, but to create another one, with the edit summary "Yay", seems not to have been the best idea, since you knew that the original one had caused such resentment and suspicion — indeed, it nearly cost Sean his adminship. AnnH ♫ 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Look over my edit summary history. When I edit my own user space, my edit summaries often make little or no sense, and may be ironic, sarcastic, or parodic (or all three at once). I don't see a point why they should, since my user space is, well, mine. I know what my intentions were, and since it's my user space telling OTHER people what my intentions were are, well, not really necessary. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... Misplaced Pages is not a free hosting service. If you use your userspace for some stuff, you should be ready to explain other Wikipedians what it's for.  Grue  18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Asked and answered, counselor. Move on. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how User:Grue/Brandt is relevant to writing an encyclopedia. --Cyde↔Weys 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Easy. I used this page as a link target to promote Misplaced Pages on reddit. Asked and aswered, move on. :)  Grue  19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"since it's my user space telling OTHER people what my intentions were are, well, not really necessary." No, provided you just don't care how much Wikidrama yhou generate, given that human nature is what it is and you can't will it to be otherwise. By the way, your user-space isn't yours. -GTBacchus 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone who was on the list, I am really offended by it, and by all the smugness surrounding it. It is disruptive, and it has to stop, or people really will be leaving this project. Jonathunder 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to meatball:GoodBye before making threats to leave the project. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to meatball:OpenProcess, meatball:BackRoomDecision and meatball:RumourMill, and reflect on how you, as an administrator, have a large degree of control over, and thus responsibility for, the impression you give with the openness of your actions. The public reaction to what you do is also a consequence of your actions, and you are not free to ignore it and still be acting responsibly. -GTBacchus 19:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the pages in question, and as far as I can tell they mainly apply to those complaining about my actions, rather than myself. I created the list in public view, and I have not sought to hide its purpose. The community has given no salient reason why I should not maintain lists of this nature -- however, it has suggested that I keep them privately, which is contrary to the suggestions in meatball:OpenProcess. And yet others spread false rumors about its purpose, fail to assume good faith, and exercise authority without discussion to interfere with my purpose. When one editor asked me why I put him on that list, I explained myself, and he merely became more stridently nasty, instead of offering to discuss. I think you need to look elsewhere for the root cause of this particular problem. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No don't

No Don't. In the past I was affected by an autoblock, no need for that lady. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 18:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)