Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:25, 8 December 2006

The initiator of this Request for Comments is the same as its subject, who hereby waives the two person certification requirement.

• Kelly Martin (talk · contribs · logs)

Per Kelly's comment on the Talk page, users may contribute one or more sections, or simply endorse one or more existing sections.

Statement of the dispute

This is a somewhat unusual Request for Comments. I bring myself here today to ask for detailed comments from the Misplaced Pages community on my conduct over the past several months, going back, I suppose, to June, 2005 when I was promoted to administrator. It's quite clear from the votes on my candidacy in the Arbitration Committee voting that a lot of people have disputes about the merit of my conduct as an administrator and an editor, but there is not sufficient space in the voting page for people to air their grievances in detail. I'd prefer to have those disputes aired.

Therefore, if you feel that I have wronged you in some way in the past eighteen months, this is the place to tell me about it. I would prefer specific references to things that I have done that you feel are wrong, and what you think I should have done differently. If you have directed questions about anything I did, I will attempt to answer them. I request only that you be civil, honest, and frank. There is no need to spare my feelings. I know I've made mistakes, and I'd like to know what you think they are so I can make sure I haven't missed any.

Anyone who feels that my response to any grievance is uncivil or inappropriate may edit or remove my response, at their full discretion. While I obviously cannot speak for anyone else, I will not seek retribution against anyone for anything said here.

A couple of administrative notes: First, I may take several days to respond to comments. Responding is likely to be a difficult process, and it may take me several evenings to compose an appropriate response. Please be patient with me in that regard. Second, I am notifying everyone who voted against me in the ArbCom elections of this RfC and inviting them to comment here. Presumably, everyone voting against me had a reason for doing so; those who feel inclined to comment are welcome and encouraged to do so here at whatever length they desire.

Sjakkalle's comment

This is a summary of a grievance written by users who are aggrieved at the conduct of the subject of this Request for Comments. A user may write or endorse as many grievance sections as he or she desires.

Kelly you had a good record as editor, and that is why you were promoted with a lot of support. Your first months as administrator were also good and constructive and that is why you were recommended and given a temporary spot in the ArbCom. It is from here problems start to rise to the surface and why your high approval ratings have fallen to one in the cellar on the current ArbCom election.

You did not handle criticism very well on your Requests for bureaucratship. Many of the criticisms were relatively mild, such as a slight overzealousness when blocking vandals or an error on a falsely identified sockpuppet. These criticisms were taken way to personally by you. Indeed, immediately after you withdrew your RFB candidacy you accused your most vocal critic, Durin of "attacks on your character" and "slander", then filed an RFC on him, an action which came across as very vindictive. When that happens, your edits and actions will be scrutinized slightly more closely but it really is not such a big deal, many respected admins have seen their RFBs fail.

The userbox fiasco in December 2005 was handled poorly on your part. It is not the deletion of userboxes alone which got you into trouble. It is the way you dismissed those who disagreed with you with a contemptious "fuck screw process" attitude which pretty much is perceived as a "I know best, and if you disagree then tough!" attitude. It is as much that needlessly abrupt and incivil reaction which made your ArbCom bid in January fail. Even so, your good work othewise kept you running at 40% support, including a number of very well respected administrators.

During 2006 your approach has at times come across as combative and vengeful. You made a 24-hour block on User:Grue when he made a testy support vote on an RFA. No attempt to discuss with him or warn him, you just went ahead and blocked him. When that comes up for everyone to see on the Admin's Noticeboard, people start to suspect that you are overzealous with the blocking button. Another controversial block was the one on User:MONGO.

On the mailing list you came with the strange mail stating that because User:Eloquence had reversed a page-protection, he was no longer a trusted member of the community but a wheel warrior. Frankly, even if you think Eloquence was wrong in doing that, defending the desysopping and the indefinite block comes across to me as ridiculous. So apparently did User:The Epopt who called that mail "trolling" .

In the summer, you compiled a number of lists in your userspace, for instance the B-list which happened to consist of all those who opposed Sean Black's adminship. It appeared you were compiling large lists of people who disagreed with you into a "blacklist" of bad or stupid users, and that caused more consternation. When you compiled another list, the R-list, to see if El C would punish you for creating it, that just came through as trolling. You lost the support of a number of people in that instance who started questioning your good faith.

As with the userbox debate (by now a compromise had been more or less reached allowing most of these boxes a spot in userspace only), your handling of the cross-namespace redirect issue was also insulting to those who disagreed with you. One of the most articulate admins I know of, User:Rossami who supported a limited number of such redirect, was approached with this post. Let's make it clear: "Are you daft?" and "stop acting like you got your brain at a K-Mart blue light special sale" is not a good way to start a discussion.

The case leading up to your desysoping, Carnildo's repromotion and the reaction to it was another case of contemptious treatment of the people with opposite opinions from your own, the ArbCom called you on the use of the term "fickle and ill-informed populace." . Even so, the hostility which struck me much more than that was when you said you had seen the "writing on the wall" of an indefinite ban on User:Giano . Come on, this is the creator of a huge number of articles and encycloedic content; what were you thinking? Do you really think that a comment like that will improve the discussion or alleviate the tensions? Since I am not ArbCom, I cannot say for sure, but I really think it is this pattern of bad faith assumption and contempt which by forced the ArbCom to deny the bureaucrats the right to grant you immediate resysoping upon request which is the default for those who voluntarily give up sysop rights. When you say as here that you disagree with the ArbCom's "under a cloud", (later reworded to "under controversial circumstances") finding, that looks like a denial of the realities on your part and a lack of introspection.

I feel also that you have failed to learn from or acknowledge your mistakes. Even though your ArbCom candidate statement admits you have made mistakes, I cannot see any evidence of that after looking at your blog entry "The ArbCom elections" where you continue your criticism of User:Geogre in a very rantish style. Until this kind of, to put it mildly, undiplomatic conduct, goes away, those words on your candidacy sound hollow.

To me the problems illustrated above are:

• You handle criticism very poorly. You appear to take any criticism against yourself personally and without any grace.
• Although you have frequently proved yourself capable of working with others, you handle disagreements very poorly. In many cases you have resorted to barrage your opponents with insults leading to a much more hostile environment.
• Failure to acknowledge mistakes in a sincere manner.
• When you were administrator, occasional reckless use of your admin tools.

Kelly, you were a fun person to work with during the first half and summer of 2005. You did a lot of good work in that time. Discussing things with you now has become frustrating and exhausting because of the insults.

What do you think that you can do in order to bring the fun back?

Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this grievance:

1. This may be pretty much the best overview possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
2. In particular I find this: http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2006/12/arbcom-elections.html totally unacceptable. See WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. This is consistent with this user aggressiveness, lack of tact in dealing with community issues, and the too easy willingness to move discussions off Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
3. – Elisson • T • C • 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Well said. Friday (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Endorse. Well and clearly stated; covers the issues well. KillerChihuahua 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Endorse. Learn to accept mistakes and learn from them. -- RebSkii 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
7. A well-written summary. I personally voted against you for ArbCom because of the userbox fiasco. As Sjakkalle said, it really wasn't the deletions per se, it was your attitude afterwards, and the lack of anything resembling an apology or taking of responsibility afterwards. --Fang Aili 19:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, I have previously both apologized for and taken responsibility for my actions in that affair, but nobody seems to remember that. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

8. Covers all bases. riana_dzasta 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
9. I only arrived in at the end of 2005. I don't remember the other, happier Kelly Martin, but I've no doubt she existed. I'd like to see her back. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
10. —Ruud 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Based on what I've looked at, this sums it up pretty well. --Coredesat 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Well said. Touches on the major points without being petty or combative. Sums it all up nicely. Let's hope a positive change comes from all this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Couldnt have said it better myself.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Very good summary of the events. Endorsed. Dr Debug (Talk) 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Nice composition. Disagreeing with Kelly Martin doesn't mean I hate her or wish her ill will, but sometimes I feel it can be misconstrued by her that way. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
16. take these words serioulsy. You may disagree but this is what many see and feel. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Endorse to the extent I was present for or have researched these items. (I thought this implicit in my prior endorsement below, but have since decided to make it explicit.) GRBerry 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
18. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Endorse. Well written. --Lukobe 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Excellent summany; not much to add. Eluchil404 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Endorse, excepting analysis of events prior to my joining Misplaced Pages in January 2006, of which I have no knowledge. Everything else is outstandingly presented and has my full agreement. Powers 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Endorse. I don't recall the controversies prior to the userbox dispute, but this is a good summary of what happened afterward. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Endorse I remembered all the controversies Kelly had, while I supported her in the fair use one, she could have behaved better in the others, please take the advice Jaranda 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Endorse. I've been a totally silent observer of most of these incidents, but I agree totally with Sjakkalle's summary. I couldn't have said it better myself. Raven4x4x 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Not bad. Snoutwood 07:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
26. As I just said to Sjakkalle; "Because I thought the point has more than been made in the current Arcom elections pertaining to Kelly I did not bother to add my $0.02, but I did stop by with a few things to say" I had couple points I thought that may assist Kelly. However his comments not only cover five times more than I would of, they cover that which I did five times better than I possibly could. Glen 07:44, December 7, 2006 (UTC)
27. Excellent summary of the important points. Kusma (討論) 10:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
28. I, too, have observed things mainly from a distance and this summary is spot on. — mark ✎ 18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Endorse. To the point, and accurate. Good thing you didn't post an angry reply below, that would only prove the points made above more. —Mets501 (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject's response to grievance number 1

I wrote a long, detailed reply to Sjakkalle's comments, but I've decided not to post it because I found myself getting increasingly angry as I wrote it. At this point I don't have much desire to go back through it to see if there's anything in it that can fairly be posted here or not.

I'm not willing to accept all of Sjakkalle's representations as accurate. For example, I did not say "fuck process" in the userbox affair; the proper quote is "screw process". "Fuck process" is something Tony Sidaway said, and I don't take responsibility for his comments. I fear that people may be either conflating things I've done with things other people have done, or even, in some cases, simply misremembering events entirely. None of us likely has a good recollection of what happened a year ago, and to continue to hold grudges based on that now is probably not healthy for anyone.

So, yes, I conducted myself, at times, in ways that were unnecessarily confrontational and occasionally insulting. That was wrong; I admit that, and I apologize to those I offended by those incident. However, I do not, and will not, back off on the broader policy issues. The userboxes I deleted should have been deleted. Grue and MONGO deserved to be blocked. Carnildo should have been resysoped (although I do not agree with the method by which that was done, but I had no say in that). Eloquence's unprotection of that page was inappropriate. Durin's original handling of the matter that was the nominal topic in my RfC of him was improper. It is still my belief that Giano is headed for an indefinite ban if he doesn't change his behavior. And I still believe that Geogre is a liar. You can disagree with me on any, or even all, of these things, but my disagreement with you does not mean that I am not assuming good faith, or that I hold you in contempt (just possibly your opinion).

In summary, what I see as having happened in the early cases is that someone did something that irritated me, and I got irritated back, and things escalated. In some cases, but not all, there was a failure to assume good faith on the part of whoever I was dealing with; this was much more common in the later instances, and toward the end there it seems that there was almost a universal expectation that I was not acting in good faith.

So it is small wonder that I've been increasingly irritable over the past several months; I've been dealing with more and more people who decline to afford me the assumption of good faith that we are all supposedly entitled to on Misplaced Pages. To an extent, I have earned it, but I think not to the extent that I've received it. The punishment certainly does not fit the crime, in this case.

Just yesterday I had a user get in my face on my talk page over the allegation that I violated WP:SPAM for posting notices of this RfC to everyone who voted against my candidacy. (Whether I did or not is not really the point.) I responded with "I must point out that my activities were not intended to influencing voting or to influence consensus, but merely to encourage participation in what I believe is an important process. Note also that I only solicited input from people who presumptively disagree with me. I do not believe that my actions violated any of the strictures in WP:SPAM and therefore must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that what I did was in any way improper. If you wish, we can discuss this further in the appropriate forum." He responded with threats, and then subsequently on IRC accused me of being uncivil and of failing to assume good faith. This is what I'm faced with, any time I do virtually anything. Can I expect this to continue? What do you propose I do when people behave like this toward me?

What I'm willing to promise to do is to make a better effort at being civil and in not trying to impute motives to others, and to walk away when I get irritated instead of escalating. In return, I would very much ask that everyone else stop assuming that I'm always acting with nefarious motives and give me the benefit of the doubt once in a while. I won't name names, but there have been some very flagrant examples of this lately, and frankly it's very depressing for me. Hopefully there will be some change for the better soon. It is very hard to assume good faith in a community that refuses to return the favor. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I stopped reading when you distinguished "fuck" from "screw"? Talk about semantics and missing the bigger point! David D. (Talk) 04:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm…if you can't even be bothered to quote someone properly, and instead make up something which sounds "about right" but turns out later to have been said by someone else, how much credibility does that add to your arguments? Misquoting has happened before and it all just gets so messy. And giving up on the second paragraph? You're so obviously trying to make things better here, how come it never worked so far? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

AnonEMouse's comment

I question the utility of yet a new page for listing issues with Kelly Martin, considering how many have been made already. Besides the issues Sjakalle made an excellent summary of, there are:

1. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2 - extensive well written criticisms, endorsed by tens of respected editors, including many that sympathize with her goals; no response from subject other than defensiveness
2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Kelly Martin - multiple questions not answered for two days
3. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Kelly_Martin - 167 opposes, most with reasons

While Kelly is a dedicated contributor (err ... was - considering recent lack of actions and statements on her user page), her civility issues have been pointed out repeatedly. I humbly submit that just one or two of the above would be hours of reading, surely sufficient. AnonEMouse 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this grievance:

1. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Yep. Asking for people to repeat again what's already been said on your talk page or in many other places doesn't seem helpful to me. Just go back and re-read all the criticism you've gotten over the past year and a half or so. If you can't see the problem with all the feedback you've already gotten, surely more of the same feedback won't help. Friday (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
3. What's the point of ruminating it all over again and again? --Ghirla 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Yup. Addhoc 17:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
5. While I concur and support this, perhaps this once it will make sense to repeat the issues. Kelly has asked for this, remember, and that is encouraging. KillerChihuahua 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
6. - crz crztalk 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
7. riana_dzasta 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
8. What that guy said. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree BostonMA 21:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
10. With an agreeance with KillerChihuahua. Snoutwood 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject's response to grievance number 2

I'm sorry that you feel that this is a pointless venture. However, I believe it can be of benefit both to myself and to the community; had I not, I would not have initiated the process.

I hope that you will, despite your feelings on the matter, participate in this process with the goal of helping the community to reach closure on an issue that, even after all this time, appears not to be closed in at least the minds of some people. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

badlydrawnjeff's comments

This is a summary of a grievance written by users who are aggrieved at the conduct of the subject of this Request for Comments. A user may write or endorse as many grievance sections as he or she desires.

I'd only add to the near-perfect comment above that Kelly's actions regarding many of these issues (The userboxes, Carnildo/Giano, the unmentioned fair use situation Kelly got involved in) did nothing to solve these issues, and instead extended the conflicts. The userbox situation in particular inflamed a situation that could have been resolved in a matter of weeks had Kelly gone through the proper channels, instead it took six months. We're still not quite over the hump regarding fair use, and we can arguably point to the overaction and threats by Kelly Martin as reasons why they failed to reach resolution. Being right (as Kelly may have been in the userbox situation, for example) simply is not enough - explaining why you believe that you're right and working with the rest of the people involved to implement it is what has to be done, and it's a repeated failure to do so that the trust is gone. I get the feeling that Kelly does not honestly understand why there is (and continues to be) ill will and a lack of trust toward her, and I'm not sure how to change that at this point.

Users who endorse this grievance:

1. Running for the ArbCom despite the strong feedback from the community, followed by this RFC, shows that this user may not be aware of the perception and controversy she has created around herself. Taking a hard look at this and previous RFCs, the oppose votes to her candidacy, and showing some humility may help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Intentional or not, this is drama-seekingcausing behavior. Please help out by reducing drama, not contributing to it. Friday (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   I agree with Friday that this is drama-seeking behavior. Apparently Kelly Martin 3 left a request for me to comment here on her behavior only because I voted against her for ArbCom. In my vote I referenced her somewhat unfortunate statement there as being the reason for voting against her. It was the only reason, but it was enough. I know of no other past interactions that I have had with Kelly Martin 3. Just seeing what I saw there and what I see here, she should consider withdrawing this Request for Comment and taking a Wikibreak for her own happiness. -THB 17:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   NB. "Kelly Martin 3" is actually Kelly Martin. The '3' refers to this being the third RfC on Kelly Martin's user conduct. Carcharoth 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Well, if it's the third time, that reinforces what I said. -THB 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   If you don't like the request for comment, THB, you are welcome to not participate in it. It doesn't make any sense to suggest her withdrawing it ... first of all, an RFC is not like admin candidacy. And second of all, she is apparently making an honest outreach to find ways in which she could improve. Why should she withdraw that?! --Cyde Weys 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   (ec)Perhaps to be fairer, and to avoid getting into AGF issues, if not outright psychoanalysis, we should try to avoid characterisations such as "drama-seeking". "Drama-causing" might be marginally more neutral. Alai 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, sorry for the unfortunate phrase, but it's better not to revise the comment at that point, so I'll just apologize. -THB 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

3. I endorse this view. I wonder if Kelly would find it easier and faster to gain the community's trust if she chose to vanish under the existing username and reappear under a new username. (She would need to avoid revealing the connection for that to work.) GRBerry 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Additional thought - some of these things could have worked much better if you had planned for them to be part of a Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. The failure was in the discuss portion of the step, for which suggestions are given at Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Discuss; the first and last two bullet points appear especially relevant. GRBerry 11:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Endorse. --Coredesat 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Have to agree here, Kelly's actions although in cases like the userbox fiasco may have been correct... were done in a manner as such that it extended the debate rather than quoshing it. As much as I dislike kelly's approach to the userbox mess, she was eventually proven correct in her assumptions (it really galls me to say that). Unfortunatly by being as closeminded and as focused as she was, she prolonged the debate by ignoring the community in favor of what she saw was the greater good... many dictators have tried this same tactic to similar failures.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
6. You need to persuade people you are right, not tell people you are right, enforcing it with blocks and snarky remarks. David D. (Talk) 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: I strongly disagree with much of this "grievance". One of the things that badlydrawnjeff is particularly poor at is understanding that we are not a community that has "proper channels", and that "rule of law" is not part of our traditions. He has been very harmful to Misplaced Pages in almost all of his efforts in the sphere of policy because of this misunderstanding, and complaining to other users that they do not respect his misunderstandings is highly unfortunate. Rule of law would choke our community, and WP:IAR is an explicit acknowledgement that that's not the way things work here. It is proper and necessary at times to do things that current policy is behind on -- policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Sometimes these things can be deeply unpopular but still necessary -- there are many cases where the unwise outnumber the wise. Civility is very important, and there are times that Kelly has not been as polite as she should have been, but faulting her for being firm in her judgement would be a terrible mistake. "Polite but Firm*" (* to a point) is what every good administrator should be. --Improv 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting theory. Largely incorrect, but interesting nonetheless. As most of it is incredibly off-topic to this page and in the sake of keeping it civil, I'll mostly leave it alone. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Interesting, but faulty theory. Misplaced Pages is ill served by those that believe they "know better". The overwhelming response of the community is very clear: "don't ever think that". Work with others and check that your assessments are grounded before you act. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Improv has missed bdj's point. He's not saying the proper channels would have made the decisions better, he's saying they would have made them less inflammatory/divisive/dramatic. Milto LOL pia 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject's response to grievance number 3

Elisson's comment

This is a summary of a grievance written by users who are aggrieved at the conduct of the subject of this Request for Comments. A user may write or endorse as many grievance sections as he or she desires.

I am going to repeat parts of the above comments, but will post this anyway, as it differs in the way that I have not followed Kelly's actions until very recently. Before I was given adminship in October this year, I can honestly say I did not follow the non-mainspace conflicts of Misplaced Pages very closely. Most of the things brought up by Sjakkalle in his above comment, I had never heard of, or read about, until during the last months. I had seen your name on a few occations before that, and read a few comments on you, both positive and negative. After reading up, my view on your actions was mainly negative (no need to tell why here, I'd only repeat what Sjakkalle has already written).

Besides the points brought up by Sjakkalle, the thing that got me to vote oppose in the current ArbCom Elections was your answers to jd2718's questions. I can understand your reasoning behind parts of comments such as "So I instead resolved that if there were not five candidates at least as good as myself by the end of the month, I would throw my hat in the ring. My evaluation of the slate as of last evening was that there were still not five candidates at least as qualified as myself.", as you do have more experience in RfAr than most (if not all) of the candidates, but such comments also show a lack of understanding in what a "good candidate" is, as well as a lack of self-criticism. Failing to note that you do not currently have the trust of the community is what I consider to be the biggest problem.

Users who endorse this grievance:

Subject's response to grievance number 4

Ral315's comment

This is a summary of a grievance written by users who are aggrieved at the conduct of the subject of this Request for Comments. A user may write or endorse as many grievance sections as he or she desires.

Sjakkalle's comment is extremely well-written and lengthy. I would say that I don't think your on-wiki responses to your RFB were too offensive; your off-wiki responses may have been another story. Even after the "userbox fiasco", I still thought that your presence on the Arbitration Committee was worth it:

"Support. Extremely controversial, but she's willing to do the work, and has done a damn good job at it in the few months she's been working on it. Ral315 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)"

I think that my comments still have bearing today- you were always a damn fine arbitrator. Others had issue with some of your administrative actions, and I can't say that I disagreed, but I felt that the positives of having you on the Committee outweighed the negative.

I found myself at issue with your 'B-list' and 'R-list'; the first struck me as a bit disturbing, and the second as, not necessarily trolling, but certainly not benefiting the encyclopedia. And the Giano situation- again, Sjakkalle expresses it better. As I said in this year's ArbCom elections, I still think you'd be a great arbitrator. But you clearly aren't supported by most of the community, a quality necessary for an ArbCom member.

To expand on Sjakkalle's bullet points:

• "You handle criticism very poorly. You appear to take any criticism against yourself personally and without any grace."
  • I would only say that there's a double standard- you don't seem to mind criticism of yourself by people you know and respect (like the people commenting in this RFC), but you do mind criticism by people you don't like. The people you don't like or agree with are often the best judges of your mistakes.
• "Although you have frequently proved yourself capable of working with others, you handle disagreements very poorly. In many cases you have resorted to barrage your opponents with insults leading to a much more hostile environment."
  • Agreed. See the userbox fiasco and Giano.
• Failure to acknowledge mistakes in a sincere manner.
  • Very often, this is the case. I see a lot of Ed Poor in you- Ed Poor was a relatively good administrator, but faced the same allegations of incivility and poor judgment, and denied that he had made a mistake when he did. While I can't see you getting adminship back anytime soon, please make sure that you don't face more arbitration like Ed did.
• When you were administrator, occasional reckless use of your admin tools.
  • True; some recklessness is normal, but it's important to realize when you make a mistake, and make steps to correct it. In my experiences, you did so sometimes, but sometimes you didn't; that's what your critics were annoyed about.

I'd like to see you edit here more often. With no powers to abuse, your critics should be more friendly toward you. Rather than trying to get more powers, let's see how you handle being an editor, having to interact with other editors on an equal level. If you can handle that for a while, I think many people critical of your previous incidents may be more inclined to give you adminship. Ral315 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this grievance:

1. AnonEMouse 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Have fun by editing; politics aren't worth it.

Subject's response to grievance number 5

^demon's comment

Per Elisson's comments, I too have not followed or noticed your actions until more recently, but seeing the controvery surround you, I took the initiative to look back into some of the reasons while people tend to find themselves at odds with you. I personally remember the Userbox fiasco, and while I personally have come to the conclusion that most userboxes are a waste of resources (yes, I know we're not paper) and serve little-to-no purpose of benefitting the encylopedia. However, personal opinions aside, I cannot stress enough the mistake in unilaterally removing userboxes. It should be common knowledge to all contributors on Misplaced Pages, especially one with such an extensive history as yourself, that while we are encouraged to be bold, such large and potentially controversial actions should be discussed and a consensus come to (if possible). Per this incident, and those mentioned above, I could not in good faith support you for ArbCom. I saw you as too controversial, and severely lacking the community trust which is essential for any member of ArbCom. ^demon 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this grievance:

1. Dragomiloff 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. (except I don't see anything wrong with userboxen :-) ) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject's response to grievance number 6

Comment #7

Users who endorse the comment previously posted here:

1. -THB 03:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Good point- it's not mistakes that we should worry about, it's how people react when their mistakes are pointed out to them. Friday (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject's response to comment number 7

Andrew Lenahan/User:Starblind's comment

Sjakkalle summed up all the old business very nicely, and maybe I'm just stating the obvious here, but it has to be said: didn't you have any misgivings about running for ArbCom while your user page consists of more-or-less a "goodbye" message? This is the actual quote (it's still there now, by the way): "I have moved to the Wikimedia Commons and will edit here generally only in relation to adding my own photographs to articles in the encyclopedia." It gives the distinct impression of a user who had given up on Misplaced Pages (on en: at least), and someone who has either already left Misplaced Pages or is an inch away from doing so would not be most people's first choice for ArbCom even regardless of past history. If you're back, why leave your user page like that? If you've left, why run for ArbCom? There has to be some explanation for it all, but I just don't see it. Shed some light on this, please? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:

1. -THB 03:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject's response to comment number 8

Chick Bowen's comment

Kelly said in her statement in opening this RFC, "It's quite clear from the votes on my candidacy in the Arbitration Committee voting that a lot of people have disputes about the merit of my conduct as an administrator and an editor, but there is not sufficient space in the voting page for people to air their grievances in detail. I'd prefer to have those disputes aired." Though I did vote against Kelly's candidacy for arbcom, I would stress that I did not do so out of concerns about her "conduct as an administrator and an editor," but because I found her statement of candidacy and the circumstances under which she ran (at the last possible minute and so soon after essentially breaking off her activity on Misplaced Pages in a seemingly final manner) quite strange. I welcome Kelly's return to editing and would be pleased to see her thrive. Chick Bowen 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:

1. Carom 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject's response to comment number 9

Lemon drop from Opabinia regalis

I normally would keep my proboscis out of this, but there's an outstanding issue I haven't seen fully addressed in the comments above, and I think it deserves to stand on its own. Maintaining a blog on which you post criticisms and condemnations of specific Misplaced Pages contributors is lame, and very junior-high. That's not something an admin should be doing, much less an arbitrator. It doesn't have to be "against policy" to be a bad idea. Opabinia regalis 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:

1. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
3. AnnH ♫ 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Indeed. The comments about the SPUI case were excellent, though. Kusma (討論) 12:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
5. --Ghirla 13:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
6. KillerChihuahua 13:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Eluchil404 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject's response to comment number 10

Kaldari's comments

My first impressions of Kelly Martin were established during the userbox fiasco in December 2005. Personally I had no problem with Kelly's deletion of userboxes (I hate the things), however, her reaction to criticism from other editors and admins was completely unacceptable and especially unfitting for an admin. During that period Kelly exhibited numerous forms of bad behavior: she dismissed all criticism against her actions with an air of arrogance and contempt; she blocked other editors without proper cause or warning; she refused to participate (in good faith) in any dialogs on the situation; and rather than seeking to make amends, she chose to antagonize an already volitile situation by characterizing her critics as trolls on a witchhunt. Any one of these actions would be enough for me to decide that Kelly is not suited to be an admin. Admins must exhibit extreme patience, consensus-building skills, and grace under fire. Personally, I have not seen Kelly exhibit any of these traits, but perhaps that is only because I have witnessed Kelly at her worst. I'm perfectly willing to consider that perhaps Kelly really does possess these qualities, but I have yet to see evidence of it myself. So far it seems I only notice Kelly when there is controversy involved. Misplaced Pages doesn't need controversy (as I'm sure Kelly would agree), it needs good writers, good editors, good janitors, and occassionally good mediators. It's unfortunate that Kelly didn't ask for this kind of feedback a year ago, as it potentially could have rebuilt some of the trust that was lost in her by the community and maybe even salvaged her repuation. Asking for it now, while in the process of trying to regain admin priviledges, is not going to change anyone's opinions. I hope, however, that it will genuinely help Kelly reflect on her actions and help her become a better member of the community in the long run. It is at least a step in the right direction, and for that I will give her the benefit of the doubt and commend her. Kaldari 03:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Kelly is explicitly not trying to regain admin privileges. Powers 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I meant ArbCom. Kaldari 00:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject's response to comment number 11

TexasAndroid's comments

My only direct interaction with Kelly left me with a really bitter taste in my mouth. I'm really not sure how to write it all out, as much of it occurred in private email, and appears to have been a back-door psudo-OFFICE action. Giving too much detail will just open up the mess again.

Basically, I had been monitoring a troublesome WP:BLP page for quite a while. The subject of the page was controversial, and attracted some fairly vehment, but totally unsourced criticism to his article. There are also indications that the article's subject himself may have been editing the page.

Eventually the page got placed up for WP:AFD, supposedly at the request of the subject. The AFD was an overwhelming Keep result. But within hours of the AFD being closed as Keep, the page was deleted anyway and salted.

Very confused at this turn of events, I asked the deleting admin why it had been done. The response was that it had been done at the request of Kelly Martin.

I then proceeded to ask Kelly what was going on with the overturning of a totally valid AFD.

The response I received, now via email, mentioned the subject's editing of his article, and that the subject had likely voted in the AFD via socks. But given that the only suspicious AFD vote I could see was a Delete vote, I responded that this whole thing was improper, and that I was seriously considering taking the situation to WP:DRV. This is when the real trouble began.

The next email I received from Kelly was, IMHO, very threatening. It invoked the name of a Foundation attourney, and said that if I continued to pursue the issue I would "likely to find yourself in a bit of a mess". This floored me. I took this as a threat, given the invoking of the Foundation attourney's name. Maybe not quite a legal threat, but a threat none the less.

I responded that, if this was a WP:OFFICE action, then it should be handled as such, not handled through the back-door and such. Either something is WP:OFFICE or it is not. I received no further response from Kelly on the issue.

I got a posting from a Foundation employee on the issue, not threatening, saying that Kelly was not acting "unilaterally" on this issue. Between this notice, and the email from Kelly, I decided it was not worth raising a fuss over and let the issue drop.

But still, IMHO it is totally inappropriate for one user to threaten another user, let alone for one admin to threaten another. WP process and policy were trampled on all over the place in the situation. And while Kelly's email to me was effective in getting me to drop the issue, it was IMHO a totally inappropriate way for her to handle the situation. Prior to this incident I had not interacted with her directly before, and had no real opinion of her one way or another. After it, well, let's just say I do have an opinion of her now, and it is not a particularly favorible one. - TexasAndroid 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:

1. This is a good example of what are the consequences of lack of transparency and the negative impact it has in the community. An example of what not to do in BLP cases. If certain issues are better dealt by the Foundation, let the WP:OFFICE deal with them, and not by a self-appointed volunteer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject's response to comment number 12

Serpent's Choice's comments

As one of the editors who voted against Kelly for ArbCom, I was solicited by her to provide a commentary here. I was not involved in any of the principle disputes in which she acted. I did not have a userbox removed. I did not take part in either of the two previous RFCs concerning her. In point of fact, I had no actual direct contact with Kelly Martin prior to the ArbCom elections.

ArbCom is not about direct contact. It is about fairness and perceptions of fairness. I voted against Kelly Martin for ArbCom for three separate, distinct reasons.

First, regardless of my personal involvement or lack thereof, or any of the actual characteristics or facts of the case, Kelly Martin has been recently involved, as the principle actor, in a series of disputes that have reached to every level of the dispute resolution process. As I noted in my opposition to several other ArbCom candidates, I considered that having recently been the subject of an ArbCom dispute was a non-negotiable contraindication of ArbCom membership.

Second, until shortly before Kelly's 11th hour entry into the ArbCom race, her user page indicated that she had left the Misplaced Pages project entirely. And indeed, at the time I voted in opposition, her userpage stated that her participation in Misplaced Pages is limited to the uploading of personally-created images. Image creation and uploading is laudable; the project is in need of more free images. It is not, however, sufficient for ArbCom membership. The need for occasional recusal notwithstanding, the people who are responsible for being the highest adjudicators of user conduct on this project should and must be a part of this project.

But finally, I opposed Kelly Martin's ArbCom bid for the specific reason that I stated in my opposition vote. She appears to believe that her personal opinions about ArbCom functionality are more important than the consensus opinion of the community in that regards. Her candidacy statement was a ringing disendorsement of her competitors, flatly stating that she was running because there were not enough others "qualified" to do so. Her answers to the various questions posed to her likewise indicated a belief in some special knowledge, that she was privy to information or wisdom that would make her a better arbitor than anyone else. I mean Kelly no offense in this regard, but Misplaced Pages is not a cabal ... it is not a secret society ... there is no special knowledge to be had. In reading through the literally volumes of writing about this (ex-?) contributor before penning this RfC response, I have come to learn that she may in fact have been acting on the ArbCom mailing list while not a member of this body. Perhaps, then, she has been given special treatment; however, that still does not equate with special knowledge by any means, and, in my eyes, is a further indication of why she is ill-suited to the office. ArbCom represents all of us, not only those who have been here the longest and who are some core elite.

I cannot help but feel that the very existence of this RfC serves no other purpose than to antagonize the community. It is an effort to call on those who opposed Kelly to defend our point of view. It is -- or could be seen -- as an effort to justify that her special knowledge, special experience, and personal opinion of her own value to the project outweight the litany of voices that were arrayed against her. I would implore Kelly not to continue further down this path; drama is not a means to understanding, and a self-appraisal of why the community did not see fit to elect her at this time should not require an RfC.

Respectfully submitted, Serpent's Choice 16:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this grievance:

1. KillerChihuahua 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. David D. (Talk) 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject's response to comment number 13

Computerjoe's statement

Personally, I was a little shocked over the whole User:Kelly Martin/B and User:Kelly Martin/R issues. Also, I thought that the user's responses to this issue was far from perfect.

For example, following the controversy on one sub-page, you decided to create another.

The delete votes on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kelly Martin/R show my opinion, as do the corresponding ANI threads .

Respectfully: Computerjoe's talk 17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:

1. I won't support anyone who maintains such a list. Eluchil404 08:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Elkman's other comment

I think the only reason I got called to this RFC was so I could be called on the carpet about the vote I made in the ArbCom election. Now, yet again, I'm involved in drama instead of writing the encyclopedia articles. I'm not really sure my opinion had -- or has -- any weight here. I should have spent the time writing Rabideau CCC Camp or Oliver H. Kelley Farmstead instead. Or maybe even Elevated Metal Water Tank, Deerwood, for that matter. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Scobell302's view

Kelly, I think you're a good user overall, but I believe you're currently in a valley after having fallen from a peak.

When you first registered in December 2004 and later got promoted to admin six months later, you were climbing up the mountain. When you were appointed to the ArbCom, you reached the peak. However, when you got nominated for bureaucratship, you started going downhill. Your responses to those who opposed you weren't very helpful, especially since RFB is much harder to pass than RFA. Then came the userbox affair. While you may have righteously deleted most of the userboxes, the manner in which you defended your actions cost you a lot of respect, sending you downhill further. After your resignation from the ArbCom (twice), your status stabilized for the most part, until July. When your fellow editors pointed out your editor lists, you got blocked, but didn't regret, and that slid you downhill even further. Finally, your ultimate plunge into the valley came during the Tony Sidaway/Giano affair, when fellow editors piled up on calling for your resignation as admin. You then "ran away", but continued to talk about your fellow users "behind their backs". Now, you've all of a sudden emerged again, albeit with a semi-inactive notice in your userspace, and are attempting to climb directly from the valley to the peak with your ArbCom nomination. I'm hardly surprised that your nom has received the most oppose votes of all noms.

I suggest that you put aside all thoughts of running for positions of authority for at least one year. During this time period, you should instead focus on writing in the mainspace, and cooperating with fellow users when necessary. You should also drastically reduce your level of self-pride, which is one of the main reasons why you lost the respect of many people in the community. After one year, if you feel you've regained enough respect from the community, you can then think about running for positions of authority; if not, repeat this process for another year and keep doing so until you feel satisfied. Scobell302 08:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a grievance should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's grievance, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.