Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kelly Martin: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:35, 5 December 2006 editKelly Martin (talk | contribs)17,726 edits missing section header added by editorial monkey: response to elaragirl← Previous edit Revision as of 14:48, 5 December 2006 edit undoElaragirl (talk | contribs)3,865 edits missing section header added by editorial monkeyNext edit →
Line 68: Line 68:
*I am utterly astounded at your attitude regarding criticism of Misplaced Pages. I believe, and have always believed, that all Wikipedians must always be ready to criticize any aspect of Misplaced Pages that they believe is harming the project, openly and frankly. Your suggestion that neither arbitrators nor admins may engage in criticism of Misplaced Pages is therefore absolutely baffling to me. I would very much like for you to explain why you hold this startling belief. *I am utterly astounded at your attitude regarding criticism of Misplaced Pages. I believe, and have always believed, that all Wikipedians must always be ready to criticize any aspect of Misplaced Pages that they believe is harming the project, openly and frankly. Your suggestion that neither arbitrators nor admins may engage in criticism of Misplaced Pages is therefore absolutely baffling to me. I would very much like for you to explain why you hold this startling belief.
I look forward to your amplification on the above points. ] (]) 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I look forward to your amplification on the above points. ] (]) 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My reply is , by needs probably going to only use one or two diffs to illustrate each point. I could pull out more, but I find ] to be distasteful. Thus:

*By decorum, I mean the manner in which you deal with other members of the community. This is simply not acceptible . Nor is this: . Perhaps you feel that "screwing process" is valid. I don't. I don't feel as if anyone who feels that way should be deciding arbitration.
*By sense of unity, I mean a feeling that the consensus of many should carry the day. Your post at the mailing list talks about parlamentarism as a ''solution''. That's not something I needed to see, either, and again, I worry that if this is the way you look at the situation of how things should be handled, you may not be suited for ArbCom. Another way of looking at it would be this where you basically say anyone who disagrees is misguided.
* Judgement is also self-evident. The entire discussion here strikes me as arrogantly highhandeded. And your post on your blog shows you merely see everyone else as misguided. The userbox war makes me question your judgement, and by extension, your calmness and coolness of thought before action.

*Geogre is a fucking idiot who should be banned from the Wikimedia Foundation. That doesn't mean you should allow yourself to sink to his level ,now does it?

*My statement on criticism is this: criticism should be constructive and not ''vindicitve'', helpful and not ''hypothetical'', and should always reflect what's best for the ''Misplaced Pages that everyone can edit'' as opposed to the ''Misplaced Pages '''you''' happen to think is best''. I am an outspoken person. I piss people off. I ''delight'' in pissing people off, because people either think and reconsider, or open their mouth to pour out their own self destruction. I don't doubt you feel you're doing the best that you can do. But I don't SEE it as what would be best for ArbCom.

Finally, you say in many places you regret getting involved in the userbox mess, which people find laudable. Does that mean you regret doing what you did since it cost you the ability to make the "small changes" and the like you had before everything you did was subject to public scrutiny, or do you mean you regret angering the community by unilateral action? If there is ''anything'' I disagree with on Misplaced Pages, it is this idea of reckless boldness being somehow good, because it most often leads to pissing people off so badly that whatever improvements might be had are instead turned into a mess of epic proportion.

If you need to continue this conversation, feel free to make use of my email or talk page. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:48, 5 December 2006

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 1 day are automatically archived to User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2024 December. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Messages left here may not be replied to promptly. If you feel your communication is urgent, you may wish to email this user.
Archives:

December 2004 through April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March/April 2006 June/July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Misplaced Pages Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
  2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
  3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. Your responses would be added immediately, and you and other late-entering users would be noted in Monday's issue as well. Thanks, Ral315 (talk)

Portfolio for ArbCom

On Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)    (Please reply on this page.)

As a former Arbitrator the record is replete with details of my arbitration talent. Since it is quite evident that my candidacy is not very likely to succeed, I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me for not taking the time right now to dig up any of the thousands of edits that I must have made while serving as an Arbitrator or as a member of the Mediation Cabal before that. Thank you for your interest and your thoroughness in gathering the information you need to make an informed decision. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I wrote more, but I deleted it because I don't want to bother you with unasked for advice. — Sebastian (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

missing section header added by editorial monkey

I will respond (later, after dinner) with the appropriate diffs and decisions you have made that I disagree with. But in short, the mess here, here, and pretty much everything here make me feel three things.

  1. You do not exhibit the proper decorum, sense of unity, calmness, and judgment necessary for ArbCom.
  2. You have issues with members of this community that you have not resolved, as shown by your posts on George's page. This, based on your previous actions, makes me less than hopeful you will act with moderation in arbitrations.
  3. You are critical of both Misplaced Pages's process and it's community, preferring to trust your own sense of what's right and good for Misplaced Pages. This isn't your job as an admin, much less as a arbitrator, and disqualifies you utterly.

As I said, I'll respond in further detail later. --Elaragirl 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will make some comments now, which you may respond to at your convenience, or not.
  • Your statement regarding my decorum, sense of unity, calmness, and judgment is conclusory and unsupported. I do look forward to discussing the specific incidents that you believe justify your conclusions in this regard, or, if you cannot produce such evidence, your retraction of the same.
  • I do indeed have issues with certain members of this community, foremost of which is probably Geogre. I am quite thoroughly convinced that Geogre is a liar; I have caught him on several occasions repeating falsehoods about myself and others, and continuing to do so after being challenged for doing so, with evidence to support the claim that his statements were false. A person who persists in telling untrue things after being fairly informed that they are false is a liar, and I believe Geogre meets that definition. I do not suffer liars well. Geogre has consistently used Misplaced Pages's "no personal attacks" policy as a shield against allegations that he is engaged in the practice of spreading falsehood (and it is likely that he will accuse me of personal attacks for making this statement). However, Geogre has placed his character into dispute by choosing to run for the Arbitration Committee; therefore, a careful and critical examination of his character is most certainly in order. If he cannot take the heat of such an examination, he should withdraw his bid. As to evidence of Geogre's lies, these have been amply demonstrated in the past, but I can certainly produce them again given a reasonable time.
  • I am utterly astounded at your attitude regarding criticism of Misplaced Pages. I believe, and have always believed, that all Wikipedians must always be ready to criticize any aspect of Misplaced Pages that they believe is harming the project, openly and frankly. Your suggestion that neither arbitrators nor admins may engage in criticism of Misplaced Pages is therefore absolutely baffling to me. I would very much like for you to explain why you hold this startling belief.

I look forward to your amplification on the above points. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My reply is , by needs probably going to only use one or two diffs to illustrate each point. I could pull out more, but I find necrosadistic animal training to be distasteful. Thus:

  • By decorum, I mean the manner in which you deal with other members of the community. This is simply not acceptible 1. Nor is this: 2. Perhaps you feel that "screwing process" is valid. I don't. I don't feel as if anyone who feels that way should be deciding arbitration.
  • By sense of unity, I mean a feeling that the consensus of many should carry the day. Your post at the mailing list 3 talks about parlamentarism as a solution. That's not something I needed to see, either, and again, I worry that if this is the way you look at the situation of how things should be handled, you may not be suited for ArbCom. Another way of looking at it would be this 4 where you basically say anyone who disagrees is misguided.
  • Judgement is also self-evident. The entire discussion here 5 strikes me as arrogantly highhandeded. And your post on your blog shows you merely see everyone else as misguided. 6 The userbox war makes me question your judgement, and by extension, your calmness and coolness of thought before action.
  • Geogre is a fucking idiot who should be banned from the Wikimedia Foundation. That doesn't mean you should allow yourself to sink to his level ,now does it?
  • My statement on criticism is this: criticism should be constructive and not vindicitve, helpful and not hypothetical, and should always reflect what's best for the Misplaced Pages that everyone can edit as opposed to the Misplaced Pages you happen to think is best. I am an outspoken person. I piss people off. I delight in pissing people off, because people either think and reconsider, or open their mouth to pour out their own self destruction. I don't doubt you feel you're doing the best that you can do. But I don't SEE it as what would be best for ArbCom.

Finally, you say in many places you regret getting involved in the userbox mess, which people find laudable. Does that mean you regret doing what you did since it cost you the ability to make the "small changes" and the like you had before everything you did was subject to public scrutiny, or do you mean you regret angering the community by unilateral action? If there is anything I disagree with on Misplaced Pages, it is this idea of reckless boldness being somehow good, because it most often leads to pissing people off so badly that whatever improvements might be had are instead turned into a mess of epic proportion.

If you need to continue this conversation, feel free to make use of my email or talk page. --Elaragirl 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)