Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter M Dodge (talk | contribs) at 23:56, 6 December 2006 (Withdrawning comment, discussed this on IRC, so irrelevant. →RFC spamming). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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) 06:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

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 has admirably demonstrated through POV pushing, edit warring, and lying that he 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)

Respond at leisure. I only mentioned other venues in case you did not want your talk page cluttered. --Elaragirl 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Kelly, I am flattered that you asked for my input.

However, the fact is that I know almost nothing about you; I joined Misplaced Pages after the userbox wars and didn't pay attention to the Giano case until Kylu got involved.

I voted against you in the ArbCom elections based on the simple observation that your presence was divisive, without passing judgement on the merits of the positions supporting or opposing you.

So in fact I am not capable of making any meaningful input on your RFC. However, I do think it is a very positive step that you filed it, as it indicates a desire for critical feedback.

I do believe the statements of others that you have given a great deal to Misplaced Pages in the past. Whaterver your present difficulties, I hope that you can work through them and continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages in the future.

Thanks, --Ideogram 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC

You left a message on my talk page to comment on the RfC, however its a bit messy for me to make out where I am suppose to be commenting. I also noticed sections refuting person X etc, which also seems unorthodox. Anyway I will just post here and am willing to repost there if need be.

I voted against your step up to Arbcom after witnessing an incident regarding "lists" that you were keeping. Apparently you had some issue with people wondering what they were, or an admin wanting them deleted, and so you created another. Then basically let people argue in AN/I over what the list was about, the point of it etc. I found this to be childish and a complete violation of WP:POINT. Instead of manipulating the situation, you simply could have argued a point. I later read your admission that it was to provoke another admin, I believe into deleting it? Do not fully remember your admission honestly, its been so long. The whole situation kind of disturbed me as you basically made a large group of admins, in my opinion, look like fools for defending your list, which apparently was all a game and WP:POINT violation. As an admin I would have expected the list to be taken down willfully after seeing how much drama it caused and disturbance, at least on AN/I. If you have reformed or not is not something I am fully aware of as I have not seen you participate much since then other then arguing over your right to stay on the ArbCom mailing list, though you were no longer a clerk or ArbCom member, whichever it was that got you on the list. It seemed like when editors came with an issue or asked you to resolve a simple issue by itself you simply refused, which troubled me, as avoiding drama didnt seem high on your agenda at that time at least. In the issue of fairness I believe I did chime in that you should not have had permission to the list if you were no longer a member who would normally have it. Again if you need this reposted to the RfC just let me know, if you need me to attempt to clarify, it may take a while as I would have to dig up some very old difs. --NuclearZer0 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfC Comments

I did respond to your request for additional information here. If you have further questions, you can let me know on my talk page. Have a good day. ^demon 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC 3

The request for input is appreciated. I've had no interaction with you prior to this - my vote was based mainly on extensive digging through page histories, and my discomfort at voting support for someone who calls ArbCom work "mind-wrenching, gruelling... why anyone would do this is a mystery to me". Your presence on the list of candidates seems confusing at best, disruptive at worst. But I thank you for your request, and I think it's really mature of you to file an RfC. And wow, there's no way of saying that without sounding patronising, is there? Hmph. riana_dzasta 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Hi Kelly, good to see you back. Thanks for the notification of the RFC, but I really have nothing to add to it. While I was very pissed off with certain people for what may have been said, that isn't between me and you, and it certainly isn't a Misplaced Pages issue.

I think we differ in our assessment of people and who might be best positioned to advance the project. You may be wrong, I may be wrong, we both may be wrong. Differences of opinion are far healthier than the alternative. Sure, I have been upset by things you have said about friends of mine...but that isn't something for an RFC, that isn't even something for me to confront you on. There's lots of meat for the RFC, but nothing to which I was more than a spectator, to the best of my memory. All the best - Guettarda 19:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC again

We have a question for you here about how you would like the statements to be formatted. Please let us know. Thanks, Johntex\ 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have commented there already. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the quick reply. I do plan to contribute something, but I need to spend some time contemplating what to say. Best, Johntex\ 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC spamming

While I think a RFC might be appropriate, I don't think spamming everyone who voted at your ArbCom election page was the way to get our attention. Next time, I would only address the people you had an issue/dispute/etc. with and limit it to a few because spamming 150+ editors wasn't nessecary. I think everyone would have eventually found out about the RFC. I will however comment there since you requested that I did. Cheers! semper fi — Moe 20:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to admit that I've lost track of all the people I've had disputes/issues with. I made the assumption that everyone who voted against my candidacy had some sort of issue with me. Perhaps I was mistaken in so assuming, but I do not believe that there has been any significant harm or disruption to Misplaced Pages by my actions. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)