Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:36, 27 April 2007

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! --Shirahadasha 05:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I despise "thank you for voting" notes. If I had known you were going to bother me with this swill, I would have opposed your candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, cmon Kelly. That's pretty harsh. --Dweller 12:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what happened to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? The Rambling Man 12:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure his comments were good faith; I just happen to despise "thank you for voting" notes and said so. Nothing bad faith about that. And really, what's uncivil about expressing my opinion honestly? And stop spraying CAPITALIZED GIBBERISH on my talk page; if you are going to refer to Misplaced Pages "policy" here, you will do so using English. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. The Rambling Man 12:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly, you're a gem, but I do think "despise" and "swill" are pretty harsh words for him, not to mention the sentiment of the last six words. Anyway, to change the tune somewhat, I may be able to line up a WikiProject admin candidate. Regardless of whether or not you choose to support that particular nominee, it's an interesting step. Watch this space. --Dweller 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Voltaire said "The perfect is the enemy of the good." He was a wise man. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just to let you know, my suggestion won't be happening this time. More details at WT:CRIC. Shame. I think your idea has real merit. --Dweller 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Donald Stephens

No problem. I think that everything I added comes from the external links already on the page, in case there are any concerns with sourcing. Zagalejo 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD closures and admins

Kelly, I noticed that you recently opposed several RFA candidates for believing that closing deletion discussions is an admin only task. IIRC, that used to be true. Do you know when and where it changed? Also (and not intending to be confrontational when I ask), why is this a good reason to oppose someone? Because it indicates ignorance of a policy/guideline change or because it shows an inflated view of the responsibilities of sysops, or perhaps something else...? Thanks.--Chaser - T 10:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing deletion discussions has never been a role exclusive to admins. There is a common belief that only an admin can close a deletion discussion as "delete" because the closer is required to delete the page as part of closing, but that is false: a non-admin can close the discussion and tag the page for speedy deletion, and a subsequent admin will actually delete the page. This has always been the case.

I will oppose candidates who express positions or attitudes I disagree with because I don't want people who hold such positions to benefit from the added influence of being admins, lest they spread their mistaken ideas more broadly as a result. In this particular case, both of your suppositions are basically accurate. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions is pretty clear that non-admins should only close "keep" AfDs, actually, and has been that way since, June 13, 2005. --AnonEMouse 14:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That is, in my opinion, incorrect, regardless as to how long it's been there. Stupid policies should not be followed, regardless of how long they've been stupid. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I humbly submit that an admin candidate that takes any one person's opinion above an official Misplaced Pages:guideline, marked such for 2 years, is not qualified to be chosen as an admin. Just think, for example, if that candidate were to take Badlydrawnjeff's opinion above the Notability guideline. --AnonEMouse 14:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but any guideline or policy which happens to disagree with my opinion, should not be followed! :-) --AnonEMouse 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not expect you to feel any differently! Kelly Martin (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my RfA

I noticed your comment on my RfA. The one problem in getting an endorsement from a WikiProject is that WikiProjects do not at present endorse candidates for adminship. I have in mind some time soon to start a WikiProject for biographies of Members of Parliament (Harry Hayfield has contacted me about something similar). I have also been active in fields covered by WikiProject Baronetcies and WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies; if I went to their talk pages and mentioned that you had made this request, would this be a violation of WP:CANVASS? And what if project members come back saying "I can't speak for the whole project"? Sam Blacketer 17:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It most probably would be a violation of WP:CANVASS at present, so I would be extremely hesitant to go down that road. Kelly hasn't opposed you, she simply remained neutral so overall it isn't going to hurt you. Please note, as yet, no wiki project has endorsed a candidate, and kelly's neutral is not going to bias anyone elses judgement in your RfA. All in all - I'd suggest leaving it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be considered canvassing to make a single post on the talk page of a WikiProject you are active in asking whether they would endorse you for adminship. And if that does count, then the canvassing guideline needs to be changed, because there clearly isn't anything wrong with this. --Cyde Weys 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how I meant to put it was some people may see it as canvassing and oppose accordingly, I personally have no problem with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is something wrong with this, I would consider it canvassing, and quite sufficient grounds to oppose an RfA. When and if wikiprojects start endorsing RfA candidates, they should do so on their own, or on a suggestion from a project member other than the candidate. DES 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care much for the anti-canvassing rule. If that policy interferes with obtaining a WikiProject endorsement, then change the policy. (Note that this is a repeat discussion; refer to my talk page archives for several other people making exactly the same comment and the responses thereto.) I also draw your attention to my standing rule (mentioned above) that discussions related to Misplaced Pages policy on my talk page are to take place in English and without the use of "capitalized gibberish". Kelly Martin (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am actually intending proposing a substantial rewrite of the anti-canvassing policy, which has a valid core intent but also a variety of unintended negative side-effects. So upon reflection, I agree that "canvassing" concerns perhaps should not be an objection to Kelly Martin's proposed change in RfA standards, though as a practical matter they are at the moment. More fundamental remains the simple fact that Wikiprojects don't endorse RfA candidates and there is no indication they are going to start doing so. So I fear that what we have here amounts, inadvertently, to not only a demand for a shrubbery, but for an unprocurable one. Newyorkbrad 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

... subject to the thread at the bottom of the page. Unexpected (by me, anyway). Newyorkbrad 14:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all by me, though. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for commenting on my RfA! I had read something bad about vandalism counters, but I had forgotten; thanks for reminding me. Also, do you mind pointing out the grammatical errors on my page? I can't seem to find them (and I hate them!). Also, you mentioned that I declared I was going to run for RfA on my page, but I've not done that. Maybe you're confused with someone else, or I misinterpreted you. I'd appreciate a response; thanks! · AndonicO 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Knowing who Greg is

I was reading this thread, and I hope you don't mind me saying that I was surprised to see you follow up your explanation of who Greg is (though the cryptic "CRO" still might have confused some people), with a request for kingboyk to assume good faith. The way I see it, it was perfectly acceptable for him to ask what authority Greg was acting under. I had to search my memory for a moment before I remembered (from previous lurking elsewhere) that Greg was a developer. For future reference, maybe there is a list of developers somewhere that could be referred to in situations like this? Carcharoth 21:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I found meta:Developers, but that seems out-of-date, as it says. Carcharoth 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And Chief risk officer would be an amusing "not-all-capitals" alternative to Chief Research Officer, or as the WMF put it, Chief_Research_Coordinator... Carcharoth 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was perfectly okay to challenge Greg. I don't recall voting for him to have any powers over bots, or any discussion leading to his being given a position of power. I have seen him throw his weight around in various places on the wiki, so I can understand why someone would ask who he thinks he is. You should note that how many edits bots make is an editorial issue, not a technical one, so even if it's the case that the Foundation has appointed him to some role or other, he still should take some care not to claim a jurisdiction in editorial matters that will jeopardise the Foundation's position that it is not responsible for the encyclopaedia's content. Grace Note 01:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And I can't find Greg listed at current staff, though I realise that is a list of the full-time staff. The Board of Trustees is listed here, and the Advisory Board is llisted here. Former staff are here, but I'm still struggling to find Greg there. I realise that this may be because the WMF wiki is often out-of-date, but I can see why it would be difficult for someone to track down Greg's official position relative to the WMF. The resolution I linked above is the only thing I've found so far. Carcharoth 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should probably also add this page to this category and set up a redirect from Chief Research Officer to the new title page. Anyway, sorry to have dragged on about this on your talk page. I'll drop a note off at Greg's talk page and stop here. Carcharoth 10:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Whereas I at least did go through some sort of open procedure to be in the Bot Approvals Group; whether or not that procedure is sufficient isn't really the issue here. The issue is that an elite group on IRC made a decision without bothering to inform us of it, and then made grossly offensive accusations of bad faith and personal attacks designed to portray us as villains when they were rumbled. Really not acceptable at all imho. --kingboyk 12:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please kindly put your annoying and ludicrous allegations of "IRC cabalism" back into the nether region from which you have extracted them. There's no "elite group on IRC", just several qualified and competent members of the community collaborating to achieve results. As opposed to a group of much less qualified and competent individuals conspiring to protect their own power base. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim "much less qualified and competent individuals"? I am getting sick and tired of these baseless insults. --kingboyk 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kingboyk - there is a certain way to handle Kelly Martin. Getting upset is not one of them. And I would actually agree that the IRC accusations are not helpful. Concentrate, like I am, on improving the processes in future, so that it is clear what roles Greg has, and fine-tuning the bot guidelines on Misplaced Pages and working with developers to ensure you are not misunderstanding each other. Bot operators and developers need to work together. Unfortunately, developers can be a bit of a law unto themselves, but that is something for another day. Carcharoth 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The first ever WikiProject endorsement?

Kelly, I have glanced at my Request for adminship and it appears that Kittybrewster has endorsed me on behalf of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Baronetcies. (Kittybrewster is not only an active member of the project; I understand he is himself a Baronet). I understand this may be a first. Sam Blacketer 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also you may wish to see Warofdreams' comments at WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies. Sam Blacketer 09:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a few days to see if there are objections at WikiProject Baronetcies; if there are not I will consider the endorsement to have the consensus of the project and will, at that time, alter my vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA and userboxes

Kelly, I respect your evaluation that it takes more than a vandal fighter to make a good admin. However, if that's the basis of your opposition, then please present your opposition in that light. But there is a growing frustration from RfA candidates that RfAs are failing on completely arbitrary reasons and what you're doing is a direct contribution to that. In case you forgot, your oppose rationale is "Questionable user page content (specifically, the "I wanna be an admin" userbox, and the CVU "WikiDefCon" stupidity) compels me to oppose this candidate." The content of this candidate's user page is perfectly within the average spectrum of userpages of well-respected editors. It's perfectly comparable to many an admin's userpage. For cryin'out loud, it's not even to different from your userpage. If you have a problem with the WikiDefCon template, well start an MfD and if that MfD fails then just accept it and move on. What you're doing is participating in the current atmosphere of paranoia that surrounds RfA. Countless editors have asked you time and again to stop opposing on such trivialities and yet, all we get back is that we should be more civil to you. At some point, however, your insistence that you shouldn't care about what editors are telling you is really the more serious concern of incivility. Pascal.Tesson 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion, but I find that I do not wish to follow your advice; I do not believe that the approaches you recommend would be as effective in improving Misplaced Pages as the methods I am currently employing. If you have any further suggestions, I will be most pleased to entertain them. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is you are trying to change the average spectrum, or what is generally accepted on wikipedia through opposition on the RFA process?-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that instead of opposing users directly over their user page, you should go to their talk page and politely inform them of any problems you have, or alternatively, you could just do what you do with your endorsement policy, and just !vote neutral until the concerns are addressed. That to me seems far more civil than direct opposition. Acalamari 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that your methods would be less effective. I choose not to adopt them. Thank you for your input, however. I do, however, categorically reject your assertion that opposing someone's candidacy is inherently uncivil. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposition is not uncivil. I was just saying that you could take a more civil approach to your opposition over user page content. Acalamari 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not so much opposing over user page content, but instead opposing because said content indicates to me characteristics (based on my experience) in the candidate which I feel are undesirable in a Misplaced Pages editor, and therefore in a Misplaced Pages administrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, I am not trying to push a method on you, just trying to gain a better understanding. I guess I am just trying to understand why (and i dont mean to offend) you oppose on what appears to be such pedantic semantics. Having a want to be admin userbox. Just to let you know, most likley if they are at RFA, they want to be an admin some day. Does that mean everybody at an RFA should be opposed? I am not trying to discount your opinion, just trying to gain a better understanding of why you feel that such content of userpages is a reason for opposition? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that everyone requesting adminship should be opposed, but I am likely more parsimonious in offering support than most participants in the forum. I believe my comments elsewhere adequately explain my oppositions to date, but if you have specific questions do feel free to ask them. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In particular, I have seen two reasons that you have opposed an editors. The two of these that confuse me the most are for having the "This user is not an administrator but wants to be one someday" userbox and for vandalism counter userboxes. While I am not going tell you that you are wrong for these oppositions, I will however explain it how I see it so that you can understand why I feel that oppositions on this basis are wrong.(You are also totally welcome to ignore anything that I say). In regards to the "admin someday userbox," how does this show that an editor is unfit to be an administrator? I guess in other similar instance, I hope to have a masters degree and a phd degree someday and have told many of my friends. Does my public accouncement of such desires may me unfit? While the above example could be seen as comparing applies and orages (real life and wiki life), I believe that an editor who aspires to be an adminsitrator is a driven editor. Inr egards to vandalism counters, I strongly believe that they draw vandalism attention away from the article space and to the userspace if anything. I know many arguments against vandalism counters is that it encourages vandalism, and in fact, it may encourage an disruptive editor to vandalize my userpage. Personally, I am not offended at all by userpsage vandalism and am glad that they are wasting there time in the userspace. I resepct your opinion as an editor and am interested in understanding why you feel these are "oppose" worthy addtions to the userspace. Thanks again for your time. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also to clarify, I know that you do not owe me an explanation, however I am respectufully attemtping to enage in discourse over behavior that on the surface may seem disruptive to some, however if deeper reasons, not obvious to the casual editor exist that may merit such objections. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be saying with this that you consider opposition on an RFA to be inherently an act of incivility. Is that what you meant to say? - David Gerard 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is, lets say theoretically somebody failed an RFA yesterday and went around opposing all of the rfas for the reasons posed by Kelly Martin, while they may be valid, the said theoretical editor would most likjley end up being blocked for WP:POINT violations. Note, I am not likening Kelly Martin to a failld RFA WP:POINT violater, however contrasting a theoretical community reaction if said opposeds were by a disruptive editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I draw your attention to my request that contributors refrain from using capitalized gibberish in discussions here. If you wish to refer to Misplaced Pages policy documents on my talk page, you may do so using English. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's I what I was saying about being civil. You don't speak to people that way. Saying that Chrislk02 is using capitalized gibberish is rude. Acalamari 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Using capitalized gibberish is rude. If you wish not to be called rude, do not behave rudely. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(Coming in late) This is a definition of "rude" that is completely alien to the common definition. On the other hand, abruptly accusing someone talking perfectly normally of "using capitalized gibberish" is rude, and remarkably so. -- Earle Martin 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In acalamari's defense, he as well as many other editors know that as the common practice. I do not see how biting us, being uncivil or rude regarding it is going to help spread your point of view. I am very patient, and am willing to talk and discuss things, however other editors may view this has being uncivil, assuming bad faith and being disruptive. I dont believe it to be any of the above and understand that you probably have really good reasons for said objections, and issues with "capitalized gibersih". I also respsect your opinion and feel that it is valid, at least in the part of it that is may be overused and may communication difficult. However, do you not admit you could come across a little nicer? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly, I sincerely apologize if I have offended you for use of "capitalized Gibberish". I am unaware of what you are referring to and cannot find a reference to it. Perhaps I have not read deep enough. I will however infer that you are referenceing links to wikipedia policies all in caps? If this is what you are referring to, I will kindly replace them all with lowercase fonts if you deem appropiate. The fact is, I am still interested in discussing this with you and believe my above comments are very valid, and not gibberish (while they may contain wiki linked sections in capital letters, last I checked, most of them were in engliush and understandable). However, if you believe that lowercase letters would aid in this discussion, or for that matter anything else, please let me know. Also, please understand I am trying to understand you and not jump to broad conclusions about people. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The way to avoid being rude by using capitalized gibberish is to use plain English to refer to Misplaced Pages policies. I strongly object to the overload of jargon that pervades Misplaced Pages discussions these days. The use of capitalized gibberish in lieu of plain English in discussions devalues meaning and interferes with useful discussion. In addition, I have found that communications laden with such comments are more likely to be in the nature of "power answers" or even outright threats, rather than legitimate attempts at discussion. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Kelly, you again have my sincere apologies. I apologize if that is what it came across as. I assure you that my comments were not meant to be power answers, or threats, however my attempts to express my concerns in the best way I knew how. I will kindly refrain from using caps when refering to wikipedia policies in discourse with you. Thank you for explaining what you meant when you refered to "capitalised gibbersih" I also as a reccomendation, ask you to remeber assuming good faith. While it may be potentially disruptive to have policies quoted in caps, it is my assumption that there are many editors (like myself) who use it out of habit, and with no intentions of abuse of power. Thanks again for your response. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's necessarily intentional; nonetheless, it happens. The use of jargon to shortcut communication has an exclusionary effect, and also tends to cause people to think in a more constricted, compartmentalized manner that actually decreases useful complex thinking. For example, referring to the policy regarding disruption as "WP:POINT" instead of "Misplaced Pages policy regarding demonstrative disruption" is likely to lead to forgetting that that policy does not actually prohibit all disruption. I've noticed in recent months that this particular policy is frequently quoted (as "WP:POINT") for things it does not stand, and I suspect this is in large part because so many people have taken to glossing over the actual meaning of the policy with its convenience shortcut. Feel free to use the convenience shortcuts to save typing when actually accessing the policies, or referring to them in the left half of a wikilink, but do not shortcut your thinking; Misplaced Pages is harmed by that. In short, it's a bad habit that you should try very hard to break. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that enlightnening explanation. I am glad I took the time to understand where you were coming from. I agree with you mostly. Your argument makes sense, I however kindly ask that you be a little more civil when somebody does not do it. It makes alot of sense but calling comments that contain it gibberish borders on insulting, especially when it is a widespread practice. I understand that the widepsread practice is a bad argument, as if it was used we would still have Slavery and many other horrible things in life that at some point were common practice. But, like ti anything that is a common practice, it willt ake time to get the point across, and being mean about it does not help. In short, I resepect your opinion, however disagree with the way you have chosen to get the said point across. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned slavery, which made me think of one of my favorite poems. I'm with W.E.B. on this one: I will not "speak soft, and try your little plan". Thank you for your input, however. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that my reccomendations are only to help further your point. However, if you wish to continue your, as blis states is, acerbic dialogue, I fear your valid point will be discounted. Thank you though for taking the time to discuss it, and I sincerly hope that you choose to be a bit more civil in your discourse, I assure you it goes along ways! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Kelly, please read Misplaced Pages:assume good faith and wikipedia:civility your arguments are incivil, talking about someone writing gibberish? Chris was simply writing an accepted format for quoting policy and guidline. Your comments in RfA are also verging on being pointy - by that I mean your opposing candidates for silly reasons to try and bring attention to yourself. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan. Since "capitalized gibberish" is not a commonly understood term here, it is unfair to expect all users to understand what you mean by it without explanation, and it is uncivil to call them "rude" for not following your poorly-worded request. As you yourself utilize the abbreviations "CVU" and "CRO", you could be said to be hypocritical as well. Please reconsider your tactics to enact change, and engage in constructive dialogue instead of acerbic retorts. -- nae'blis 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, you're defending capitalised gibberish by asserting that the phrase "capitalised gibberish" must be a personal attack because it's not insular jargon? I'm sure Kurt Godel had a theorem about this sort of thing - David Gerard 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find an assertion that it is a personal attack, at least in the immedatly preceding paragraphs. Could you please specify who is asserting that it is a pesronal attack? Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will assert here that it is. Not because of anything to do with jargon, but because it is flat out bad behaviour. I must also comment here that I find the manner in which David Gerard is replying to your comments quite puzzling. -- Earle Martin 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also not trying to push anything on you. I would like to say, however, that from my experience on Misplaced Pages (and in real life), people are more likely to go with your suggestions if you are polite. Acalamari 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I guess what I basically want to know now is do you have any intention of attemtpting to be civil when explaining how you think wikipedia should be? In the above discourse I found no reason to believe that you have any intetion of attempting to be civil about it. Specifically, I quote "You mentioned slavery, which made me think of one of my favorite poems. I'm with W.E.B. on this one: I will not "speak soft, and try your little plan". Thank you for your input, however.", from our above discussion. This concerns me as you seem to not care about anything but what you think wikipedia should be. How does this help build an encylopedia as opposed to break it down by, "snapping" at curious editors. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's a fairly obnoxious tone to take on someone else's talk page - David Gerard 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This feels to me like a threat. It's certainly not a productive comment, and I think I've dignified it too much with the preceding comment already. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I put alot of work into this project, and at all costs, i attempt to remain as civil as possible. Should I take a turn, and start biting people, become uncivil, i would appreciate a friendly comment from my fellow editors. It is a valid question, do you itnend to make any effort to be civil? The question still stands. I will make any effort to be civil, and you have my humble assurances that there is no threat in the above statements, merely me attempting to determine your intentions. What offends me is when you continue to show uncivil behavior, such as calling me a varmint, when I have made efery effort to understand you is far from being civil. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At best - and being generous - you appear to be assuming bad faith than attempting to communicate with someone who does not speak precisely in your manner. Civility (note lack of link - a link is as much an indicator of jargon as any capitalised gibberish) does not in conventional English require shibboleths - David Gerard 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will admint, I am not assuming good faith, but making no assumption to faith and attemtping to assertain this editors faith. I believe that i have complied with this editors requests that when i do refer to wikipedia policies, I refer to them in lower case. I have, since this user reuqested it, generally refrained from making references to policy. However, I feel that this editor is bordering on incivility, and am attempting to assertain if that is their intention. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No-one can possibly defend capitalised gibberish on Misplaced Pages and make any pretense at "civility." Misplaced Pages jargon is the height of exclusionary insularity. New editors write almost all the actual article text; jargon is deliberate exclusion and must be consciously minimised. That you have defended it even in the slightest and consider calling it "capitalised gibberish" unsuitable renders your claims of civility apparently utterly hypocritical. Work harder on being less passively hostile to new editors and less on policing others - David Gerard 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I in no way defend capitalized gibberish, a term I used after Kelly Martins first use. In all actuality, if you read through the above discourse, i agree with kelly martin on this topic. The claim that I, or any other editor use it as a "deliberate exclusion," is a leap of bad faith, an assertion you are quick to throw about my questions here. Furthermore, the only reason that I call it capitalised gibberish is because that is what Kelly Martin calls it. If there is evidence of me being uncivil, please bring it to my attention, however I have mad every effort here to remain as civil, cool and collected and believe that straw man arguments to the contrary do not help

Furthermore, if this editor has no intention of following wikipedia policies, why should they be treated any differnetly than anybody else who disregards policies. Just because you do not like them, does not mean that they do not exist. These are policies that request that we Participate in a respectful and civil way, Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages and ask that if you think you have a valid point, that you do not cause disruption because it is probably the least effective way of presenting that point All of these are official policies of wikipedia and should this editor intentionally and willfully disregard these policies, they should be blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's the bit where you say "talk like me or be blocked", the threat being referred to above? - David Gerard 21:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No this is the bit where I say if you dont abide by the wikipedia policies like the rest of us, you will probably get blocked. Pelase read the above discourse to see that I agree with Kelly Martins "capitalised gibberish" theory and actually plan to embody it in my communication with other editors. However, I disagree with the uncivil, disruptive way that kelly martin feels the point should be made. Please read the above comments before coming in with your guns blazing. My only request is that kelly martin attempt to express the point civiliy, not calling people "varmints", or calling everything they write in good faith as "gibberish" because of a concept they do not understand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I see (since, after all, you started with capitalised gibberish and userboxes and progressed to threats). Well, good luck with securing a block - David Gerard 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Again with the straw man arguments. No where to i start with capitalised gibberish, alas, it is this own users talk page who denouces it in those terms at the top. Now, please show me an innapropriate comment I made about userboxes and I will kindly accept responsibility for anything innapropriate I have taken. As far as threats, there is no threat other than the statement that, (and i expect this of myself), should this editor fail to abide by wikipedia policies, they will probably end up being blocked. So, please specify what was wrong, other than your failure to read and comprehend the entire conversation before commenting? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Threat? It wasn't a threat. Somebody who ignores policy is a disruptive editor. Disruption, last time I looked, is a blockable action. Chrislk02 was not threatening anyone. Acalamari 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, where Kelly Martin said that stupid policies should not be followed, obviously Kelly Martin believes that Misplaced Pages: Civility is a stupid policy that should not be followed. Acalamari 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean, burn the witch? Or what? - David Gerard 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Acalamari 20:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is degenerating into pointless bickering. I would go so far as to say that it is moving at superluminal speed, as no information is being conveyed. Without expressing my opinion as to why things have reached this level, enough already. Newyorkbrad 21:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is correct. I am peacefully withdrawing from this discussion. Acalamari 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Aarghh… why? I was following this, give that remote back! --Van helsing 21:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a similar topic, so I'll re-post my comment a couple sections above:

Thanks for commenting on my Request for Adminship! I had read something bad about vandalism counters, but I had forgotten; thanks for reminding me. Also, do you mind pointing out the grammatical errors on my page? I can't seem to find them (and I hate them!). Also, you mentioned that I declared I was going to run for Request for Adminship on my page, but I've not done that. Maybe you're confused with someone else, or I misinterpreted you. I'd appreciate a response; thanks!

<End>

Could you please answer? I'm a bit confused about your opposition, except for your opinion on my answer to question four (the one about Ignore all rules]]), as several users have explained that. · AndonicO 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Might I suggest that this may be seen to some as a personal attack, if an editor has a concern, please assume good faith and if you choose to respond, do so respectfully. Also, why don't you go somewhere and actually attempt to propose a mechanism for your wikiproject endorsements, it's not going to move on unless you go somewhere and suggest it (note, by that I don't mean on live request for adminships). Ryan Postlethwaite 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I must correct your mistake. Already one project has discussed endorsements and another appears to have actually endorsed a candidate. You may want to reconsider your claim that it's "not going to move on" in light of these facts. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well surely it would be better to sort the confussion out and try and get some efficient way of wikiprojects endorsing candidates, I'm more than happy to help with it, I just really haven't got any good idea's of how it could work. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, read. The guy made the threat explicit a few paragraphs down - David Gerard 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donald Stephens, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo on WikiProject endorsements

Hi Kelly. To be clear, his comments did not explicitly name or mention your proposal, and I didn't mean to imply that that was the case. It was in a discussion about a shortage of admins (he said that there should be "far more" and that the process of gaining adminship should be easier) and the "drive-by !voters" (his term, my spelling) who he said included many who would not necessarily have direct knowledge of the candidate. Such !voters might just quickly review the user's pages and a few recent contributions and perhaps see if he/she had any barnstars. He said that it made sense that those who had close contact with a candidate were in the best position to judge his/her worthiness and ability.

I am paraphrasing, but the above is a fairly close representation of his words and the terms he used. That part of the discussion lasted about a minute, so it wasn't gone into in any great detail. There was no discussion of the mechanics of how this would happen. I hope that helps. Cheers. —Moondyne 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's refreshing to hear that Jimbo is talking about these important issues with Wikipedians as he travels. I have to agree with him about the people who have had close contact with a candidate being in the best position to evaluate the candidate; that's exactly where my endorsement initiative comes from. One of the problems with the request for adminship process is that it has been taken over by people who vote on each candidate's merits not based on their experience with the candidate, but instead on whether or not the candidate has satisfied various semi-arbitrary criteria. I admit to doing much the same, except that my attitude has historically been "support unless there is a problem" rather than "oppose unless my conditions are met". I've altered that to "withhold support pending input from the editor's colleagues" in order to create broader awareness of the need for such an evaluation, but of course people are widely misunderstanding (purposefully in at least some cases, I fear) the intentions of my initiative. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting; that's a very different reasoning than "withholding support pending a WikiProject endorsement". In fact, I could get behind the idea of having more direct involvement of those who know the editor, but you'll probably need to explain it a little more. Misplaced Pages is so decentralized and volunteer-driven that trying to require WikiProject endorsement as the sole and only means of gaining your support (again, per your stated words, if not your intention) seems counter-productive to the goal. -- nae'blis 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have both tactical and strategic objectives. The endorsement "requirement" is tactical, not strategic. That doesn't make it any less inviolate now, it just means that I will reevaluate it after a reasonable time and decide how to change it, if at all, depending on my evaluation as to whether that particular tactic is still furthering my broader strategic goals for Misplaced Pages. Much of this has previously been discussion on this page; I suggest you avail yourself of my talk page archives. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well acquainted with some of your strategic objectives, but I still think that requiring people to go through your talk archives or (worse) offwiki discussions to understand your motivations for misunderstood actions continues to be a source of conflict regarding your goals. The same goal could be handled in some cases with a slightly more direct 'tactical' approach, or a explanatory note. Thanks for the reply, in any case. -- nae'blis 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do keep meaning to write up an FAQ, but I simply have not had time to do so. Sorry. You are welcome to do so, of course; I would be glad to review any such effort. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Regretfully, my current workload here and elsewhere precludes such an effort, but I'll keep it in mind if I ever have a spare hour (shouldn't take longer than that for a first draft). -- nae'blis 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A few questions

I was just wondering if I may ask a couple of questions regarding wiki-project endorsement. How is the wikiproject supposed to endorse a candidate? Who actually signs the endorsement on the RfA page? What is the mechanism that's currently in place for wiki-project endorsement? What is the candidate supposed to do to get an endorsement? Why is someone going to make a bad administrator if they don't have a wikiproject endorsement? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I too would like to understand how this is to occur and have a number of questions. Forgive me if you've answered some or all of them already, if you have would you be kind enough to point me in the direction of your answers.

1. Wikiproject Cricket has refuted the concept as another layer of beaurocracy in the Request for Adminstrator process. Should wikiprojects have their own !vote (or perhaps a Request for Endorsement?) to decide if a candidate is appropriate?
2. Who from the project decides on the consensus for the wikiproject, a bureaucrat perhaps or an admin or just another editor?
3. What evidence would satisfy you that an endorsement has taken place, other than a comment from a member of the project in question, or does this go back to needing a bureaucrat/admin to preside over the endorsement process?
4. Does a wikiproject have to have a certain number of active participants to satisfy your requirements, for example Wikiproject Cricket currently states 164 participants, Wikiproject Cats has 74, Wikiproject Cue Sports has seven, where is the cut-off point for a Wikiproject not having sufficient gravitas to endorse a candidate?

Thank you in advance for any time you might spend reading this and responding. The Rambling Man 12:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I will consider a candidate endorsed if there is a discussion on the WikiProject's talk page of the candidate's merits, and that discussion demonstrates consensus within the WikiProject that the candidate is suitable for adminship.
• I do not expect or require any particular form of notice on the candidate's request for adminship. Obviously the fact that the candidate has been endorsed by a WikiProject needs to be communicated, but this can be done by any reasonable means. Probably the best way for this to be done is for it to be mentioned as part of the candidate's nominating statement, since ideally the endorsement would precede the opening of the formal request for adminship. There is no particular signature requirement for this; if someone lies about having an endorsement, this fact will become evident promptly when I am not able to find evidence of the WikiProject's consensus.
• How a candidate obtains the endorsement is a matter between the candidate and any WikiProjects with which that candidate has interacted.
• I do not assert that a candidate who is not endorsed by a WikiProject will make a bad administrator. I merely feel that those who are are more likely to be superior administrators. If I believed that the lack of an endorsement implied that the candidate would make a poor administrator, I would oppose such candidates, and (as history demonstrates) I do not do so.
• The method by which a WikiProject decides who it will endorse is left entirely to each WikiProject. I find the suggestion that a bureaucrat needs to be involved in that process abjectly ludicrous.
• I will evaluate each endorsement personally and decide whether or not the circumstances in which it was made are sufficient to convince me that the editor has demonstrated his or her ability to work well with others. I decline to set forth rigid policies on which WikiProjects have sufficient "gravitas" to effectively endorse a candidate. Other voters may have different standards than I, and my standards (or lack thereof) have no application to them.

Several of these questions lead me to believe that there is a mistaken belief that I am trying to make endorsement a formal part of the request for adminship process. This is not the case. I am not seeking to create additional bureaucracies, merely asking that WikiProjects provide feedback regarding those who their membership interacts with in order to assist the rest of the project in evaluating potential candidates for administrator. I believe that WikiProjects, in their role as subject-focused editing groups, are well-suited for this task. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. The Rambling Man 13:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I as well thank you for the detailed reply. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship comments left by Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have retracted and struck out my bizarre, perplexing, vaguely accusing, incivil, tarnishing, sniping, useless, vaguely threatening, and overall disruptive comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Selket and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Mallanox. It's too late for me to reverse the damage at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Walton monarchist89, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger2, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Danny because those Requests for adminship have since been closed.

I should stick to editing the articles, except I'm not sure which ones I should edit. Nobody cares about a bunch of defunct flour mills in Minneapolis, and I have no right to edit Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chicago/COTW articles even though I've been doing some of them lately.

By the way, I left a report of my own vandalism at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but there was little interest in it. --Elkman 23:21, 24 April 2007 (Coordinated Universal Time)

Just some thoughts

When I first saw your comments regarding admin candidates, it threw me for a loop. The demands seemed arbitrary and even a bit asinine, to be perfectly honest. My opinion became that you were probably doing so to prove a point. I asked a couple people with some more experience with the place, quite literally, what in the hell you were thinking. One of them was kind enough to suggest I read your talk page and archives, which I should have done in the first place. After reading them, I still strongly disagree with your methods, but I strongly approve of your motives. So, I encourage you to keep on going. I would perhaps suggest that you include a brief phrase in your comments there to help give context and meaning to the request. I believe there are better tactics to express your strategy, but I cannot express enough how refreshing it is to see standards that are not metrics-based with positive motives. Be well! Vassyana 09:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your views on user pages and userboxes

Hi Kelly. I'm interested in getting a better understanding of what you think is inappropriate content for userpages and particularly userboxes. I've come to respect you as someone who thinks carefully about the stances you take and find it rewarding when I understand your motives better - even if I then disagree with you in part or whole. --Dweller 10:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy note...

I have name-checked you (again) here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Current_system --Dweller 10:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Explain This Please.

Would you care to explain what User:Kelly Martin/List of editors who need to be hit in the head with sticks is? Acalamari 17:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I will assume good faith, but the page seems highly inappropriate, and violates the user sub-page policies. Acalamari 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmmmm I think it's called a joke??? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked, in case it was a joke. I wasn't going to nominate the page for speedy deletion or anything like that. Acalamari 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it took you like seven minutes to notice this. That's not nearly fast enough. Dangerously evil editors like myself need to be watched far more closely. Get with the program already. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No attacks were intended. :) Though I admit I should have worded my question a bit politer. Acalamari 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For bringing this up in the first place I think you should gracously add you name to the list! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. :) Acalamari 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar Eaten By a Bear For making people smile. --AnonEMouse 20:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I do beg YOUR pardon, Kelly...

But I did qualify that statement with "I don't think Kelly's supported an requests for adminship, ever. Or at least not recently enough for most people to be aware of such an event" The key emphasis here would be "I don't think", which allows me to state my opinion as I like. It's my opinion, perhaps with a bit of hyperbole, but I don't think legal threats are appropriate, so let's move on. I'm sure you've come up with some witty reply based on my "I don't think" qualifier, so amuse yourself with that until satisfied. Rather than stumble around on my own inadequacies, shall we move on to the essence of my comment? Excellent!

Now I've never claimed universal civility but unfortunately in a project such as this, disagreements do occur. So in answer to your comment, I will agree that my comment was perhaps not entirely civil, but the core thrust of my rhetoric remains thus: You've denied, or remained neutral on the majority of requests for adminship candidates on which you've commented, for the purpose of your own disagreement with current policy. Are you denying the fact that you've either opposed, or denied support on the vast majority of the requests for adminships that you've participated in, based on those items I've mentioned?

Incidentally, is "I don't think Kelly's supported the vast majority of requests for adminships. " better than what I wrote? I'm willing to change it if you'd like to actually address the meat of my comment. And hey, bonus! I managed to avoid to avoid capitalised gibberish! Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 04:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should retract the statement entirely. It is uncivil to attempt to forward falsehoods about other editors during the course of any community discussion, whether or not such claims are "hedged". It would be simply irresponsible for you to do anything other than to publicly admit that you were mistaken and take back the accusation entirely.

It is true that I rarely support a candidate for adminship. I fail to see the relevance of this, however, except insofar as it appears to be a highly questionable attempt on your part to suggest that my opinion ought to be given less weight. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't advance the position that your opinion be given any less weight. If you'd like to point out where I did so, please do so. I will not retract my statement, but I will change it to reflect the fact that you've managed to support... what, one request for adminship in the last two weeks? I shall retract my statement and replace it with the other statement I've outlined, since my hyperbole seems to offend you to distraction.

Now, the relevance of your support (or lack thereof) is the same as the relevance of my support for the candidate: You're as free to comment on my actions elsewhere as I am free to comment on your own. This community is comprised of individuals with as many opinions as there are stars in the night sky. It is only through constant critique on our fellows that we will achieve the sort of ideal, universal contributions on all manner of subjects that this encyclopedia was founded on.

Again, I'm sorry our opinions diverge and I'll update my comments to reflect the support you mentioned. However, I'll no more retract my statements than you'll retract yours.

Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to note that I just supported another candidate, and I expect to be supporting yet another shortly. But really, I think your claim that this is "defensible hyperbole" to be ridiculous. Lying about other editor's behavior for political effect is indefensible, and you quite honestly should be ashamed of yourself both for doing so and for having the temerity to argue in defense of having done so. You may do as you wish: at this point, I do not consider further discussion with the likes of you worthy of my time or attention. Kindly do not defile my talk page with your presence again. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Kelly! Just wanted to point out that if all of us didn't support candidates with userbox issues, who weren't supported by a Wikiproject, etc., there would be very few admins promoted. Just suggesting that taking into account the need to address the backlog of tasks, promoting candidates who are slightly less than perfect but willing to help the project would benefit the project more than retaining strict rules, or introducing new rules, about userboxes, WikiProject support, and other matters. Hope all is well. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not answering the question I asked you. Please reread it and essay an actual answer this time. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA response

Just letting you know, I responded to your neutral at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/The Rambling Man. I may be totally off the mark, but it was worth a shot :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will consider the information you've provided. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)