Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] BirgitteSB's input

Since you requested my input I wanted to respond even though I do not have a grevience with you. I have actually never really run across you on en.WP much at all. The closest thing was when I commented on the situation that developed after Sean Black's second RFA [1] In all my contact with you elsewhere I have found you to share many similarities with myself. Particurlarly that you have strongly felt opinions and that you like to be heard. I imagine we agree on issues as often as we disagree although we certainly more vocal when we disagree. I have never felt bothered by any incivilty. If I was to search for something to give you advice on based on my own encounters, I would tell you to try to focus on posistive reasons and motivations for the positions of people you disagree with. This advice come from a paticular edit where I felt you were questioning my sincerity: So really, what's the real purpose of asking for CVs or resumes? What information are you looking for, and why do you want to see it?Regarding my Arbcom vote, I opposed everyone who was a party to an Arcom dispute in the last three months. All of these oppositions were made without prejudice. I did not read up on the cases (although I had previously read a small portion of the case you and number of oher canidates were involved in) or even read these canidates' answers to questions in in the election. I felt that anyone who was so recently involved in that level of dispute would have trouble entering in to arbom with a broad and neutral mindset. Perhaps this is not true for all cases, but I did not feel qualified to judge canidate's characters well enough to seperate who could overcome this natural bias and who could not. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong forum?

Wouldn't this be better in Editor review, rather than RFC? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Editor review might be a little more appropriate of a box for this, since there is not an outstanding dispute. However, if Kelly wants a broad set of comments on her prior difficulties with Wikipedia and how to resolve them, I think that's fine, and hope that Kelly and everyone address the issue as constructively as possible. TheronJ 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it was already started here, and it's not like it will hurt other RFCs or anything, so it doesn't make much sense to try and change its formatting and move it now. --Cyde Weys 18:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    • If there is consensus that this should be put somewhere else, I don't object, as long as doing so doesn't fracture the discussion. I really would like for all of the discussion in one place, not spread all over a dozen or two dozen or whatever pages. Keeping it contained in one place will hopefully help to minimize the "drama", as others have called it, and maximize the utility. To the extent that I may have abused the RfC process, I apologize. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Who cares where it is? Kelly's asking for criticism on herself, she can do it wherever she wants, in whatever format she wants. Quibbling about process is what starts all this drama up in the first place... RfCs are non-binding and voluntary participation, so just let it be. Milto LOL pia 10:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsing grievances?

Why are we endorsing grievances? The format already differs enough from a traditional RFC; I'm not sure that the "people who endorse this statement" section makes sense. I think it makes most sense, and is most helpful, that rather than simply endorsing, you write your own statement and use words to the effect of "And I also agree with the point $Foo made about $Bar ..." --Cyde Weys 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with removing the endorsing sections. It's not like this RfC is going to be used in any traditional way. Possibly they can be re-worded to something that more accurately reflects "This statement summarizes my views sufficiently that I don't need to write my own statement". Except not that wordy. --Ars Scriptor 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking at this history, Kelly set it up that way, so I see no reason to diverge from it. She obviously wants to know a) what people are thinking, and b) if people agree with it. Endorsements rather than your preference will certainly cut down on the size this page would likely become. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely concur with Bdj on this - Kelly set it up this way, and what possible purpose could there be in multiple sections all saying the same thing? This is feeback requested, and if Kelly wants to know who agrees with the constructive criticism offered (a helpful thing IMO, as it helps weigh issues) then certainly there is no reason to make it more difficult to ascertain what the primary percieved issues are. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Bdj and KC here. I see no point to doing away with endorsements. It would just lead to people having to create their own sections simply to say the same thing. Also, I think each grievance should have its own heading. This way, users may (if they choose) endorse one without having to put in qualifiers like "I agree with part of the above but I disagree with..." Johntex\talk 19:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't even think they should be called grievances, unless someone really has been individually hurt by one of Kelly Martin's decisions. Since she's seeking feedback, I'd rather just call them comments, which is what I did in my comment section. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It was the "grievance" wording that caused me to put my comment below rather than in the RFC itself. To be honest, I don't really know what Kelly wants/imagines out of this. Chick Bowen 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough, it looks like there are valid reasons for keeping the endorsement sections. I still think a different name might be better, though. This isn't about punishing Kelly ... this is about making her a better Wikipedian. How about simply "Endorsements"? --Cyde Weys 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Kelly herself set up this RfC with the word "grievance" in the headings. It certainly seems accurate given that she also says "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,...Anyone who feels that my response to any grievance..." (empahsis mine). It seems pretty clear she is asking people to list grievances. Why not call a fig a fig? I see no reason to change the headings. Johntex\talk 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the "grievance" word choice is a bit dramatic, but Kelly picked it. I don't think it is calling a spade a spade, but I also think quibbling over this is silly. As to Chick Bowen's confusion as to Kelly's aims in this, I share them. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artificially limiting grievances?

Since this RfC is already so non-standard, I move we dispense with the normal format of only editting one section. If a single editor has multiple grievances, these would be better left under multiple headings so that (a) none of them are glossed over (b) the subject may more easily reply, if she desires (c) others may more easily endorse, if they desire. Johntex\talk 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would hate to see this RFC decay into the kind of threaded arguments we've seen so many times before. --Ideogram 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying splitting each grievance into its own section is more or less likely to lead to threaded arguments? I think it is less likely. Each grievance can be spoken to once by Kelly. If we are endorsing, then each person can leave a simple signature to endorse, they would not need to say things like "I support 1, 2, 3, 5, but I take issue with 4 because..." Individual grievances will be less confusing than someone lumping multiple grievances into a big block just for the sake of only making one entry. Johntex\talk 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll leave this decision up to Kelly. --Ideogram 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to one person writing multiple sections or multiple persons writing one section. I would rather have that than redundant comments, since that will just make it more tedious to respond. Sjakkalle's quite comprehensive first comment may actually obviate much of that. Still, it will probably take me three days to compose an appropriate response. I would also prefer that people avoid extensive endorsement comments, because that, again, complicates the responses. But really, do whatever y'all think is best. (And if that means y'all decide to delete this page, I'll accept that too.) And I don't care if they're called "grievances", "comments", or even "lemon drops"; what I am looking for a full, frank, and open discussion, and I don't care what you call it. Please don't let any artificial procedural issues get in the way of that. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your quick and thoughtful reply. Johntex\talk 20:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nonstandard RfC? Perhaps, but...

The important thing here is that Kelly has decided to hear grievances (and hopefully respond to them). Considering that one of the major criticsms of Kelly is an unwillingness to handle criticism, this is a fairly big deal and, IMHO, a good sign. It may turn out that all of this is the biggest case of "too little, too late" since Napoleon put on an extra pair of long underwear before the battle of Waterloo, but it's still better than nothing. With all the above in mind, I think it's unproductive to complain about this being a nonstandard RfC, not following the normal formatting, etc. The fact that Kelly has agreed to listen to criticism is the important thing, and some reasonable leeway should be allowed in what format the discussion happens to take. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BhaiSaab's Comment

I guess my input has been requested here because I voted oppose to your arbitration election. I don't really know who you are and don't have any idea of your history with Wikipedia. My reason for voting oppose was that I was not satisfied with your statement. BhaiSaab talk 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commend Kelly Martin's effort

Regardless of any past or ongoing grievances about Kelly Martin's conduct, I wholehearted endorse any efforts on her part to address them. Thank you, Kelly. :-) Rfrisbietalk 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I quite agree. Kudos, Kelly - many people would not even attempt to address concerns; they'd just withdraw. Srose (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this really appropriate?

This editor is an active candidate for ArbCom. It would seem to me that this would be the time for other editors to pose questions, receive answers, and decide how to vote. Certainly the editor might ask us about our votes, but that could be in response to the comments that accompanied votes, and I would expect individual questions.

Some editors clearly put effort into their comments (which this RfC seems to have ignored).

Some editors put substantial effort into their questions, and several have not yet been answered.

This RfC puts that process backwards, by asking editors to answer the candidate's questions, while the reverse, normal process is not proceeding. Out of respect for process, I will decline to participate while the candidacy remains active. Jd2718 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with this debate

I'm not going to participate in this debate. I've seen exterme interpretations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA abused by admins - WP:CIVIL's definition is "incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress" - the fundamental subject of this RFC is kelly's behaviour and so is intrinsically personal to her. Unless Kelly will not only waive her right to 'feel stressed' (ludicrous), but also commits to actively preventing admins disciplining editors for expressing views that could be considered uncivil, then I can't participate in any meaningful way. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no authority to prevent admins from disciplining anyone. I have told everyone who has asked that I leave it to them to decide what the appropriate response should be to anything they see posted here; the community has made it clear that it is not my place to decide such matters. All I can do is reiterate my promise not to seek sanction against anyone. I really don't see how I can do what you require of me, and so regret that your fear of retribution from people I cannot control bars you from participation. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baffled

I was intenting to stay out, but I'm utterly baffled by Kelly's statement of "I have no intention of seeking any position of responsibility or (formal) power in Wikipedia at any time in the foreseeable future." Kelly, you're running for Arbcom right now. Friday (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)