They are reproduced here, below. Geogre will no doubt accuse me again of personal attacks for doing so. If he does so, he accuses himself of personal attacks in the same breath, for the statements he has made about me are far more egregious than anything I say below.
I am here (on Wikipedia) for the reasons detailed in my candidate statement and elaborated on my candidate questions page. It pains me that you are unwilling to credit enough good faith to accept that the statements I have made in those locations are truthful representations of my intentions and beliefs, and definitely, in my mind, calls into question whether you should be an Arbitrator, or in fact have any role on Wikipedia other than author.I find it outrageous that people are willing to vote for this individual. He has no concern for the truth, a characteristic that one would think would be totally incompatible with serving in a quasijudicial capacity. That he has any support at all speaks volumes about the grave illness of Wikipedia's community.I am here (on your talk page) because you are once again running about Wikipedia spouting off falsehoods as if they are truths. The falsehood (which you have at least admitted on this page, but not, as far as I know, in the other places where you have presented it) about the timing of your pledge is merely one of the more minor of your misrepresentations; your persistent misrepresentations of my positions and my actions (as evidenced by your hostile and offensive questions on my candidate questions page) are far more serious. It is my considered opinion that a person who will stoop to misrepresentation because the truth is inconvenient is not the sort of person who should be serving on the Arbitration Committee. Neither is someone who would brazenly assume bad faith of another Wikipedian, as you did in your communications with Cyde a day or so back. And on this latter issue, especially, I believe you will find that Jimbo concurs with me.
You are certainly free to change your mind; you are not free to do so and then pretend that you didn't, and you are not free to use false statements as justification for why you should not be considered to have changed your mind. That privilege is apparently reserved to your not-quite-namesake in the Oval Office.
Some free advice, Geogre: make a more concerted effort to concern yourself with that which is actually true, and less of an effort convincing yourself (and others) of the truth of falsehoods. You'll benefit from it in the short, and the long, run. And people might not be so inclined to call you a liar. I need not remind you of the Latin legal maxim, "falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus".
Kelly, this is just a huge load of vitriole. The level of insults, negative campaigning and ad hominem attacks on another candidate only serves to disgust people. Making wide statements like what you did about support for Geogre's candidacy serves only to insult swathes of good-faith volunteer contributors who may have a different view than you.
ReplyDeletePosts and statements like this blog entry explain why you are currently running at a lower support than Everyking got in January. It is this attitude which explains why a number of users lost faith in you during 2006 and turned towards you with hostility rather than openness. It is your conduct which explains why a number of users who strongly supported your ArbCom re-election in January have turned to strongly opposing it.
Kelly, you were such a fine contributor in 2005 with many excellent and useful contributions to the encyclopedia. Why are you doing this to yourself?
If people should be disgusted at anyone, it should be Geogre. Anyone who is disgusted at me for being disgusted and righteously angry at Geogre for repeatedly lying about me and others, is someone whose opinion I do not care about.
ReplyDeleteI will not accept a liar in order to gain popular acceptance. There is no excuse for supporting such an unethical and immoral individual as Geogre for any position of responsibility, and I will not brook arguments to the contrary, as anyone who makes them is clearly morally bankrupt themselves.
Yes, we understand what you're saying Kelly; you're right and the rest of the world is wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou just keep telling that to yourself, over and over and over again.
Hey Kelly, just wanted to remind you; there is nothing wrong with sockpuppets, as long as they behave. However, if you misuse them you could be banned from wikipedia. An example would be casting multiple votes on the arbcom election. Cheers
ReplyDeleteHey Kelly, here's and idea: go to some web community and insult people; start fights; engage in politics and social climbing; engage in character assignations; bait people; help your friends and harm your enemies, as long as it's good for you and regardless of whether it's bad for the community; suck up to anyone with power and piss on anyone who is down and out - basically, just be a social whore; fuck the truth - weave rationalizations that promote yourself; adopt a completely unjustified sense of self-importance; do incalculable harm to the culture of the project with your childish, petty behavior. And don't contribute anything of value. Then ask publicly for feed back on your activities. Pretty cool idea, huh?
ReplyDeleteWP is vastly overrated as a social experiment.
ReplyDeleteKelly's just another of the poor dummies that got sucked in by the project, tasted a little of the so-called power in the project, flamed out and now craves more of the same. She's hooked and can't cut bait. A WP junkie.
Castles in the sand.
People, you're all wasting valuable time. WP don't mean shit. Just chewing you up and spitting you out. Its power is 100-per-cent illusory to everyone but dysfunctional, lonely computer-and- knowledge geeks that can't get laid.
Move on to paid work.
You are not going to win any election, because people do not believe a word you say. You were an arrogant, abusive, dissembling and cliquish administrator for so long, that it defies belief that you have changed.
ReplyDeleteIf you are in fact genuine in some of your recent statements, then it must be painful to have them rebuffed. But you must accept that when you state that you stand for "a zero tolerance policy for administrative misconduct" people are just going to laugh at the irony.
As I understand it, the average age of a registered Wikipedia user is what, 26?
ReplyDeleteHey Kelly, I hesitate to point this out, since any intelligent person would notice is immediately, but have you noticed - when you make constructive observations and suggestions you get positive feedback. On the other hand, when you make savage attacks on individuals behind their back you get the same in return.
ReplyDeleteIt is my considered opinion that a person who will stoop to misrepresentation because the truth is inconvenient is not the sort of person who should be serving on the Arbitration Committee. Neither is someone who would brazenly assume bad faith of another Wikipedian
ReplyDeleteCongrats Kell, you've just disqualified yourself.
Merry X-Mas.