For the last several months, I've had the occasional person ask me if I would run for admin again on the English Wikipedia. I've rebuffed those requests, feeling that it hadn't been long enough. The one year anniversary of my resignation just passed, however, and in recognition of that I decided to set the conditions under which I'd allow a request for adminship to take place: three separate people (none of them anyone I consider a troll), or "fools", would have to jointly nominate me. I put notice of this on my user page; within 24 hours a group of my more ardent "fans" predictably popped into my talk page to tell me what a vile person I was to even consider the possibility of ever being an admin again, prompting me to issue a clarification. (It's impressive how obsessed some Wikipedians can be with their petty feuds.) And only a few days after that, I was contacted on IRC to inform me that three fools had come together and intended to nominate me. A few days later, their nomination was ready, and the RfA was off.
Unsurprisingly, it's failing, and failing badly, after less than 24 hours. As I fully expected; my "fans" hate me too much to miss this. Newyorkbrad (having previously tried to convince me not to allow the RfA) is now trying to convince me to allow it to be withdrawn. Apparently, it would be "bad" for Wikipedia for this RfA to run the usual seven days, since it has "no chance of passing". As I feared, the community is unwilling to actually discuss anything. I had a sliver of hope that a meaningful discussion would arise from the RfA, and there has been a small smattering of comments that I think might have led in that direction. Newyorkbrad's long, thoughtful comment could have been a step in that direction, but it was immediately met by a "tl;dr" from Nishkid64.
It would be my preference that the RfA be allowed to run the full seven days. I doubt it will; too many people will decide that having this "discussion" will do more harm than good and will cut it off. I'm going to save my comments for individual "opinions" expressed in the RfA until after it's over. The only thing I will say is that the almost continuous assumptions of bad faith are just astounding.
The outcome of this RfA notwithstanding, my "three fools" offer will remain; the community can repeat this show as many times as three members wish it. You all know how to reach me.
Unsurprisingly, it's failing, and failing badly, after less than 24 hours. As I fully expected; my "fans" hate me too much to miss this. Newyorkbrad (having previously tried to convince me not to allow the RfA) is now trying to convince me to allow it to be withdrawn. Apparently, it would be "bad" for Wikipedia for this RfA to run the usual seven days, since it has "no chance of passing". As I feared, the community is unwilling to actually discuss anything. I had a sliver of hope that a meaningful discussion would arise from the RfA, and there has been a small smattering of comments that I think might have led in that direction. Newyorkbrad's long, thoughtful comment could have been a step in that direction, but it was immediately met by a "tl;dr" from Nishkid64.
It would be my preference that the RfA be allowed to run the full seven days. I doubt it will; too many people will decide that having this "discussion" will do more harm than good and will cut it off. I'm going to save my comments for individual "opinions" expressed in the RfA until after it's over. The only thing I will say is that the almost continuous assumptions of bad faith are just astounding.
The outcome of this RfA notwithstanding, my "three fools" offer will remain; the community can repeat this show as many times as three members wish it. You all know how to reach me.
You've just made too many enemies, unfortunately... the "clique" hates you because you're fighting them now, while much of the "anti-clique" crowd hates you because you used to cozy up to the clique. That leaves you with only open-minded, non-grudge-bearing types as potential supporters, which is too small a minority to pass an RfA.
ReplyDeleteIn short: You phail.
ReplyDeleteDan: I opposed her RfA and I don't have a grudge. I just think it's pretty obvious she's more interested in causing drama than doing the right thing.
ReplyDeleteDo you ever wonder why? so many people detest you?
ReplyDeleteIt's not because you're not afraid to speak your mind - no one cares about that...
It's more to do with the fact that you just can't control your fingers...
You're in classic denial, my friend.
"No. It's absolutely nothing to do with who I am. I am a great person!"
Sure.
Of course you are, dear.
You keep thinking that and everything will be alright.
Good luck with your RfA...
Oh... Wait...
Seriously, what kind of meaningful discussion did you expect?
ReplyDeleteKelly, you really haven't been that active on wikipedia for a year. Do you honestly believe you deserve adminship? Do you honestly believe you've earned it back?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how any non-idiot in your shoes could think they deserve adminship.
I guess another explanation is that you're just trying stir up drama - having some fun at the communities expense.
You tell me, Kelly, do you honest believe you deserve adminship?
Just take the ElinorD/Musical Linguist route and create a sock for the sole purpose of gaining adminship quickly. Fight vandals and give out barnstars for three or four months and you'll be in there, no problem.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I see SlimVirgin conveniently forgot to mention that her complaints of your "checkuser abuse" were investigated by the ombudsmen and found to have no merit.
ReplyDeleteYes everyone is insane except you, only you understand the real truth.
ReplyDeleteWow, at the time of writing this you have almost 70 opposes. You must be quite embarrassed. Are you hoping there are prizes for 100 opposes? I'll give you a prize - simply because I feel so utterly and incredibly sorry for you...
ReplyDeleteI didn't think it was possible for someone who actually contributes on Wikipedia to receive ~26% support in an RfA.
ReplyDeleteTrolling at its finest, but the joke's on a tiny subset of Wikipedia's editors. The best reason to oppose is the one least cited--no practical engagement on Wikipedia for over a year. Simple, direct, reasonable, and the path not taken. To watch someone oppose on grounds of incivility while themselves engaging in incivility would be entertaining if it wasn't so awful. You've demonstrated that people on the Internet can be petty and small--I could have told you that.
ReplyDeleteMore interesting was your open letter to the guv regarding tolls; as an out-of-stater I contributed to one of those traffic backups last spring, and I'll do so again in January. I'm not buying that device for the few times I pass through Chicago each year. Frankly, I'm more likely to just pay the extra for Amtrak and avoid the mess altogether.
Unsurprising result - I was somewhat ambivilent towards the RfA - even though i didn't get a chance to do anything about it. One one hand had I not seen this blog I would have regarded you as a prime example of people who I don't want with power - on the other hadn you have shown yourself on here to be regretful and human - the poetlister bit in paticular spoke quite a lot about your change of heart. Oh well - doesn't matter anyway.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the community wants to beat up the people who do the right thing, not necessarily the popular thing or what the community thinks is best.
ReplyDeleteThe community wanted BJAODN as well, did it stay in the long run?
Would you be able to elaborate on how Kelly does the right thing...? Her pernicious presence is detrimental, nay - a threat to the very foundation on which the project is based. "Assume good faith", "collaboration".
ReplyDeletePeople like Kelly think that the universe revolve around themselves and that they are free to do whatever they want, without ever considering the repercussions.
In retrospect, I don't even think she wants her adminship back, this is one of the times for her occasional lulz. She is probably have a laugh-riot at her place, while we are making "self-fulfilling prophecies""
(I wish people wouldn't hide behind anonymous comments)
ReplyDeleteI wasn't speaking to her specifically, I was saying in general. I don't always do what the community wants, on many occasions I've clashed with people for that. I do what is right for the encyclopedia. I think beating her up simply because she's controversial is stupid.
Let me rephrase: The community is stupid.
Kelly:
ReplyDeleteWell, let me preface this by saying that I am a relatively new editor at Wikipedia who has been following this unfortunate drama closely with a morbid curiosity.
Frankly, why anyone would think that your demeanor, comments or egotistical grandstanding make you an appropriate administrator candidate, I cannot say. To a completely "unaffiliated" outsider, it seems like there could be only misguided intent behind the nomination and obvious malicious intent behind your acceptance of it. That being said, though, I believe you knew that this disruption would be the outcome when you accepted the nomination and, as some others have said, are probably getting some enjoyment out of this. More attention for your blog. More attention for you.
It seems to me that administrators, "no big deal" though the title may be, are in fact at least a minor big deal on Wikipedia. If they weren't, then RfA's wouldn't get the attention that they do. But at least at some level they are an elevated representive of the project and, in my opinion, should therefore be held to a higher standard of civility and professionalism. You have proven time and again and continue to do so here.
One of the flaws inherent to Wikipedia is also one of its greatest benefits: anonymity. It's a common theme on the internet. People simply do not act with such obvious negativism and disregard for others as they do when they do not have to look at that person on a day-to-day basis. You, for instance, are free to sit here on your blog with your facade of indifference and drip vitriol in a way that, when everything is said and done, will never have any "real world" consequences to you. Wikipedia is a playing field that is, at least in theory, forced level. It is this that makes keeping a civil tongue all that much more important, yet all that much more disregarded. Therein lies the paradox of anonymity.
Another flaw is the lack of accountability. You are, in essence, someone who was pushed out of her job, if not fired outright. If you were fired in the "real world" or quit under bad terms, what is the likelihood that you would even re-apply? Yet the system at Wikipedia is such that you are allowed to. More than that, it is such that you are given genuine consideration. You choose to abuse this system. I really cannot say, but it strikes me that, as Wikipedia continues to grow and grow, a greater need for more formalized, consistent and reliably accountable leadership will be needed. Clearly, from your words and actions, you do not fit that bill and are more interested in abusing this system than helping it. "Building the project" is an admirable goal. Disrupting the project to the extent that you have, for motivations I can only guess at, is a thoroughly ignoble goal.
I will say this for you. If you have done anything for Wikipedia (lately), it is to provide a stark reminder of exactly why civility is so important and why administrators should be held to higher standards. You strike me as a very angry, very intelligent individual whose more valuable talents could be better spent in other pursuits.
I have three points in writing to you here. First, to encourage you to take the high road and withdraw your nomination, though I have no doubt that you will not do so. Once the exercise is finished, if you decide to develop a track record of productive, civil, non-disruptive behavior, I'd be one of the first in line to support you. Second, obviously, to espouse my views in an off-wiki format where they will hopefully be non-disruptive to the project. And, lastly, to ask you to write a blog post about what your definition of civility is as well as what you consider its importance to be, either on Wikipedia or any where else.
Though it may seem otherwise, I wish you the best.
Somewhat hypocritically making use of the anonymity so troubling to me,
Me
RE: To previous anon
ReplyDeleteI'm just as arrogant and uncivil. Care to desysop me?
Let's not get so worked up, shall we?
ReplyDeleteI just clicked on a few Google Adsense links so that Kelly doesn't feel like a complete loser after this is over... (atleast she's milking controversy!) Way to go, Kelly!
ReplyDeletedon't feed the trolls!!!!!
ReplyDelete^demon, to answer your question . . . What I have seen from you is brusqueness, perhaps, and an outspokeness on matters you feel strongly convicted about, two things I don't really have any problem with. But I don't really know you, haven't looked over your contributions in any great detail, so I can't really say whether I think you should be desysoped or not. Over the Mzoli's thing? Certainly not. Anyway, this'll be my last comment, because I'm truly not looking to troll here, just to say my thing and be done with it.
ReplyDeleteAnd just in case someone decides to be cute, any further postings from "me" shall, I assure you wholeheartedly, not be "me". Take that for what it's worth.
Final (29/102/9); Ended Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:11:37 (UTC) IN YOUR FACE!
ReplyDeleteGet a life.
ReplyDeleteHaha, aww... everyone is so funny when they're making fun of you.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to find out who "Me" is. They sound interesting.
I hope you read their comment. Maybe you'll learn how to be a nicer person.
I love all the insults from people hiding behind the tag of anonymous.
ReplyDeletethe above anon is Wikipedia user Miltopia. At least he believes in you Kelly.
ReplyDeleteUggh. I would think that the fact that you can provoke a childish and amusingly disproportionate response from the Wikipedia community by relatively innocuous actions would have been well enough established by now that you wouldn't feel the need to further demonstrate it. (Really, you shouldn't hide behind the "three fools" thing; you can't abdicate your agency in this.)
ReplyDeleteYou mention in your post the possibility that this might spark some sort of reasoned debate. I have to ask, over what? I do, as you know, generally agree with you about the condition and social organization of Wikipedia, and what sort of steps might be taken to remedy it. Is an RfA the correct forum to discuss that? Not really; while administrators should be expected to have a basic understanding of the nature of the project and its community, they aren't any more responsible than anyone else for advocating for or spearheading change. An RfA should be a forum for discussing the applicability of someone's knowledge and skills to using the administrative buttons and taking the flak that comes from doing so. And to be honest, were I active enough these days to have participated in the thing, I would probably have opposed; a long fuse and a high tolerance for fools are, unfortunately, near requirements for the job (one reason I'm unlikely to ever ask for my bit back even if I do find the time to return to high activity).
So what was this supposed to be? A referendum on your treatment by the community? It's been in many ways shitty, but that isn't exactly germane to the question of an RfA? A supporr-gathering exercise for a vision of wikipedia? See above; again, not the right place. It was as harmless as it was pointless, of course, but that isn't a very good reason to do something.
What's all this I hear about "taking the high road"? There is no high road. This is Wikipedia we're talking about! They only understand dirty tricks, petty backstabbing, and offensive innuendo, evidently. They couldn't possibly understand why you'd want to go through the RfA process to prove a point - they even have a rule against attempting to make (and, presumably, prove) points, as you well know. After all, making (and proving) points might someday lead to (gasp!) reform, or even (heavens no!) removal of corrupt "elements" at the top. That would be just terrible!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it was fun while it lasted! Keep up the good work!
Pull the Plug on Wikipeida it's a corrupt and perverted swamp, full of certifiable sociopaths, misfits and other pale bottomfeeders.
ReplyDeleteThere is no good left in Wikipeida as it now pollutes the blue water internet. Wikipedia is an experiment that had gone "Frankenstein" and this monster should be putdown.
Those,who are in charge at wikipeida and who's minds still have a thread of decency, and common sense left should do the right thing, instead of feeding this out of control beast, just...
a. pull the pug on wikipeida.
b. Sell the wikipedan domain to a responsible entity, like encyclopedia britania, and give the proceeds to some brick and mortar library, in Florida.
I wanna play next time! :)
ReplyDeleteKelly -
ReplyDeleteWhile I have little hope of this penetrating, little is lost in trying: Look over the list of those who opposed your nomination. And have a good think.
Fine, ignore Geogre, SlimVirgin, Giano, whomever else you suspect of being a "fan." But that still leaves 99 other names, representing a wide range of experience (and respect) among the user base.
Abandon your belief that this failed since '[your] fans hate [you] too much to miss this' as opposed to any fault of your own. Not with an eye to you becoming an admin again, but so that you might contribute positively to the encyclopaedia again.