User talk:Kelly Martin/November 2006

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

No personal attacks[edit]

"Attention whore" is an unacceptable personal attack. Please try to express your opposition to admin candidates in a civil manner in the future.--Eloquence 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I promise not to refer to anyone who is not an attention whore as an attention whore. Kelly Martin 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
And I promise that I will not hesitate to block you if you refer to anyone as an "attention whore" again.--Eloquence 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Erik, please respond civilly. You're creating a cat fight out of nothing. --Gmaxwell 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I am being civil. NPA is policy here as anywhere else, no exceptions.--Eloquence 19:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Fundamentally he comment was not a personal attack. It was a commentary on his behavior and can be substantiated with facts. I'm sure Kelly would be glad to back up her position if you requested it, but instead you are being overly curt and commanding. I'm also sure Kelly could have found a more polite way of saying it, but the core message would be no different. It is a slow poison to force a community to hide harsh but true words behind vague and thinly veiled insults, which is the result of a carelessly applied NPA policy. In any case, no one here has given you the authority to unilaterally order around other contributors in such a manner, it's offensive and degrading. If you'd like to make a suggestion then... do so, but your threats are not appreciated by anyone. --Gmaxwell 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I request evidence supporting those facts. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Gregory, I can and will enforce NPA, and your rationalization of rudeness and incivility will not change that.--Eloquence 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It would appear that we disagree on the intentions of Kelly's comment. Rational people can disagree, so I do not consider it a cause for alarm, but I am very concerned with the level of hostility in your response. It is unfortunate that you are unable to discuss the matter in a dispassionate manner and have instead resorted to coercive and threatening behavior. In the future I'd appropriate it if you keep accusations to yourself and treat commons contributors like Kelly and myself with a little more respect. --Gmaxwell 02:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Such a tempest on my talk page. Erik, why don't you go take a brief chill pill or something? Threats really aren't necessary, and they're not at all becoming an administrator such as yourself. Kelly Martin 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's called an NPA warning, and this is your first one. I'll be happy to make standardized templates if you prefer that. Pointing out violations of policy and announcing possible future actions of enforcement is not "coercive" or "threatening"; indeed, it is required in many projects before any enforcement takes place. It is your own behavior here which is very unbecoming for someone with such long time experience in the Wikimedia projects. You not only attack a user, you give a snappy response when it is pointed out to you that such attacks are not acceptable. You could have acknowledged the reminder above, removed the personal attack, and publicly and gracefully recognized it as the immature and heated response which it was. Instead you "promise not to refer to anyone who is not an attention whore as an attention whore." Everyone may forget their manners sometimes. It is the recognition of such errors in judgment which is not only desired, but required, of a Wikimedia contributor.--Eloquence 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you done playing around with this particular project? If so, those of us who are trying to actually use it toward the goal of writing an encyclopedia would like it back. Thanks ever so much. Kelly Martin 04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not playing around, and the suggestion is a further insult.--Eloquence 05:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. However, quite frankly, I'm inclined to ignore you; you're posturing to no useful purpose, and picking fights that can't possibly benefit to your favor. And I doubt you're really stupid enough to actually block me from Wikimedia Commons -- for any length of time -- merely for failing to be intimidated by your august (if easily insulted) personage, and I also doubt that you'll be able to convince any other Commons admin to block me either. So why don't you just take my talk page off your watchlist, and we'll go our merry ways, eh? I think that would be best for all of us. Have a nice day, and I'll see you in Boston. Kelly Martin 06:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The purpose is to enforce policy against personal attacks, as you yourself also frequently do (e.g. [1]). I'm sorry you seem to think it "stupid" to apply that same policy to yourself. I do not. Incivility is something we all have to be mindful of. The worst possible situation is one where admins or "respected users" get away with infractions which are much larger than the ones for which they themselves block other users. This creates an atmosphere which breeds exactly the kind of accusations that you have been subjected to in the past. Yet, I did not seek you out -- your personal attack was simply one on a long page which stood out.
The problem here, Kelly, is that you refuse to even acknowledge that you violated the policy, you refuse to apologize, you then accuse the warning admin of "posturing", "picking fights", "intimidating", "threatening", etc. Frankly, this is behavior that I have seen all too often, but certainly not from sysops or former arbitrators. It borders on the "block me, I dare you" rhetoric that is common among annoyed newbies. And yet, you wonder why there is "intense pressure from elements in the community who refuse to trust [you] with any role of responsibility." I strongly encourage you to look inside yourself and reflect whether the image you have shown here of your behavior is the one which you want to present to the community. This kind of behavior is something you can get away with if you are operating as part of a closed group, or from a position of authority. But don't think for a moment that it's acceptable for you to treat other users here with disrespect and in violation of policy because you're an "old hand". You're a user with less than 100 edits here, and you will get no special treatment.--Eloquence 09:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Your activity on this thread is becoming close to representing the majority, by volume, of your non-mass-post discussion page activity on commons in the last year. Perhaps you should leave enforcement to someone with current experience in the commons community. The certainty and energy you place behind your claims is currently unsupported by the level of interest in the commons community. It is outrageous that you would have us consider Kelly's behavior the same as the childish taunts of a multiply warned user and then claim that she is requesting special treatment. Let me remind you that you too will receive no special treatment, and that two commons editors have now advised your response has been needlessly hostile. Your continued commentary on this matter is bordering or harassment, please discontinue it. --Gmaxwell 14:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Gregory, your response here is hardly surprising, given your history of rudeness and harassment towards other users which is well-documented. But this is not the place to discuss your behavior, and I don't want to bother Kelly with unrelated message notifications (sorry, here comes another one ;-). I have made my points for the record, and will act accordingly.--Eloquence 14:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


did you go to LHS?