| Revision as of 23:06, 15 July 2016 view sourceFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits My thoughts on WP:RfA: I really do appreciate the emails urging me to become an administrator, but I am unlikely to ever accept a nomination.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:10, 21 March 2024 view source Alison (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators47,268 editsm Changed protection settings for "User:Flyer22 Frozen": Oops - talk page ( (indefinite) (indefinite)) | ||
| (46 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-protected|reason=Deceased user|small=yes}} | |||
| {{I retired in the multiverse}} | |||
| {{deceased|note=See {{section link|WP:Deceased_Wikipedians/2021#Flyer22 Frozen}}.}} | |||
| *For who I am, or was: ] and ]. Includes information on ; this is important because not all blocks are justified, and, if you can't take the time to read and comprehend a person's block log, including the clear edit summaries that are there, you shouldn't be commenting on it. More commentary on my block log is (with input from an ] included) and (yes, the drama is drama-tastic). | |||
| <p><br /> | |||
| *As for me considering ], I really do appreciate past posts on my talk page, and emails, supporting me becoming an administrator, but I am unlikely to ever accept a nomination. See ] for why. Also, when I see newbies and obvious ] getting elevated to adminship status, it is hard for me not to consider that the process is broken. I very much agree with ]'s . In other words, selecting administrators based solely on their clean block log, many edits without any regard for how those many edits were acquired, and for seemingly being drama-free is not how we should be doing things here. A clean block log, many edits and a drama-free status can be part of the process of nominating an administrator, but there should be more to it than that. | |||
| ----<br /> | |||
| </p> | |||
| {{retired}} | |||
| *Editing Misplaced Pages for many years can make a person grumpy, especially if that person edits a lot of contentious topics. I became grumpy like many other Wikipedians; for how that happened, see ] and ]. To be less grumpy, and resemble the optimistic, better-tempered editor I used to be, I've changed some ways that I edit these days. I was even ]. More power to those who have remained relatively the same despite the hostile environment that is Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Regarding ? Looking at all of ] and knowing I'd be subjected to similar, and how certain editors go all out to prove false narratives, I cannot deal with that. Like some editors (including ]) know, I am dealing with ] issues in the family. That is not something I just made up to get out of going through this "must take down Flyer" thing. It was happening before that, and it's gotten worse. I have a brother (not the one who edits here) in intensive care and a sister who was just put on a ventilator. I already lost an uncle to the virus. And editing here is supposed to help me take my mind off of stuff like that, not be subjected to as much stress and time-wasting that an ArbCom case entails. | |||
| I have said goodbye to editors here already. And I will say this before I leave: The argument from a few that ANI failed an editor because the admins are biased in my favor? Are we to honestly believe that I control all of these well-respected admins? They have their own minds and have disagreed with me before. They saw what they saw. So for this case to be accepted? It feels like this case would have been accepted regardless of the many requests to decline it. This case isn't about the private evidence -- material that I didn't write but am accused of writing. Material that was not passed on to me for scrutiny. None of the Arbs accepted the case on the basis of that "evidence", which speaks to just how immaterial it is. I acknowledge that I haven't always been the most civil. Editors on the case page noted that I work in areas where tempers flare. That's true. Editors accusing me of having been uncivil to them have also been uncivil to me at one point or another, often in the very discussions they've linked to. ] , "'''Arbcom is not a court, it's purpose is to stop ''current and sustained'' disruption of the project, not to punish users for things they may have done in the past.'''" But that is exactly what the request points to -- a free-for-all for anyone who has ever been in a heated dispute with me, with the added bonus of portraying my behavior as bullying, transphobic, or something else that it isn't. ]. Adhering to our policies and guidelines and expecting others to do the same is not bullying or being discriminatory. Criticisms are not automatically personal attacks. And commentary about what took place here at my own talk page can be seen ] with my "18:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)" post (scroll on down). | |||
| *I ]. I also acknowledge a ]. Examples include me usually being right about ] matters. | |||
| The claim that I went after anyone at ] and made participation at WT:Med talk pages unbearable is false. For example, until the Medicine ArbCom case and I continued to support Doc James -- ]. These "just fine" interactions include stuff like , , , ], ], ], and that I am a fine editor for new medical editors to work with. I was never a problem at WP:Med. I have . And the only supposed instance of me being problematic there is ] that I was driving away a newcomer. As documented there with evidence, I criticized a newcomer for the same exact thing another editor criticized others for when it comes to adding quality sources. Like me, Girth saw no merit to the incivility claims leveled against me in that discussion. At the moment, I can only recall one other heated discussion I was involved in at WP:Med. And that is ] about the ] article. But it was just that -- a heated discussion. It was not me being a problem. And, indeed, because of my arguments there and ], the article was moved to its proper name and appropriately expanded. Disagreements over ], such as ] one in a collapsed box which started off by me suggesting that we discuss significant changes before we make them (and then getting the reply I did), ] one where I questioned removing guidance and ] previously involved editors who helped craft the current MOS:MED guideline (which is perfectly fine per ]), and challenging what were the "golden years" of WP:Med, does not equate to me being disruptive. | |||
| *], even though I likely will not press the person on it unless necessary. | |||
| That's all I have say. This is not how I wanted to leave Misplaced Pages. But with my own declining health, it was only a matter of time anyway. Take care. | |||
| *] on the ] policy are commonly clear since ]. | |||
| *I support the ] policy, which concerns pedophiles, child sexual abusers, etc. editing Misplaced Pages; for my views on the matter, see ], and . | |||
| *For awards and gifts I've received, ranging from helping with popular culture, sexuality and anatomy topics, to writing and improving articles, to cooperation aspects, to protecting Misplaced Pages from disruptive editors, to other matters: ]. Two "I hate you" type of awards are also included, since I saw no reason to only include the positives. | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:10, 21 March 2024
 | This Wikipedian is deceased. Her user page is preserved here in her memory. See WP:Deceased Wikipedians/2021 § Flyer22 Frozen. |
Regarding this? Looking at all of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence and knowing I'd be subjected to similar, and how certain editors go all out to prove false narratives, I cannot deal with that. Like some editors (including Girth Summit) know, I am dealing with COVID issues in the family. That is not something I just made up to get out of going through this "must take down Flyer" thing. It was happening before that, and it's gotten worse. I have a brother (not the one who edits here) in intensive care and a sister who was just put on a ventilator. I already lost an uncle to the virus. And editing here is supposed to help me take my mind off of stuff like that, not be subjected to as much stress and time-wasting that an ArbCom case entails.
I have said goodbye to editors here already. And I will say this before I leave: The argument from a few at the request page that ANI failed an editor because the admins are biased in my favor? Are we to honestly believe that I control all of these well-respected admins? They have their own minds and have disagreed with me before. They saw what they saw. So for this case to be accepted? It feels like this case would have been accepted regardless of the many requests to decline it. This case isn't about the private evidence -- material that I didn't write but am accused of writing. Material that was not passed on to me for scrutiny. None of the Arbs accepted the case on the basis of that "evidence", which speaks to just how immaterial it is. I acknowledge that I haven't always been the most civil. Editors on the case page noted that I work in areas where tempers flare. That's true. Editors accusing me of having been uncivil to them have also been uncivil to me at one point or another, often in the very discussions they've linked to. Beeblebrox stated, "Arbcom is not a court, it's purpose is to stop current and sustained disruption of the project, not to punish users for things they may have done in the past." But that is exactly what the request points to -- a free-for-all for anyone who has ever been in a heated dispute with me, with the added bonus of portraying my behavior as bullying, transphobic, or something else that it isn't. Consensus did not conclude that I was hounding or bullying anyone. Adhering to our policies and guidelines and expecting others to do the same is not bullying or being discriminatory. Criticisms are not automatically personal attacks. And commentary about what took place here at my own talk page can be seen here with my "18:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)" post (scroll on down).
The claim that I went after anyone at WP:Med and made participation at WT:Med talk pages unbearable is false. For example, Sandy and I got along just fine for years until the Medicine ArbCom case and I continued to support Doc James -- our most influential and respected medical editor, who has been the face of WP:Med for years. These "just fine" interactions include stuff like this, this, this, this, this, this, and the view that I am a fine editor for new medical editors to work with. I was never a problem at WP:Med. I have a long history there. And the only supposed instance of me being problematic there is the claim that I was driving away a newcomer. As documented there with evidence, I criticized a newcomer for the same exact thing another editor criticized others for when it comes to adding quality sources. Like me, Girth saw no merit to the incivility claims leveled against me in that discussion. At the moment, I can only recall one other heated discussion I was involved in at WP:Med. And that is this one about the Battered woman syndrome article. But it was just that -- a heated discussion. It was not me being a problem. And, indeed, because of my arguments there and at the article's talk page, the article was moved to its proper name and appropriately expanded. Disagreements over MOS:MED, such as this one in a collapsed box which started off by me suggesting that we discuss significant changes before we make them (and then getting the reply I did), this one where I questioned removing guidance and pinged previously involved editors who helped craft the current MOS:MED guideline (which is perfectly fine per WP:APPNOTE), and challenging what were the "golden years" of WP:Med, does not equate to me being disruptive.
That's all I have say. This is not how I wanted to leave Misplaced Pages. But with my own declining health, it was only a matter of time anyway. Take care.
Category: