User:Tristessa de St Ange/Durin, Martin & Turnbull Settlement

As responsible, experienced Wikipedia administrators, we recognise the need for common agreement and reasonable behaviour to occur between us. We, the undersigned parties involved in a recent dispute relating to the Mediation Cabal and the Durin RfC ("the Conflict"), agree to the following:

1. We shall all attempt our best to learn what we can from the Conflict which has unfolded, and agree to place this matter entirely in the past.
2. No legal action shall be brought against any other signatories to this settlement as a consequence of the Conflict raised here on Wikipedia. Any perceived legal threats made by any parties shall be considered from now on to be entirely null and void.
3. Standard levels of civility and politeness shall be observed by all parties in this dispute.
4. We shall not hold policy violations that occurred over the Conflict against each other in the future. No RfAr cases that relate directly to the Conflict shall be brought by the signatories of this agreement.
5. All signatories note that this does not preclude us from administrator discretion outside of this particular Conflict and this Agreement does not prohibit us from our judgement and right of comment in the future on each other's behaviour which does not relate to this Conflict.
6. We will, however, endeavour our best to assume good faith as per WP:AGF on each other's behaviour in the future, and shall not make negative criticism on one another's actions lightly without good reason and conduct aside from the conflict which is sufficient to merit such comment.
7. Assurance is made that we shall all agree to work together as peers on Wikipedia, and that constructive criticism and debate does not in itself constitute a lack of good faith. However, we are aware of the distinction between constructive criticism and a lack of good faith, and shall remember in future not to overstep this boundary.
8. Any animosity, hatred, or resentment between us is hereby forgiven and forgotten forever.

Signed

User:Durin: Accepted, with one reservation; I have the right of defense if Kelly brings legal action against me. --Durin 14:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have put forth terms to Kelly and she rejected them. Nicholas has put forth terms to Kelly and she rejected them. Kelly has put forth terms to me and I rejected them. Negotiations broke down yesterday, and there appears to be no way in which to reach a middle ground. I admit the following errors (these were posted elsewhere but apparently not seen [1]):

• My words being poorly written/misinterpreted by Anittas, Kelly, and Nicholas.
• Vigorously defending myself against Kelly's and Nicholas' claims. I should have been more patient. My own response served to inflame the situation rather than calm it. But I have to admit that when I am told I am "appalling" and "officious" it is not entirely unreasonable to get defensive.
• Posting on WP:TINMC. In October, I suggested as a resolution that I would not post there. This was apparently not enough.
• Speaking the word "slanderous" with respect to a contribution Kelly made. This was utterly wrong, and not conducive to compromise and discussion as it set a stage for wikiwar. The comment has now been removed [2] (though User:Demi tried to undo that remove; I've explained to Demi why I did and I hope it stays removed. If anyone really wants to see it, it's in the edit history; I'm hiding nothing; I was just trying to reduce rhetoric) I note that Kelly has taken no action to remove "slander" and "libel" with respect to me in her comments on the RfC and this talk page.

I do not apologize for defending myself. If I were to do so, then Kelly would have had to apologize for her defense of herself. I do not apologize for taking the legal threats seriously, regardless of however insane and paranoiac Kelly believes my interpretation of her stance to be. WP:NLT says "While some people consider using the words 'slander' and 'libel' to be no big deal, others have claimed that using them constitutes a legal threat". When I recognized that I had used one of those words once myself, I retracted it. Still to this moment, Kelly still has not struck or removed such words from either the RfC or its talk page.

I do not apologize for asking a question on my RfC [3]. I find it utterly ridiculous that Kelly removed that question to the talk page (calling it a "disruption") while retaining her questions.

I do not apologize for concluding that Kelly attempted to use the RfC as a bludgeon tool rather than a negotiation mechanism. Her response to my question made it clear that her intent was to subdue me [4]. WP:RFC states: "RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community."

I do not apologize for concluding that Kelly brought the RfC in retribution for my vote on her RfB. Three other people had voted oppose on incivility concerns prior to my vote. My vote was based, in part, on incivility concerns. Yet, Kelly chose to isolate my vote believing it to be a retribution vote against her in direct violation of WP:AGF. She went on to further conclude that I was directly to blame for her failed RfB, yet if I had never voted the RfB would have failed anyways.

I do not apologize for referring to myself as a "superior wikipedian". At no time did I ever mean that to mean that I was above rebuke, above fault, or above policy. I took pride in my contributions to Wikipedia. That was the basis of that comment; not any attempt to set myself apart from the masses.

I do apologize for taking pride in my contributions to Wikipedia. I no longer take pride in my contributions to Wikipedia; I understand now that I must ignore anything I did in the past, and let it go; it's not mine as soon as I click the "save page" button. I had previously used a form of that philosophy in the sense of preventing revert wars. I now understand that the philsophy also extends to the point that prior to every edit, regardless of how long any of us has been here, regardless of how voluminous our contributions to Wikipedia become, we start every edit having no credit, history, or past performance. Every edit we do must be treated as neutrally as any other edit, and all of us must strive to ignore anything in the past. If I don't do treat that as serious, indeed if any of us do not, then we will suffer the fate that User:RickK saw.

I do not apologize for finding it hypocritical that Kelly castigates me for calling myself a "superior wikipedian" and then later referring to herself as a "prominent wikipedian". I think the hypocrisy is self evident and needs no other explanation.

I do not apologize for taking the legal threats that were made as real. Legal terms tossed around in any conversation on Wikipedia can and will have a chilling effect on the progression of that discussion. I readily grant that (as I told my wife) the possibility of Kelly actually filing a lawsuit was small, but that there was inherently a very large potential damage from such an event. Wikipedia provides me no benefit in any arena. Weight a zero benefit vs. a potentially very large loss, even if the risk was small, made it very clear that I had to treat the threat as real. Saying that she wasn't going to sue reminded me very much of the movie Jerry Maguire, where Tom Cruise's character grabbed the breast of Renee Zellweger's character after which she said "I might not sue". What I wanted to see happen was to have the accusations of slander and libel removed before I would have considered the legal threat to be gone. Kelly never did that. In fact, it remains to this very moment as part of the text in the RfC, the RfC talk page, and in edits elsewhere.

I do apologize for many of the comments I made beginning with my temporary departure from Wikipedia. My reactions were at times rash and poorly considered and did nothing to help resolve the dispute. For a time, I was attempting to offer myself up as a sacrificial lamb so that Kelly could have the satisfaction of utterly destroying me. This step was ineffective as Kelly did not claim any sort of victory or find it possible to move beyond the incident despite my capitulation. I even offered to have her bring an RfAr that I would do everything needed to keep alive and in process but would not defend myself so she could have her say and have all things judged against me. This wasn't done. In retrospect, this was a bad course of action. I knew full well before that point that Kelly and I are incapable of working together. I should have just shut up and tried my best to avoid her.

Kelly I'd like to ask you to stop using derogatory terms against me in IRC or indeed anyone with whom you are party to negotiations. I've been logging the conversations there for the last several days, and have seen every single word you've (and NullC, Demi, and others) said, such as you calling me insane a number of times (Nicholas T, I offered the 100 pound bet on that score; good thing you didn't accept it). It is unbecoming of you to so starkly insult me in that forum where you presumed I wasn't watching and to which I was not responding with any defense of my actions. Such actions further worked to make the situation on Wikipedia worse, not better. For a member of ArbCom to act in this matter is disrespectful to your posting, undermining of yourself, and worse undermining of the trust placed in ArbCom because of your obvious willingness to talk behind my back regarding ongoing negotiations. You should be ashamed of these actions, but I expect you will be recalcitrant in your rejoinder to this statement of fact (not opinion; your words on IRC are a fact). Your words on IRC served to inflame the situation rather than to calm them. A number of editors that I saw responding to you on IRC were motivated to add contributions to Wikipedia as a result of the actions on IRC and many of those contributions provided a deepening negative effect to the situation on Wikipedia itself.

I am also utterly appalled that you took a private e-mail and posted it on your personal web server. But, I doubt you'll be apologetic on this score either.

I will stand by the terms of this very neutral, compromising agreement even if Kelly can not. I fear at this point that unless I ascede to all of her demands that she will continue to hunt me down on Wikipedia. I hope rather than trust that Kelly is mature enough not to do so and will stop taking rash actions against me. I will now undertake to utterly ignore Kelly Martin in any future actions on Wikipedia, but reserve the right of self defense. --Durin 16:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin: I will not accept any settlement agreement that does not involve a public admission of culpability and apology. This settlement offer is a mutual gag agreement, and I won't be gagged without getting something in return. This agreement would further permit others (no party to it) to continue to badmouth me about this incident while leaving me no opportunity to reply. It is thereby rejected. However, I again unilaterally promise not to sue Durin. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

User:NicholasTurnbull: --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)