User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2006 September

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO 2 Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses 3 Hello again 4 CheckUser backlog 5 RfA message 6 DYK 7 Image:040129 exploding whale hlrg 8a.hlarge.jpg 8 WP:AGF 9 Requesting an apology. 10 Piglet, Winnie the Pooh, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy 11 WP:AGF 12 Requesting an apology. 13 Piglet, Winnie the Pooh, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy 14 Kamran Nazeer Article 15 Funny blurb in the Chicago Tribune 16 Welcoming sockpuppets 17 Explanation of general blocking principle 18 Chadbryant and trolls 19 Abdel Frasheri on de: 20 Wondering if you could... 21 Message on User talk:Giano 22 Drama queens 23 UAE Proxy IP? 24 User: Kyereh Mireku 25 Policy counsel page 26 Be careful 27 DevianTart 28 Do not let the clowns eat you 29 A Wilhelm Scream 30 William H. Kennedy 31 Kosovo sockpuppetry 32 Quite enough, thank you! 32.1 Bishonen's response 32.2 Geogre's response 32.3 Some more comments 33 User:Tao Ching unblock-en-l complaint 34 Transparency 35 Attempted to respond concerning... 36 User:Giano 37 Request 38 :-( 39 Kelly has left 40 No way 41 A Concern Arising from this Matter 42 Arbitration case 43 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses

On this page (linked from MediaWiki:Blockiptext) there is a request that the committee be immediately notified of blocks, but the committee page appears to have inadequate options on how best to contact the committee to get immediate attention. Not everyone will prefer to or be able to use the mailing list contact method. Can you suggest some other contact options that would work well for the committee (committee talk page?, contact a member?)? Thanks. NoSeptember 13:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

We discussed this at today's meeting. We will be creating a subpage on Meta for making these reports. Meta is enotif enabled, so making an edit there will notify by email people who are watching the page with email notifications enabled. Creating this page is on my agenda for today; hopefully I will get to it. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

If we're on one of your "lists" well... that's just fine with us. We're glad that you were able to attend Wikimania 2006 and wish that we could've been there.

Looking through the Flickr stuff that folks uploaded, your pics on the ArbCom at WM'06 do you justice (unlike some of the other pics floating around). The last time that we commented was for sure critical of your demeanor. That hasn't changed in either your comportment or our perception of it (you're tough but fair). But, no problem. When we first arrived, we were overwhelmed with the diversity hereabouts. The longer we hung around the more comfortable we became with our surrounding community of folks.

So Kelly Martin, the reason for this post is to say that you are brave indeed to stand for "office" while knowing full well that those who have a grudge against you will take this opportunity to strike out against you. We don't know for sure how we'll be voting but your courage is enviable. We wish you well and hope that we are never at odds with you *tremors abound* hereabouts . ;-) --hydnjo talk 03:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to get Kelly mad at me on a few occasions but all she ever does is "Moo" back at me, so I've given up in exasperation. Sometimes life just don't seem worth livin'. Barry Wells 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser backlog

Hi there,

I'm sending this message out to the 6 active admin with CheckUser priveleges. Just wanted to let you all know that there is a lengthy backlog on the CheckUser page and it has not been checked since August 21, 2006. According to the CheckUser site, it says that user records expire within a week or so, so it would be great if one of you could go through it sometime soon. Thanks, --Palffy 20:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Image:RfA message.ogg Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 29 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bubba (fish), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Enjoyed reading the article. Many thanks for the contribution! -- Samir धर्म 08:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:040129 exploding whale hlrg 8a.hlarge.jpg

Kelly, this image has been tagged by you with {{Reviewedfairuse}}. The image is a media photo and normally not considered fair use under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. Could you explain how this image qualifies for fair use? BigDT 12:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Media photos are generally usable under fair use when they depict a distinctive event which is unlikely to be repeated. The lack of substitutes for the work is a major factor in whether fair use is acceptable or not. I stand by my original decision in this matter. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AGF

I feel a little dirty having to say this to you, but I must insist that you WP:AGF, that I believed the various forked article, were infact POV-forks that were unhelpful to the encyclopedia. If you review the not-revert that I initially did to the pooh article, you will note that I took steps to remove irrelevent and unencyclopedic information to the extent I could ([1]). I look forward to work on the article with you. JBKramer 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have, at no point, stated that my nominations were in bad faith. I will no longer engage with you as I do not believe it is possible for such to improve the encyclopedia. Good luck on the pooh articles, and best wishes on future editing. If possible, please attempt to avoid me as much as humanly possible, and I will grant you the same courtesy. Happy editing. JBKramer 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kelly. Could I ask, in complete good faith, in which edit you found me to be arguing "vehemently toward favoring Disney's representation over all others"? I've looked and I can't find it; if I'm pushing POV I need to see an example in order to correct it. I'm also curious, again in good faith, where the "complaint regarding the content of Piglet" was located; again, I can't find it. Thanks in advance! Powers ^T 18:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to read up on Carbonite's Law. --Cyde Weys 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew as I was writing it I'd get called on that. Considering my good faith had been questioned in the immediate past, I only wanted to reassure Kelly that I wasn't going to use the information against her or in favor of POV pushing. I guess the only real way to do that is by lack of evidence of same, but I've been trying to be extra-reassuring given recent events. Looks like it backfired in this case. (And shouldn't it be Hamlet's law? "...doth protest too much" and all that? =) Powers ^T 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion between you and Angr on the talk page over which image to use. You seemed to favor using a Disney image over a non-Disney image, for no good reason that I could see.

For the record, the complaint regarding Piglet was communicated to Lee (and myself) via private channels; the request came from the Foundation office. Where it originated is not known to me. Lee has a great track record at cleaning up, expanding, and referencing articles (see, for example, Eastman Johnson; note the talk page) and if she says there is bias in the article, odds are she's right. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I fully supported keeping the Sheppard illustration, and in fact supported giving it pride of place (i.e., lead paragraph) in the article. My objection was to leaving the 1/4 view of CGI-Pooh as the only representation of the Disney version in the article. I did remove the book cover, but only because the page was getting cluttered with images.

Obviously, I didn't realize the request came from The Office. Curious. I failed at assuming good faith on the part of Lkinkade (should I have known her name is Lee?), but a note about the request and the private discussion would have alleviated much of my concern. Powers ^T 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I am aware of my pro-Disney bias, but I think edits such as this [2] show I try not to let it affect my edits. In this case, it may have triggered my alarms prematurely, but I think my intentions were good. Powers ^T 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if my behavior looked like this user's behavior to you, I can understand your reaction. =) Powers ^T 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting an apology.

You know, I walked away, and tried to go do something else, but I was still pissed. So instead, I tried to edit some random articles, but I couldn't, because I kept going back to the stupud Pooh bullshit. Your comments about my faith, or lack thereof hurt, and I'm asking you for an apology and retraction. I will briefly outline the timeline of my involvement.

I read WP:ANI driving by. I found the request RE pooh, and your statement that "And reverting changes like the ones Lee made is actually very easy." I went ahead and reverted said changes, because I thought, and still think (but I'm never going to contribute to anything you have touched first ever again) that the best solution to the bias that you find in the overabundance of reference to the version of the character that the vast majority of the english speaking population would be looking for information on as opposed to the lack of reference of an old, little known character is to either make the distinction between the two characters clear by providing a disambiguation page at Piglet(Winnie the Pooh) pointing at Piglet (Disney Character) and Piglet (Miline Character) or by editing the Piglet(Winnie the Pooh) article to distinguish the Miline Character from the Disney Character more clearly. I did not believe the solution was to move the most widely known incarnation of the character to "Slesinger representation of the Milne character "Winnie the Pooh"" was even remotely on the table. I took the appropriate action to do such - nomination what appeared to be obvious POV forks for deletion, putting the full information back into the main article (Absent some substantial trimming and clarifing on my part to one article, and tags on many others), and starting a discussion on the talk page of the Pooh article, and notifying both parties to what I assumed would be a civil but contentious dispute that I was willing, infact, happy, to talk.

What I describe above is the right action of an editor, and I deserve praise for it, not you flinging your weight around calling my actions "despicable," "bad-faith" and "combative." No matter what you say, I will nevereverever edit anything you have touched in the last 3 months rolling, so your apology to me will be meaningless in terms of effects, except to clear my mind, but I would very much aappreciate it. If you cannot bring yourself to apologize for leaping to conclusions about my motives or behavior, please don't write anything to me - no more stuff like this hurtful little snark. But honestly, have you bathed yourself in glory here? JBKramer 19:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piglet, Winnie the Pooh, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy

Excuse, please, honorable ladies and gentleman. May I be allowed to enter the fray of this fascinating debate? My position is unwavering and unequivocal. My research has shown that Piglet and Winnie the Pooh have much in common with that promiscuous Easter Bunny and that rotter, the Tooth Fairy. All are charlatans and frauds.

The sole redeeming character that I have encountered in this mighty fine kettle of fish is Elsie the Cow, who gives freely of her milk to all who are willing to pull up a stool and get to work. God bless all you delightful munchkins! Barry Wells 21:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AGF

I feel a little dirty having to say this to you, but I must insist that you WP:AGF, that I believed the various forked article, were infact POV-forks that were unhelpful to the encyclopedia. If you review the not-revert that I initially did to the pooh article, you will note that I took steps to remove irrelevent and unencyclopedic information to the extent I could ([3]). I look forward to work on the article with you. JBKramer 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have, at no point, stated that my nominations were in bad faith. I will no longer engage with you as I do not believe it is possible for such to improve the encyclopedia. Good luck on the pooh articles, and best wishes on future editing. If possible, please attempt to avoid me as much as humanly possible, and I will grant you the same courtesy. Happy editing. JBKramer 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kelly. Could I ask, in complete good faith, in which edit you found me to be arguing "vehemently toward favoring Disney's representation over all others"? I've looked and I can't find it; if I'm pushing POV I need to see an example in order to correct it. I'm also curious, again in good faith, where the "complaint regarding the content of Piglet" was located; again, I can't find it. Thanks in advance! Powers ^T 18:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to read up on Carbonite's Law. --Cyde Weys 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew as I was writing it I'd get called on that. Considering my good faith had been questioned in the immediate past, I only wanted to reassure Kelly that I wasn't going to use the information against her or in favor of POV pushing. I guess the only real way to do that is by lack of evidence of same, but I've been trying to be extra-reassuring given recent events. Looks like it backfired in this case. (And shouldn't it be Hamlet's law? "...doth protest too much" and all that? =) Powers ^T 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion between you and Angr on the talk page over which image to use. You seemed to favor using a Disney image over a non-Disney image, for no good reason that I could see.

For the record, the complaint regarding Piglet was communicated to Lee (and myself) via private channels; the request came from the Foundation office. Where it originated is not known to me. Lee has a great track record at cleaning up, expanding, and referencing articles (see, for example, Eastman Johnson; note the talk page) and if she says there is bias in the article, odds are she's right. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I fully supported keeping the Sheppard illustration, and in fact supported giving it pride of place (i.e., lead paragraph) in the article. My objection was to leaving the 1/4 view of CGI-Pooh as the only representation of the Disney version in the article. I did remove the book cover, but only because the page was getting cluttered with images.

Obviously, I didn't realize the request came from The Office. Curious. I failed at assuming good faith on the part of Lkinkade (should I have known her name is Lee?), but a note about the request and the private discussion would have alleviated much of my concern. Powers ^T 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I am aware of my pro-Disney bias, but I think edits such as this [4] show I try not to let it affect my edits. In this case, it may have triggered my alarms prematurely, but I think my intentions were good. Powers ^T 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if my behavior looked like this user's behavior to you, I can understand your reaction. =) Powers ^T 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting an apology.

You know, I walked away, and tried to go do something else, but I was still pissed. So instead, I tried to edit some random articles, but I couldn't, because I kept going back to the stupud Pooh bullshit. Your comments about my faith, or lack thereof hurt, and I'm asking you for an apology and retraction. I will briefly outline the timeline of my involvement.

I read WP:ANI driving by. I found the request RE pooh, and your statement that "And reverting changes like the ones Lee made is actually very easy." I went ahead and reverted said changes, because I thought, and still think (but I'm never going to contribute to anything you have touched first ever again) that the best solution to the bias that you find in the overabundance of reference to the version of the character that the vast majority of the english speaking population would be looking for information on as opposed to the lack of reference of an old, little known character is to either make the distinction between the two characters clear by providing a disambiguation page at Piglet(Winnie the Pooh) pointing at Piglet (Disney Character) and Piglet (Miline Character) or by editing the Piglet(Winnie the Pooh) article to distinguish the Miline Character from the Disney Character more clearly. I did not believe the solution was to move the most widely known incarnation of the character to "Slesinger representation of the Milne character "Winnie the Pooh"" was even remotely on the table. I took the appropriate action to do such - nomination what appeared to be obvious POV forks for deletion, putting the full information back into the main article (Absent some substantial trimming and clarifing on my part to one article, and tags on many others), and starting a discussion on the talk page of the Pooh article, and notifying both parties to what I assumed would be a civil but contentious dispute that I was willing, infact, happy, to talk.

What I describe above is the right action of an editor, and I deserve praise for it, not you flinging your weight around calling my actions "despicable," "bad-faith" and "combative." No matter what you say, I will nevereverever edit anything you have touched in the last 3 months rolling, so your apology to me will be meaningless in terms of effects, except to clear my mind, but I would very much aappreciate it. If you cannot bring yourself to apologize for leaping to conclusions about my motives or behavior, please don't write anything to me - no more stuff like this hurtful little snark. But honestly, have you bathed yourself in glory here? JBKramer 19:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piglet, Winnie the Pooh, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy

Excuse, please, honorable ladies and gentleman. May I be allowed to enter the fray of this fascinating debate? My position is unwavering and unequivocal. My research has shown that Piglet and Winnie the Pooh have much in common with that promiscuous Easter Bunny and that rotter, the Tooth Fairy. All are charlatans and frauds.

The sole redeeming character that I have encountered in this mighty fine kettle of fish is Elsie the Cow, who gives freely of her milk to all who are willing to pull up a stool and get to work. God bless all you delightful munchkins! Barry Wells 21:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamran Nazeer Article

Hi Kelly,

Thanks very much for your email about this. It was dealt with quite quickly by Shell Kinney when I figured out where WP-PAIN was and learnt how to flag for speedy deletion - but not before the user in question had posted a considerable amount of aggressive material. It was much easier to find the page for Attacks on me or someone I represent [5], but there the only method of redress it suggests is emailing - which is much slower, obviously, than the other methods. It might be a good idea to put links on this page to information about flagging for speedy deletion and the admin forums for people like me who aren't that familiar with the mechanics of wikipedia.

There are still a few links in the history which contain references to the libellous material. Would you mind removing them?

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

thanks again for your help with this, Aude Aed20 17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny blurb in the Chicago Tribune

Hi Kelly, I saw you lived around Chicago, so I figured you might get the newspaper. In the commentary section of today's paper, there's a funny column about a person's ex writing a hypothetical article about them on wikipedia. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is online link. NoSeptember 23:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcoming sockpuppets

You recently welcomed my bulk edit sockpuppet (NotACow). You might want to consider looking at the userpages of users before you welcome them in the future, since it's kinda silly (and really pointless) to welcome an obvious sockpuppet. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe your sockpuppet wanted welcoming lol. thanks for the advice.P.S.are you an admin yet?SOADLuver 02:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of general blocking principle

Just letting you know I left a reply under your original post (nothing major) in case you have any comments. ~ PseudoSudo 12:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chadbryant and trolls

Thanks for your intervention. I've been dealing with this for weeks and could do with another angle. My own observation is that Chad has been subjected to an unbelievable amount of trolling and abuse, ranging from vulgar to an unpleasant manipulation of personal information about his wife and a photo of himself as a baby (the latest episode). I've asked him not to hit back, but to let me know and he has generally been co-operative. This could be tightened up. I feel that to ban him at the moment would be a victory for the trolls.

The dispute, as you point out, came here from elsewhere, though Chad has stated he never wanted that, or knew it would happen. The Dick Witham socks edit primarily from IP addresses owned by Alltel.net which are assigned to two dialup modem pools servicing Milledgeville, Georgia. Another perpetrator is Linden Arden, who also seems to manage to create socks, using AOL. They can therefore replicate at will; effectively they seem unbannable. I know the RL identities of them, but that doesn't help.

What do you think can/should be done, and how can Chad act in a way that would keep him in the clear, if he's prepared to go along with it? User:Sasaki, if a sock, is not a recent creation, unlike most of them.

Thanks.

Tyrenius 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Chad has been subjected to a lot of abuse, yes, but this is in large part because he has invited it. In any case, his ongoing conflict with Dick Witham disrupts Wikipedia, and if he wishes to continue to participate in Wikipedia he should take steps to stop feeding the troll. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abdel Frasheri on de:

Hi Kelly! I see that you have an account on the German Wikipedia and I wonder if you could help out by nominating the German de:Abdel Frasheri article for deletion? The corresponding article was deleted here on the English Wikipedia as unverifiable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdel Frasheri), but needs to be removed from a number of other Wikipedias as well.

The non-German speaking, Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My de account exists mainly to protect against impersonation (as my user page there clearly states, albeit in German). I'd probably end up accidentially nominating it for deification by mistake, given how bad my German is. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, thanks for your time. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wondering if you could...

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? There is sensitive personal information on there that I would like removed. Everything up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message on User talk:Giano

Just letting you know it's back up, against your expressed wish. Daniel.Bryant 06:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh give the boy an apple. Giano | talk 17:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drama queens

"any effort on my part to accomplish anything is surrounded by a huge mass of drama." --KellyMartin[18]

Hi Kelly, By 'drama', I presume you mean people getting upset? Ben Aveling 07:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a very common way for drama to be created -- acting upset can be quite dramatic. The point is that they want to create a clamor around my actions, presumably to draw attention to the actions, or sometimes to themselves. The key is that their actions are calculated to draw attention. My actions, however, are calculated to deal with some real issue. I don't particularily care for the drama (although quite frequently I find it amusing after the fact), but I am certainly not going to let it keep me from doing the right thing in the right situation. And I certainly don't have any need to draw additional attention to myself. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that people aren't actually upset, that they are only pretending to be upset? Ben Aveling 02:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure some of the people involved who appear to be upset are actually upset; these are mainly the ones who are suffering from misunderstandings as to how policy is created on Wikipedia, or have other misapprehensions that are mainly due to inexperience, miseducation, or a lack of adequate enculturation. However, it's almost certainly not the case that everyone acting upset is actually upset; there are, without any question, drama queens involved. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How can I tell someone who is upset from someone who just appears upset? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, I'm very glad you realize that drama is counterproductive. However I really think you're still missing something important here. If drama seems to be following you around, remember that the common factor in this case is you. If a given editor seems to be a drama magnet, they're either astoundingly unlucky, or they themselves are doing things to contribute to the drama. Friday (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ergo, police officers are criminals. --InkSplotch 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Friday, you missed one very important possibility: the person is engaged in an activity that tends to put them in close contact with people who like to create drama. I posit that administrators on Wikipedia are frequently in that position. There are further things I would say to you, but I shall not because there is no civil way to say them. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UAE Proxy IP?

Hi Kelly,

213.42.2.23 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) was indefinitely blocked as "Open proxy, as per Kelly Martin on IRC". Is that correct? Should the IP be blocked? There seems to be some worry that this is shutting out all of the UAE. Thanks in advance. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Kyereh Mireku

Kelly, I noticed that you have had some contact with Kyereh Mireku (talk • contribs). Last week I blocked him for ignoring warning messages. He has returned and put an erroneous warning message on my talk page — you can see the history here on his talk page. It seems that some oversight has been suggested. But, it appears that this editor's disruption versus useful contributions might weigh on the side of indefinite blocking. I'd appreciate your comments, as I have a very limited history with the editor. — ERcheck (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My interaction with this editor consisted of oversighting content on eir talk page which revealed personal information about em. Since the editor is, or at least credibly claims to be, a child, removing that information was done for eir own protection. I have no comment on the quality of this editor as an editor or whether e should be blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy counsel page

I moved the policy counsel page to Wikipedia space since the presence in user space was distracting from the discussion of the proposal and my interpretation of your statements was that you would not object strongly to such a move. JoshuaZ 06:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If of course you feel strongly about the matter feel free to move it back. JoshuaZ 07:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already said that anyone who felt strongly enough about it could do that. Frankly I think the shitstorm has done Wikipedia some good: it has exposed a few more people whose sensibility is obviously compromised by their inability to control their emotions, their inability to see past personal grudges, or in some cases simply by irrational fear. You did rather seem to boff the move, though. You might check to make sure you actually moved it correctly. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The creator of this "policy council" proposal may have forgotten the policy of WP:AGF. I find your comments above to be most unbecoming for a long standing member of this community. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. The talk page was in the place where the actual page should have gone, but I just pushed things around, and now we can stop talking about this red herring, and get on to some others, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks GT. (I think I've done less than 10 moves my entire time as an editor here, so I should probably have asked someone else to do it). JoshuaZ 07:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful

Hello, be careful with the word "fascist" , it is not a easy word. But a "grammar fascist" is maybe not bad :). I´ll vote for you. regards --Matze6587 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DevianTart

Hope this isn't a bother, but did you take those photos on there yourself? They're very good. Karwynn (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, everything I submit there as my own work is my own work. I have both standards and ethics, unlike some people. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, I wasn't accusing you. I just don't know how the site works, didn't know if it was also like a "post your favorite pictures" kind of thing, but I figured they were yours. One reason I asked is because I use Google desktop and a slide-show screensaver, and they both scroll through photos, and I like expansive outdoor photos, like of storms and the sky. Would it be alright with you if I downloaded some to my computer? I wouldn't distribute them anywhere of course, and I could keep your name in the filename so you'd have due credit. If not, good photos anyway. Karwynn (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's a no :-( Karwynn (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy. No, I don't mind. Feel free. Everything there is free for personal use. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not let the clowns eat you

It isn't worth it. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Please add me to your lsit. --Tony Sidaway 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on eating them Wheaties, they work pretty well. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Wilhelm Scream

FUC #1 doesn't apply, as there is no free alternative to this image. If you have a free image that is not inferior to the one we have, feel free to replace it. However removing it altogether does no good to the Wikipedia.  Grue  17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Grue on this one. Stop fighting over this; next person to revert from anyone without a discussion will be blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

FUC #1 does apply. FUC #1 talks about "No free equivalent is available or could be created". Why a free image of this people can not be created? This is a simply edition to enforce policy. We don't discuss either to follow the policy. If you want to discuss the policy, do that on Wikipedia_talk:Fair use, and avoid the blocking threats. Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Then the written text of the policy is wrong. There is not support, at this time, in the community for such an interpretation. Build support first. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people are removing non-free content even where no free version exists. For example this - the idea being that it encourages people to create free versions. Stephen B Streater 18:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's almost certainly a disputed practice. Getting away with it on low-traffic articles doesn't mean you have consensus support for it. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "disputed practice". It's policy enforcement. --Abu Badali 19:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If practice is disputed, then there is no policy. Remember that the text on the policy page is not the actual policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy don't talk about "no free version exists" but "no free version could be created". --Abu Badali 19:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you consider the possibility that what's wrong is your interpretation of the policy? The policy text has been recently clarified, after and IRC talk with Jimbo Walles, exactly to avoid interpretations like yours. What you're doing is a willful disregard for a Wikipedia's policy, and you're even threatening those how would try to enforce the policy. Please, reconsider you behaviour and withdraw your threaths as soon as possible. Best regards, --Abu Badali 19:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of what Jimbo's had to say on this. And I don't think that you've got enough support for it at this time. I'm threatening those who would disrupt Wikipedia by enforcing this policy overaggressively. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree that we can't claim fair use for the use of the image Image:AWilhelmScream.jpg in the A Wilhelm Scream article because it fails item #1 in Wikipedia:Fair use criteria? If not, could you elaborate on that? If so, what's "overaggressively" in removing the image from the article? --Abu Badali 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that it is possible to obtain a freely-licensed equivalent of that image, if that's what you're asking. And the stupid and pointless edit war over its inclusion or disinclusion is unacceptable, in any case. Work out a solution that avoids an edit war. Surely you can come up with an approach that doesn't involve a revert war. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy is based on the assumption that free images of living persons, building and objects are possible to obtain. The articles should follow the Wikipedia's policy, and not your convictions, so the fact that you're "not convinced that it is possible to obtain a freely-licensed equivalent" is not that relevant (unless you have reasons to believe this a very special case and have not yet shared these reasons with us).

I surely "can come up with an approach that doesn't involve a revert war". The approach is to remove the image violating the policy and not readd it nor block the editor who readded it. Do you think it would work? --Abu Badali 20:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be having trouble doing that without creating a lot of heat. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Retract your bloking menace and the heat will cool down. So, will you block me if I remove the offending image? --Abu Badali 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no urgency to fix content issues like this in Wikipedia. Discuss things with a few people and wait for a consensus to emerge. Whether the image is up or not during the discussion is unlikely to affect the long term result - which is that free images will be used where possible. Stephen B Streater 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The image use is against the policy and should be removed period. Quoting Jimbo Wales: "In general, ordinary publicity photos of celebrities should not be used in Wikipedia unless they are released under a free license. (...) We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo." [19] (emphasis mine). --Abu Badali 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how the image is permitted under current guidelines. The purpose of the image is to illustrate the members of the band, something that is clearly replicable. ed g2s • talk 22:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that we are moving towards Jimbo's view, but as he said in June, it was not yet policy. As people appreciate Wikipedia's role of encouraging the creation of free content, and as the gaps get filled, the policy will emerge. Stephen B Streater 07:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As of the 9th of September, the following part of WP:FU: "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like ... would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use"". ed g2s • talk 08:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing the text of the policy page does not change policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The "text of the policy" has not been changed. It allways had "No free equivalent is available or could be created..." as the first criteria for claiming fair use. What was changed was the clarification page, so that interpretations like your are no longer accepted. And this changed followed a IRC conversation with Jimbo Walles.

Changing the text of the "clarification" doesn't alter policy, either. You still don't get it. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's right! You get it! Changing the text of the clarification doesn't alter policy. It just explains with more clearness what the policy has always said. --Abu Badali 14:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask you again, Keely Martin: Will you block me if I remove the offending image? --Abu Badali 13:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I might, if I think you have done so without gaining consensus for doing so. You need to, at least, discuss your removal on the article's talk page and use an edit summary that (a) explains your actions in detail and (b) invites further discussion on the talk page. And my name is "Kelly", not "Keely". Kelly Martin (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence in asking for a consensus on either on not to follow a policy does not makes sence. --Abu Badali 14:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My insistence in ensuring that a proposed interpretation of policy is supported by consensus very much makes sense. So does my insistence that you refrain from edit warring. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Kelly sees me as a friend, having hinted I should be banned in the past, but in this case I agree with Kelly's advice. If the policy is so clear, a discussion on Village Pump (Policy) should show a clear consensus, and a deletion by a third party not involved in the original dispute should follow in due course. If no one want to delete the image, this will show that people think the encyclopaedia is better with the image in, at least for the time being. Causing disruption while enforcing policy could well lead to a block. Stephen B Streater 17:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William H. Kennedy

Before I take this to WP:DR, and open up that kettle of worms, I wanted to ask for an explanation here. Tracking through here and here, the request for the deletion and salting of this page appears to have come from you. The problem is that the page survived AFD just yesterday. The AFD decided that this was a notable enough person to deserve a page, and that, while the page needed special attention to keep it clear of WP:BLP violations, it should still exist. If this is an official WP:OFFICE action, then I understand. If not, then I am inclined to take this to WP:DR unless given a very good reason not to do so. - TexasAndroid 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Response sent to this editor via email. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo sockpuppetry

Kelly, thanks for your clarification regarding Dardanv. Could you please also do a CheckUser on Kushtrimxh (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)? I note that this account is relatively new, posted a statement to WP:RFAr only minutes after Dardanv did [20], and has a notably similar writing style. It smells very much like another sockpuppet. -- ChrisO 07:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quite enough, thank you!

I am back for a while, prompted by your disgraceful behaviour on the Admin's Notice board. Threatening in such a clumsy, vulgar and sinister fashion a much respected contributor and Admin such as Geogre is intolerable and as such will not be tolerated. I suggest you resign all your Wikipedia rights immediately, while it is still possible to do so with some dignity. Giano 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what. I will resign my rights if you convince Geogre, Bishonen, and any two other admins to post requests on my talk page asking me to resign. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Call me silly, but does this offer actually mean anything? If you were to resign adminship, it'd be yours again as soon as you asked for it back, would it not? Friday (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. The only way I'd ask for any of my rights back is if I were asked to do so by Jimbo, Brad or Danny -- any of whom is in the position of assigning those rights to me anyway, community consent or not -- or if any of the five people who demanded my resignation withdrew their demand at some later date. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishonen's response

Hi, Kelly. I'd like to understand your offer a bit better. Are you by inference asking for anything in return from Giano? Like, if Geogre and I end up not requesting that you resign your rights, then he, Giano, must stop going on about it? I put it on Geogre and me, because it's pretty obvious that the two unnamed admins could be found--even apart from the fact that you're a controversial figure, I'd bet two admins who wanted us to leave could be found for any one of us. Secondly, what rights? It seems to me that your most important rights are quite informal, and held only by the perception of the community and the sufferance of the arbcom—in other words, that they're not something you can resign. Your giving up CheckUser or oversight rights would hardly benefit the project.
What I would like is for you to stop speaking for the project and for the arbcom, as you do (seem to do) by general perception, and by what I think you have called your "gravitas" as former arbitrator. I would like that because I don't like your contempt and your dismissiveness—no, not just towards the ill-informed and fickle, but, as witnessed in the current prematurely archived WP:AN discussion, towards excellent contributors such as Geogre ("part of the problem, not of the solution"—then I'd really like to know who is part of the solution) and Giano (who, disgusting fellow that he is, "spews forth" featured article "material" (qué? "material"? is that different and worse than spewing forth featured articles?) and lots, lots more, ad nauseam. And "them". They who are not "us". I honestly don't care if you feel the contempt or not. Maybe you don't. It doesn't matter.
You do have special rights, even though not of a kind you can easily give up. It's misleading to say that the position of "Arbitrator Emeritus" entails no rights. Former arbitrators are members of the arbs' mailing list, and read and post freely to it. The arbs' IRC channel is open to them. These seem to me important rights, which bring the power of knowledge: you know what is said in internal arbcom discussions, and you take part in them (or so I presume—at least you can if you want). But I don't see how you can very well give up that power; it's for the arbcom (or Jimbo?) to decide who is and isn't welcome in these fora. I would like them to reconsider this non-transparent, behind-the-scenes power that tradition gives you as well as all other former arbitrators. That's my preference. But, as long as this is merely (and I think a bit inappropriately) about you, well, would you consider voluntarily swearing off the High Cabal mailing list and irc channel?
Less loftily, there's the question of the admin tools. I'm on the fence about them--I have some reservations about your use of them, and specifically about your block of MONGO in June (and your unimpressive defence of that block now—if you like, I can elaborate this point). But desysoppings really are sledgehammers, and I need to both think and research a bit more, and hopefully get help from Geogre's input. It would be very helpful from my point of view—though I don't mean to try to "clerk" the response to your invitation here—if Haukurth came in as one of the other two admins, as I believe he knows much more about the adminship issue than I do, and would be able to show whether the MONGO affair was a one-off (though I still think quite bad) lapse of judgement, or one in a series. Bishonen | talk 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

I don't really care what Giano does at this point. It is obvious to me that he has moved beyond reason, and it is therefore simply a matter of time before he is permanently banned from Wikipedia (although I personally will not likely participate in that decision). I've been doing dispute resolution on Wikipedia long enough to see the writing on the wall. (Geogre is close to this point as well, and may have already passed it.) I see no point in wasting my time convincing him to change his ways, as he is not going to. Therefore, there is neither offer of, nor expectation of, a quid pro quo.

It should be noted that my offer of resignation relates only to the formal rights I have with respect to the English Wikipedia. I would not resign any of my rights and duties with respect to various Wikimedia mailing lists, my membership in the Communications Committee, or my (temporary) checkuser rights on wiktionary. Nor will I stop doing things on the English Wikipedia on request from the Foundation, except insofar as not having the formal rights would prevent me such completing such requests. Giving up admin, checkuser, and oversight rights would hurt the project, at least in the short term, because of the significant amount of work I do for the Foundation office. I am not really in a position to discuss in detail all that I do for the Foundation with respect to the English Wikipedia, but it is not insignificant. If I were to cease to have those rights, Brad would be deprived of a legally-trained volunteer who has and knows how to use checkuser and oversight. My particular combination of skills is valuable to him, and while I am certainly not irreplacable it would take him some time to establish a relationship similar to that which we have developed over the past months. That would probably be detrimental to the project and to Wikimedia as a whole.

Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Always. If I am speaking for the project I will say so. And I won't do so unless authorized by Amgine, Brad, or Jimmy. I don't speak for the Arbitration Committee. I realize a lot of people have trouble understanding this, but I really don't think it's reasonable to stifle my speech because other people are too stupid to understand this. Perhaps I should make more of an effort to litter my communications with disclaimers?

In any case, leaving the ArbCom list would not materially alter the power I wield on Wikipedia. My power on Wikipedia derives not from my access to the ArbCom's discussion fora, but from the fact that a substantial portion of Wikipedia's membership respects my judgment and my sense. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of users who look to me for guidance. They have, for whatever reason, concluded that (a) I care about this project, and (b) I have A Clue. And so they look to me for advice, and they are prone to follow my suggestions, and they generally trust that I won't steer them down the wrong path. The only way I could alter that is to deliberately start giving people bad advice. And I refuse to do that.

Geogre is part of the problem. He is launching extensive, ranty, ill-informed tirades (I noticed that he has recently claimed that I'm a developer, which is news to me!) and in so doing generating a great deal of smoke and heat without adding any light at all. Until he stops doing that, he will remain part of the problem. I laud his extensive authorship within Wikipedia, but that in no way excuses his execrable behavior. If he doesn't stop it, and soon, he will probably find himself in the same boat as Giano.

I rarely ever go in the arbcom IRC channel anymore, although it is true that I still have access. I do still participate in the arbcom mailing list, although it is relatively uncommon for me to comment extensively on cases. One of the things I do do is constantly push the Committee harder to force sysops to be more accountable for their actions. It is starkly ironic that I'm actually on your side here, and you and Geogre are fighting tooth and nail to get rid of me. But this is what happens when you yell and scream first, and talk later (if at all). I remain thoroughly unconvinced that my refusal to participate in ArbCom discussions would benefit Wikipedia.

I am a very light user of sysop tools -- the last time I ran stats I came in at #168. You will be hard-pressed to show that I have been systematically misusing them because I do use them so sparingly. In retrospect, MONGO's block was probably ill-considered, although I believed it was appropriate at the time. I am capable of observing my own actions and adjusting my behavior accordingly, and my opinions are always subject to revision in light of new data.

Now, I was handed (a hour or so ago) an article to review tonight for actionable libel, so if you do decide that I should resign my rights, I ask, for Brad's sake, that you allow me to complete that task before expecting my resignation. Otherwise, I'd be forced to decide between my promise to you and my promise to Brad, and I don't like being put in such situations. Other than that, I continue to await your collective decision.

With regards, Kelly Martin (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested to me that the claim of "hundreds, if not thousands" is exaggerated. It is perhaps an exaggeration; I should probably said "dozens". I am quite convinced that there are over one hundred, and (judging by the random talk page messages and emails I get) probably well over that. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well, in view of that unresponsive response, I won't make any more attempts to suggest alternatives or open any communication lines. I too request that you relinquish those rights which you have offered to. I really don't understand why you thought it worth your while to drag me into this—to call me by name into an issue I had had such minimal input on—only to characterize my good faith response as "fighting tooth and nail to get rid of [you]". (To the best of my knowledge, my response here, plus this edit represent the entirety of the comment I've ever made on you.) Bishonen | talk 01:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

Sorry to intrude, but I'm a bit surprised. Kelly's response didn't seem "unresponsive" to me at all. Are you certain asking her to relinquish admin, checkuser and oversight rights are the best solution here? I ask this because it's potentially just four users stripping someone of their powers, and that seems a very dangerous thing to me. As messed up as many people think RFA has become, I still think its biggest strength is numbers. --InkSplotch 02:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being impatient, Inksplotch. I just feel hugely tired at the idea of trying to push, millimetre by millimetre, for being understood by someone who seems (IMO) so reluctant to, and so sure that any miscommunication must be due to the stupidity of the other person. What I really want is laid out in my long post; if anybody else feels like brokering a deal with Kelly and/or ArbCom on the basis of it, together with the other requests listed here, feel free, and if it's even remotely successfull, I'll gladly come along and withdraw my crude, simple request in favor of it. I just don't see that happening in a negotiation between Kelly and me, though. We must be a very bad combination for it: one of us a poor and unwilling listener, the other a cross and tactless speaker (just to avoid misunderstandings, that would be me.) Bishonen | talk 04:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

Part of my problem with your (and Geogre's) request is that if I accept it and follow it strictly to the letter, it would be pointless, and if I accept it and follow it in spirit, it would be cruel as well as undermining of my major work in Wikipedia.

As I mentioned above, I rarely visit the arbcom IRC channel (which itself is not heavily used even by members of the ArbCom); swearing it off is largely a meaningless act. I could readily stop participating in the mailing list, because I would essentially get the same information via other channels. You seem to think that this is the only backchannel that exists or that I participate in. It's not. It's not even the most important one. For me to accede to the spirit of your demand would require that, inter alia, I cut myself off from personal communication with people like James and Kat -- people I count as friends -- because they would likely continue to discuss the same issues with me that we currently discuss from time to time on the arbcom list; my opinions would still enter the discussion, just not as directly. Furthermore, one of the major resources I use for collaboration with the Foundation, and specifically with Danny and Brad -- which, by necessity is a wholly private resource -- includes James and Kat as regular participants. Withdrawing from that particular resource would hamper my ability to provide assistance to Brad and Danny, which represents probably the bulk of what I do on the English Wikipedia these days, and the part that I find most fulfilling. I also frequently participate in "backchannel" conversation with Kat, James, Dmcdevit (another arbitrator), and occasionally smoddy on the restricted IRC admins channel. Should I also withdraw from that channel? It seems that the you and Geogre, through your joint demand, are seeking to require that I isolate myself totally from the entire ArbCom (Geogre's proposal even requires that I even refrain from public communication with members of the ArbCom; I don't recall if yours does, although I believe it does not). Those people, some of them, at least, are my friends. For you to ask such a thing is really quite heartless. It would be akin to my demanding that you have no nonpublic contact with the myriad of friends you have no doubt made on Wikipedia.

So, you must forgive me: I would rather resign my privileges with honor than accept either of the alternatives left to me: giving you a hollow victory gained through my unethical manipulation of your own ignorance, or the personal harm of agreeing to cut myself off from those I count as friends. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that Kelly's block of me has been forgotten and (if it was even necessary), forgiven. I would have preferred a comment on my talk page, but with more than 20,000 edits, I also should have known to not make comments where I did. That said, I also want to reemphasize that the entire idea of collaboration is that we understand and respect that we all have individual strengths and weaknesses. I'm not interested in being party to any efforts to desyop Kelly. My respect for all the parties involved in this ongoing situation will not be diminished and my hope is that at some point a suitable resolution can be found that isn't either overly time consuming or leave unnecessary bitterness.--MONGO 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Kelly regularly abuses the admin tools as such. I agree with Bishonen that her block of MONGO was unfortunate and unhelpful. I've also previously criticized Kelly for her block of Grue which I think was abusive. (Refer to my arbitration request) We could mention a couple of other things - there was a rather questionable block on Rory096 and a month long block of MegamanZero which was probably excessive. But I can accept that people disagree with me about blocks and it's probable that I'm too lenient. I can also forgive admins for making a bad call every once in a while. The only block of the above which I think was clearly abusive was the of Grue and it was quickly overturned.

What bothers me about Kelly is that she is confrontational and stirs up conflict where none is needed. She polarizes disputes and seeks to divide contributors into different classes,[21] even going so far as to make lists of people she doesn't trust.[22] She continually portrays herself as a leadership figure within Wikipedia with what I think is both little justification and poor taste. [23] She takes criticism as information on "people she should not trust". [24]

If her offer still stands I would like Kelly to resign, as she puts it, the formal rights she has on the English Wikipedia, because it is preferable that those who hold such rights treat people with respect and enjoy community trust. Haukur 22:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I too, would ask Kelly to resign her formal rights on en.wiki, for the same reasons Haukur gave. In the few encounters I've had with her, I've found her to be needlessly rude and confrontational. The overall effect of this is poisonous to the project. I hope she continues whatever good work she does for the Foundation, but the project is better off without having her as an admin. Friday (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm throwing my hat into the ring here as well; yourself and Tony Sidaway are both part of the problem. If confidence in the ArbCom is going to be restored you both need to have your unelected wings clipped as a starting point, if you were to do so voluntarily that would provide the project with some dignity and I'm sure you'd receive it's appreciation. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre's response

I'll be succinct: I believe that I am heading for permanent banning no more than I believe that thousands turn to Kelly for guidance. I believe that she claims to speak for herself even as she claims to speak for the ArbCom that she is not a member of. (The dire predictions of my fate, for example, are delivered from great, great, official height, and yet they are combined with astonishment that anyone could think that it is meant.) Additionally, she assures Bishonen that she has no great power or position, and yet she is so valuable to the Foundation its very self that she cannot fulfill her promises. I wish that I could admire such an ability to combine antithesis in rhetoric, but I do not find it moving or convincing. I may be a harsh reader, though. I have asked very precisely for the giving up of the one thing that causes the problems, a minor thing that should be easily spared in one so valuable, and yet Kelly would gladly give up administrative powers, but not access to the ArbCom mailing list. If, indeed, her "power" comes from her personality and wisdom, then the mailing list should have been a tiny sacrifice. Apparently, some of us were wrong in what we thought. Geogre 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that if you think Giano and maybe Geogre have moved beyond reason, you can add me to the list. Giano is angry, but he is angry for excellent reasons. Do not attempt to shirk the issue by dismissing his anger as unreasonable hysteria. I am not interested in wikipolitics. I am interested in a strong and sane community of editors. A political caste deciding on the fates of the project in off-wiki channels, more and more detaching itself from the task of writing articles is an appalling sign of decadence. Giano is defending the integrity of the project, he is not on some sort of hormonal ego trip as you seem to imply, and you would do well to take him seriously. Otherwise, this might result in an exodus of highly prolific editors other than just him and Geogre, and you'll be left with a project with lots of politicians and vandals, but no competent editors. I ask you to consider that administrators, arbitrators and politicians are easily expendable, see [25]. In fact, arbitrators should be replaced on a regular basis to prevent the emergence of a classe politique (and I am speechless that there should be any defense of court positions like 'arbitrator emeritus'). People willing to do admin tasks, and willing to exert power and judge people, are a dime a dozen. Editors like Giano are an extremely rare commodity, and it should be the first priority of administrating Wikipedia to make their experience here as pleasant as possible. dab (ᛏ) 08:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what dab is saying here. Carcharoth 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with what dab is saying. What does inksplotch think? S/he usually has something thoughtful to add from the other perspective. David D. (Talk) 17:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators are replaced on a regular basis. See the Arbitration Committee page for detailed information about this. Kelly Martin as an arbitrator emeritus is no more a member of the arbitration committee than a professor emeritus is a member of a university faculty. The terms of Jayjg, Sam Korn (smoddy), Theresa knott and The Epopt will expire at the end of the current year. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oh God! I thought at least the Arbcom had learnt enough to shut you up - appears not. Giano 19:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I've been requested! Well, I've been trying to share perspective around as I can, and I appreciate all that Geogre has put up with from me on his talk page. Sadly, I don't feel like I've made much progress there or elsewhere, and it just comes down to differences of opinion. Like Dab's statement, People willing to do admin tasks, and willing to exert power and judge people, are a dime a dozen. Editors like Giano are an extremely rare commodity, and it should be the first priority of administrating Wikipedia to make their experience here as pleasant as possible. I view this as unbalanced. I think both admins and editors are a dime a dozen, and that editors as good as Giano are, like admins as good as Kelly, are both rare commodities. And that to declare the first priority of admins to make editor's experience as pleasant as possible is misguided. I think the first priority of admins, like editors, is to make the project as successful as possible. Which means people will be hurt, and editors or admins will leave, but right now the encyclopedia is being written. And, outside of those of us caught up in this affair, we're but a drip in the great ocean of editors out there right now. --InkSplotch 22:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some more comments

I've just been reading up on the latest about all this. Hopefully I haven't missed too much of what has been said (I know some discussion takes place elsewhere). As someone who is just observing from the outside, I wanted to respond to two things Kelly said, not in any confrontational way, but more through puzzlement at the differences in philosophy I sense here:

• "My power on Wikipedia derives not from my access to the ArbCom's discussion fora, but from the fact that a substantial portion of Wikipedia's membership respects my judgment and my sense. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of users who look to me for guidance." - I know that Kelly has said that this is "perhaps an exaggeration", but I would like to say that my eyebrows shot through the roof when I read this classic example of hyperbole. My opinion of anyone who says this sort of thing plummets. I cannot see any justification for this statement at all (for example, the current voting tally for the Wikimedia Foundation Board election stands at somewhere over 2500 - maybe that gives an idea of the number of truly active editors in the project).
• "...the personal harm of agreeing to cut myself off from those I count as friends." - I don't understand this at all. I understand some people have strong links with others on Wikipedia, but you don't need any Wikipedia tools or sysops rights to maintain those links. Such contacts and relationships can be cultivated outside of Wikipedia, by e-mail, rather than on Wikipedia mailing lists and IRC channels. I personally try to keep an emotional distance with those I interact with on Wikipedia, as getting too involved can be a bad thing, as cultivating friendships in a place like this can be, well, interesting to say the least.

I apologise if this focussed too much on what you (Kelly) said, but I would urge all concerned to cool down and start talking to each other again. Both sides have valid points, and need to listen to each other, and try to understand each other (as I've tried to do above), rather than being confrontational. Carcharoth 17:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tao Ching unblock-en-l complaint

User:Tao Ching complained to unblock-en-l that you had blocked them and deleted their user page without warning, on the grounds that WP is not a blog. Lacking the prior page contents to review, I don't know what the detailed contents issue was per se, but they are claiming that they had been taking notes for articles they intended to work on at some point.

Their edit history shows several edits to other articles, so they aren't entirely editing just their home page.

If the content there was problematic, they feel that they deserved at least reasonable warning as to what the problem was and a chance to fix the problem somehow.

I don't know the details, but on the face of it their complaint seems reasonable. Could you explain what your reasoning was in a bit more detail? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This user's contributions to non-user space, sparse as they are, are either useless or worse. His user page was basically a blog: an indiscriminate collection of random quotes (many of them extensive enough to be problematic under our copyright policies) and links to external sites. I concluded that he was using Wikipedia as a web publishing host and denied him the further ability to do so. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, but that doesn't add any more useful info to what was already there. As I can't review the deleted content myself, I'm going to post this to AN/I asking for independent admin review (admins can review deleted pages, correct?). Georgewilliamherbert 23:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transparency

Hello. Reading WP:AN you intimate that Tony Sidaways behaviour is being examined. Could you tell me - a) is this by the ArbCom? b)When can we expect to read the conclusions c)Why this shouldn't be done as an open process? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the rest of my comments on WP:AN; you will find the answers you seek there. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if the above sounded accusatory. I've read the WP:AN and other than a mention of an ArbCom mailing list the questions aren't really addressed (Unless I've missed it in all the rancourous spiel). It's still not clear to me why it isn't an open process or when it's likely to be concluded. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you missed it; I will not waste my time finding where I said it or your time looking for it. I was referring to the examination that was clearly taking place by everyone posting in that thread, and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Pithy, I suppose. I find it distressing that so many people chose to interpret that statement in such a ill-aspected way when it was simply stating an obviousness. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kelly, so other than the thread at WP:AN there's no investigation of Tony's behaviour either on or off wiki by ArbCom?--Mcginnly | Natter 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot comment on what the ArbCom may be doing privately. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted to respond concerning...

I attempted to respond to a comment made by another user within a prior section, titled Drama queens, but my comment was reverted out due to that section already having been archived. So, without further ado:

The comment I was responding to:

Ergo, police officers are criminals. --InkSplotch 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My reply:

Your analogy is not at all apt. A police officer pursues someone already engaging in a type of behavior, but it is not the officer's actions that causes the crime (presumably, or else we wouldn't bother having police officers...but that's a whole other argument). The implication Friday appears to be trying to make is that Ms. Martin has a tendency to cause offense by her actions, and thus helping to cause the drama (I'm interpreting what someone else wrote, I don't know her or her work well enough to be able to make an informed stand on this). These are clearly two different cause/effect models, however both demonstrate correlation, which I believe is what Friday was going for as supporting evidence to his/her/its thoughts (as presumed by my interpretation). I'd also say that your effort at an analogy is partly disingenuous, as it could be taken as subtley implying that Ms. Martin's relationship to those she has had dramatic dealings with is as the relationship between a police officer and criminals. That is, you are granting presumed "moral high ground" as it were to one party, while condemning the other. When does a police officer pursue someone? When the officer believes the person has committed a crime. She most certainly does have a prerogative, but that does not make her infallible, nor does it make others inherently wrong. Sdr 20:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reposted by/at Sdr 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're spot on. I agree Friday was implying that Kelly's actions cause drama. My statement was to imply a different viewpoint, that like the police officers, an admin carrying out their duties is usually surrounded by drama. Their actions may be the cause, or it might be the situation they're responding to, but that's neither here nor there. The presence of drama should not prevent them from acting. I'm not trying to grant moral high ground, but I am making a basic assumption that her actions are, indeed, correct ones. If someone wishes to challenge her actions, I feel that's perfectly valid, and there's proper avenues for it. I just disagree that "drama" is any kind of barometer for correctness. Like some other admins, she takes on many of the more unpleasant tasks which often have high levels of drama involved...but someone still has to do it. Your last statement is quite true. Like the police officer, no one is infallible, or inherently right by matter of position. I think her methods and results should be evaluated for what they are, not the drama they may generate. --InkSplotch 21:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I have seen Kelly's critics often agree with her actions. Usually it is not the what she does but the how she does it. And when the susequent drama is discussed, invariably the strawman what is addressed more than the problem, the how. David D. (Talk) 18:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"I think her methods and results should be evaluated for what they are, not the drama they may generate." That's odd. I mean, isn't "the drama they generate" precisely the "results"? In a situation where there's some kind of conflict, I think of the admin's job to be mediating, de-escalating, and defusing. Generating drama equates to failure to de-escalate, right? If some disgruntled party that I interact with ends up flying off the handle at me, I figure I did something wrong. I think we ought to expect that our admins be good diplomats and dispute-resolvers, not dispute-worseners. I imagine there are those who disagree with me about that... -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Drama is sometimes part of the results, sometimes not. While I've compared Admins to police officers before, I don't actually equate them because I don't feel it's a totally valid analogy. GT, you say admins should be good diplomats and dispute resolved, which I agree with. If I may, though, I'd suggest those are secondary traits. The primary traits are the wisdom and knowledge to use the admin tools (blocking, protecting, etc.) correctly. Honestly, I expect all editors to be good diplomats and dispute resolvers here, because I would rather we all enforce civility within ourselves than rely on others to do it for us.

All that said, when drama results from an action I think it needs to be evaluated for cause. Sometimes it's because of the action. Sometimes it's because of the actor. Sometimes it's just because of the people generatign the drama. No one attracts that third one, but Kelly may attract some of the first two. In my experience (I've been around since just before the userbox wars), I've seen her generate some drama directly by her actions, but I feel more of it recently is generated just because it's her. I think the same is true of many of the high profile folks around here. One day, the ammount of drama generated merely by her name might drive her off the project entirely (and we could have come close here). I don't feel we should force anyone out for this, and I don't feel we'd benefit from losing her at this juncture.

It's certainly possible she could learn to be more diplomatic in her daily admin duties, but in this whole situation, her diplomactic tendances have, I have to say, been some of the best I've seen. --InkSplotch 21:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Giano

Kelly, don't let Giano wear you down. You're an asset to Wikipedia, keep the good work up, ignore the taunts - I respect your status. --LiverpoolCommander 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that. :-) 1ne 03:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. People don't understand how hard being an admin is, especially in cases like this, and I commend you on your actions in the past. Daniel.Bryant 11:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I know that the offer to resign all positions has been made and now withdrawn. Since I was told that I must choose between making such a grand and sweeping request or none at all, I reluctantly do agree with Bishonen and others and make such a request. You are free to withdraw the offer, of course, but I feel, after consideration and reading your words on IRC, that I must make the request all the same. Geogre 18:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  :-(

:-( Cyde Weys 19:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly has left

Kelly has announced her resignation, and has been voluntarily desysopped. See here and here. Further criticism of her on this page would be in rather bad taste, I think. AnnH ♫ 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No way

Please don't do this. Screw Bishonen and the others to hell and back. If they can't see past the fact that Wikipedia is not about reputation, but about the encyclopedia, it should be them who has to leave. --66.231.130.102 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Same here. 88.198.7.68 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Concern Arising from this Matter

I don't know this entire situation inside and out, that's for sure, and I don't really know all the major players involved here, but I'd like to offer my opinion for what (little) it may be worth. I don't have to be knowledgable in all of that to be worried by some of what I've seen. It would appear that a lot of the conflict concerning Ms. Martin's participation in the project has to do with the manner in which she acted while doing her job. I'm not saying there are or are not any issues with how well she has done her job, I'm not qualified to judge that. Now, I'm going to add a couple paragraphs below. They will be theoretical, and marked as such, so please no jumping me if you think I'm claiming someone is or is not something.

<theory>

It could be the case that Ms. Martin has done a good job as an admin, and simply had a tendency to rub people the wrong way, while making a few mistakes every once in a while (which is understandable, no one is perfect, I make mistakes all the time). It can be very, very easy to express yourself over the internet in a manner you would never consider expressing yourself in in real life, for better or for worse. Say we assume that it was for worse in this case, or that perhaps she simply had a tendency to think in an object/goal-oriented manner rather than an emotionally/context-oriented manner, or maybe just tended to be impolite in general. Then if an effort was made by her to do a bit better socially in the future, and past transgressions were forgiven a forgotten, then Wikipedia might gain back a valuable resource, and things would be better for all.

Conversely, it could be the case that Ms. Martin was doing a lot of good for the project, but overall was doing more harm than good. That makes her departure painful, as she was a major contributor, but while it may hurt, it does not harm.

</theory>

Still, good and bad are incredibly subjective values on Wikipedia from what I've seen. This makes sense, as good and bad tend to be subjective almost anywhere. However, there is a tendency for any community to develop a collection of standards meant to provide a common and consistent frame of reference for what is taken to be desirable and what is not. We have these standards for Wikipedia, and they are meant to give us a procedural means by which to consider problems that affect us all, and find a solution by coming to a consensus.

I can hear some people scoffing, which is sad. I'll agree, the system might not work great all the time, but it does not work at all unless we make a collective effort to get it to work. I'm not readily familiar with all the politics involved in this situation, but long story short there seem to be two camps, one backing Ms. Martin, and one backing those who are criticizing Ms. Martin. Is this so wrong an interpretation?

Both camps appear to be doing a disservice by backing the admins involved. How? The debate over whether Ms. Martin should remain an admin apparently came down to the suggestion she herself made:

Tell you what. I will resign my rights if you convince Geogre, Bishonen, and any two other admins to post requests on my talk page asking me to resign. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In effect, she seems to have suddenly proposed new policy that did not previously exist. It constricts the list of those involved in the process to herself, Giano, Geogre, Bishonen, and any two other random admins who wish to get involved. Who is missing? Uh...hi!

Did Ms. Martin do a disservice to the community as a whole by suggesting this process for decision-making? I believe so. However, in my mind those who went along with her suggestion, despite being opposed to her on other grounds, did an equal disservice.

Do we have a formal process for either stripping someone of admin or other access rights, or of at least making a very strong formal request that they relinquish them (making it more likely that someone higher up the food chain will do it)? If so, why was it not used? If not, why don't we have one? I can be punished at a whim by an admin with virtually no oversight (this has not happened to me, but in theory it could, they have the capacity to do so), and it may or may not get fixed if I'm wronged. If we don't have a similar process for dealing with...I don't know, let's use a fun term like "suspected rogue admins"...then what oversight does the community have after they have elected someone? None at all? Suspected Rogue Admin General for Life, ruling over the "People's Republic" of Wikistan? Do we have to elect other admins to deal with the admins we've aleady elected? Sort of a swallowing of animals of increasing size and ferocity due to our original ingestion of a fly?

The decision in this case appears to have been made by proxy. A very small group of admins made a decision with potentially far-reaching consequences, and each group of admins had a large bloc of other users on their side. What does this sound like? Representative democracy, in which the individuals of the community select others to have a say of their behalf. By failing to use processes which are inclusive of the entire community in the resolution of disputes, we run the risk of creating de facto political parties, and losing our sense of community. We become isolated camps of opinions backing admins who are friendly to our views, and select them on the basis of whether they will represent our views, rather than whether or not they will benefit the community as a whole.

By all means, any user has every right to not take part in a debate. There are probably too many debates on Wikipedia for any one person to be involved in all of them any way. But it would be another thing entirely if we reached a point at which a user found that the affect he or she could have on a process was the same whether or not they participated. That is a danger we must watch for, and which I believe has been demonstrated as being a plausible threat given the events detailed above.

Some might claim that this already is a problem, or that we don't really have any power as individual community members unless we hold a position such as admin. If that is the case, then we need to either abandon a great deal of the wonderful concept that is Wikipedia, or else we need to have frank and open discussions about the problem to try and bring our community in line with that ideal.

This concludes my thoughts on this matter for right now, excluding replies to any comments that may be made. I don't wish my statements to be taken as implying that I have an issue with any of the parties involved, or that I am supporting or condemning any of their actions. It is simply my opinion that acting in such a manner excludes the vast majority of community members from taking any real role in decision-making for the community, and that such exclusion is both damaging and dangerous.

Sdr 04:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the place... 66.231.130.102 05:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been submitted to review the actions surround the recent Giano case on AN. I've listed you as an involved party, and you may wish to view the case here. --InkSplotch 18:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|^(talk) 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)