User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2006 August

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please stop seeking drama

You appear to be making polemical and divisive pages for their own sake. It's difficult for me to understand your motivations here, as previously I'd been lead to believe you were against such pages. Anyway, I'm glad you admitted what you were up to- but does an admission of trolling make the trolling any better? Seeking drama for it's own sake is harmful to the project, please desist. Friday (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you go do something useful, eh? I have a presentation to prepare and dealing with snarky little remarks from people like you doesn't help. You want to be helpful? Go through every RfA since January, and tabulate out (a) the candidate (b) the nominator (c) each voter and how he or she voted (d) the final outcome (e) the closing bureaucrat. That would be extremely helpful. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my name on a list

Hello Kelly, I'm curious as to why my name was on a list in your user space. What was the purpose of this list? Themindset 01:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kelly, I'm curious as to why my name was on a list in your user space. What was the purpose of this list? Given Cydes comments there is no reason to stay silent. Many are saying that we should assume good faith. In this case the obvious answer to such a statement is why? The well of good faith is not bottomless, as you have just found out. David D. (Talk) 15:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why the above two comments are (at least initially) word-for-word identical. In any case, there's already an explanation given in this edit. Michael Slone (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Because i copied it, and repeated it for emphasis. David D. (Talk) 16:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This is why I keep my list on paper :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of useful thing that wikis are supposed to be good at, though. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Very true. Even as I entered my edit I realized the major drawback to keeping "Mixed Nuts" on paper: I can't share it! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I find this whole list thing to be distasteful, and I guess I'm on a hit-list now, even though I cast my vote due strictly to my own personal RfA standards... I now have the feeling that I should expect a small group of high-up admins to vote against me in the future. It's disquieting. Themindset 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You could always use the list to drum up support from like minded individuals ;) Or is that against the rules? Wait, WP:IAR applies here, so we are fine. Of course, the flaw in this stratgey is that we are NOT all like minded individuals, so that list would probably back fire on us. Shame. David D. (Talk) 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this explanation for the list from Kelly. This sounds like a valid reason, good luck with the research. David D. (Talk) 17:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So the list was created in the hopes of entrapping users into WP:ABF? This seems disruptive in and of itself. Themindset 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the original list. The follow up, entrapment lists, are another matter that i don't care to be involved in. Seems like a silly game to play if one is doing real research. Or was that part of the research? As someone mentions below, probably a few hundred user hours lost in the process. David D. (Talk) 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Block

Many people warned you against this disruption, yet you persist. I have blocked you for 48 hours. Please use this time to think about how those on the lists feel and how this harms the project. And please edit more constructively, as I know you can. Jonathunder 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)bb

It seems that your block was so quickly unblocked that I didn't even notice it. Maybe you should think about what the community thinks of your actions. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The community didn't seem to like your actions much either, if I'm recalling that January RfC accurately. Everyking 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, how nice that you could show up, Everyking. Please, have a crudité; I'm sure I have some dip around here somewhere. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The point was that it is absurd in the extreme for you to be saying someone else's actions don't have community support. Virtually everyone thinks these lists are very bad—does that mean anything to you? Do their opinions matter at all? Everyking 05:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The value to me of any given person's opinion obviously varies depending on the person. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What about me? I've never ever interacted with you before, and the only possible reason I appear in your lists is because I voted oppose on an RfA. Does that one vote make me untrustworthy? Themindset 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't get involved in this, but I thought Kelly explained pretty well in this diff that the list was part of a research project about consensus, nothing more. Catamorphism 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] thank you for explaining

I was pleased to see your comment on ANI about your consensus analysis work and how it relates to your user subpages. If you don't mind, I'd be very curious to see the final presentation if it will be made broadly available (I'm a bit of a consensus-nut, and just did a two-hour training on using consensus right for my congregation yesterday). Cheers! -- nae'blis (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to see it, because right now I am skeptical about its existence. This explanation seems to contradict what you said before, that it was a private reference you were compiling so you could remember your initially formed impressions about users: "People on that list are on that list because they were notable to me in some way. Some of them because they're trustworthy, or reliable, or have shown wisdom; others because they're not trustworthy, or not reliable, or have shown foolishness." Everyking 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my name on a list

Hello Kelly, I'm curious as to why my name was on a list in your user space. What was the purpose of this list? Themindset 01:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kelly, I'm curious as to why my name was on a list in your user space. What was the purpose of this list? Given Cydes comments there is no reason to stay silent. Many are saying that we should assume good faith. In this case the obvious answer to such a statement is why? The well of good faith is not bottomless, as you have just found out. David D. (Talk) 15:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why the above two comments are (at least initially) word-for-word identical. In any case, there's already an explanation given in this edit. Michael Slone (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Because i copied it, and repeated it for emphasis. David D. (Talk) 16:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This is why I keep my list on paper :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of useful thing that wikis are supposed to be good at, though. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Very true. Even as I entered my edit I realized the major drawback to keeping "Mixed Nuts" on paper: I can't share it! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I find this whole list thing to be distasteful, and I guess I'm on a hit-list now, even though I cast my vote due strictly to my own personal RfA standards... I now have the feeling that I should expect a small group of high-up admins to vote against me in the future. It's disquieting. Themindset 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You could always use the list to drum up support from like minded individuals ;) Or is that against the rules? Wait, WP:IAR applies here, so we are fine. Of course, the flaw in this stratgey is that we are NOT all like minded individuals, so that list would probably back fire on us. Shame. David D. (Talk) 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this explanation for the list from Kelly. This sounds like a valid reason, good luck with the research. David D. (Talk) 17:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So the list was created in the hopes of entrapping users into WP:ABF? This seems disruptive in and of itself. Themindset 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the original list. The follow up, entrapment lists, are another matter that i don't care to be involved in. Seems like a silly game to play if one is doing real research. Or was that part of the research? As someone mentions below, probably a few hundred user hours lost in the process. David D. (Talk) 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Block

Many people warned you against this disruption, yet you persist. I have blocked you for 48 hours. Please use this time to think about how those on the lists feel and how this harms the project. And please edit more constructively, as I know you can. Jonathunder 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)bb

It seems that your block was so quickly unblocked that I didn't even notice it. Maybe you should think about what the community thinks of your actions. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The community didn't seem to like your actions much either, if I'm recalling that January RfC accurately. Everyking 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, how nice that you could show up, Everyking. Please, have a crudité; I'm sure I have some dip around here somewhere. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The point was that it is absurd in the extreme for you to be saying someone else's actions don't have community support. Virtually everyone thinks these lists are very bad—does that mean anything to you? Do their opinions matter at all? Everyking 05:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The value to me of any given person's opinion obviously varies depending on the person. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What about me? I've never ever interacted with you before, and the only possible reason I appear in your lists is because I voted oppose on an RfA. Does that one vote make me untrustworthy? Themindset 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't get involved in this, but I thought Kelly explained pretty well in this diff that the list was part of a research project about consensus, nothing more. Catamorphism 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] thank you for explaining

I was pleased to see your comment on ANI about your consensus analysis work and how it relates to your user subpages. If you don't mind, I'd be very curious to see the final presentation if it will be made broadly available (I'm a bit of a consensus-nut, and just did a two-hour training on using consensus right for my congregation yesterday). Cheers! -- nae'blis (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to see it, because right now I am skeptical about its existence. This explanation seems to contradict what you said before, that it was a private reference you were compiling so you could remember your initially formed impressions about users: "People on that list are on that list because they were notable to me in some way. Some of them because they're trustworthy, or reliable, or have shown wisdom; others because they're not trustworthy, or not reliable, or have shown foolishness." Everyking 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] That list

Dear sir,

I don't understand why I am on your list. I am a mentally disabled person with PTSD, and I have real issues with paranoia. I tend to want to get back at people who offend me. I've been working with a therapist, but I still fantasize about hurting and killing those who threaten me. Maybe if you explain, I can rest my hurting mind. Sir Erik the Rude 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Cyde↔Weys 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that will help the paranoia... --24.20.50.7 05:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Request

Hey Kelly, I'm more than happy to provide those figures. What kind of format do you need? If you haven't already, you might also like to take a look at NoSeptember's Admin Project, which has all sorts of interesting data about RfAs. Cheers, Tangotango 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll whip up a MySQL table, then. When do you need the information by? - Tangotango 13:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirror site?

Hi Kelly, I know you're busy, but I also know you have a lot of experience with wiki-stuff. If you have a chance could you look here [[1]], follow the 2 links I posted in the section "Mirror site", and then tell us what the heck it is? Thanks in advance! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I found a bad thing without even realizing it and Steps Have Been Taken. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your list

Hi Kelly, I am one of the people you talk about who do the work around here. I'm an admin. I watch the admins notice board to see what is happening. I just want you to know that I wasted a good deal of time yesterday trying to understand what was going on with the controversy around your list. I wonder how many other people like me were just watching and wondering, just trying to understand what was going on. That multiplies out to hundreds of hours of wasted time. I hope you will consider that the next time you plan an experiment. -- Samuel Wantman 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

While I wouldn't presume to answer for Kelly, it seems that an important distinction is being overlooked: She created the page, not the controversy. I find it difficult, almost impossible, to believe that any active participant in WP doesn't keep a list, even if it's only in their head. I certainly do. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As do I. And frankly if I were Kelly I would take exception to being accused of creating the controversy. Kelly has done NOTHING against a policy or guideline. However the same can't be said for many of her attackers. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Kelly herself said that she created the list to see "who would react badly to it". So therefore she knew that the list would be provocative. Had I been on the list I would definitely been wondering why, and it is hard to imagine someone who would not be wondering. So by the nature of creating the list it had to draw many people's attention. Even if everyone had reacted totally calmly and only assumed good faith it would have drawn quite a bit of attention from many people. There may not yet be a guideline against doing what Kelly did. Perhaps WP:NOT should have a section that says "Wikipedia is not a place to perform social experiments on users without their consent" for the simplest reason that it is bound to waste people's time and incite bad behavior, and as a result bad feelings. -- Samuel Wantman 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It actually wasn't even linked to from her userpage so really the only reason anyone found it was by chance so it obviously wasn't created to even cause those questions to be asked. It was completely obscure until we all started digging in her namespace. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
We've seen who reacted badly - I think it's time to defuse this. I added a section to clear up the purpose of the page. Please leave it there. And if you could elaborate more on what you are doing with the page, that would be helpful. Λυδαcιτγ 19:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting Admin

Here's a little sweetness and light to distract yourself from other things: I believe that this was a bad faith posting on another editor's talkpage [[2]]. It was recently reposted on other pages here and here [[3]]. Under the circumstances (which are long and hotly disputed), I believe that the editor involved will continue this viscious little smear campaign which clearly violates WP:Policies. Since RFI can be...sluggish in some cases I'm asking if you'd be willing to look into this and take appropriate action before more damage is done. Thanks in advance, I hope you can help. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Another Admin has already blocked. Thanks anyway :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Don't be bogged down

I've read about the threats against you, but please have the strength to endure them. Don't let them run you off the project - I'm sure that politicians and other public figures have endured many more of them every day and maintained their positions. We've already seen a number of valued contributors get driven off by threats (Gator1, Katefan0, Francs2000, etc.), so please don't join those ranks. Editor88 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, that's not a risk. If I leave the project, it'll be over the absurd internal politics, not because of lame threats from persons of questionable mental stability. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "remove false information"

[4] I see that your comment was about User:Kelly Martin/T. My mistake. Could you please give an explanation for User:Kelly Martin/R, then? Λυδαcιτγ 02:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the explanation. It would have saved time if you had put it there before the MFD, after El C did in fact "jerk his knee and attempt to punish [you] for creating it". Λυδαcιτγ 03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] re:my apparent confusion

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. Alot of time has passed and I don't remember who were the "kill them with fire" guys and who were more moderate.  Grue  12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik the Rude

Hi, I'm writing you because I was about to file a checkuser request involving Erik the Rude and Brian G. Crawford when I saw that you mentioned it already on Erik the Rude's Talk page. Has there already been such a checkuser? I have good reason to believe that Interestingstuffadder may also be the same person, and I would like to expand the checkuser request to include this user. Clearly with Interestingstuffadder making an early, damaging oppose comment in Catamorphism's RFA, this is significant. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not see any evidence for this in my examination of Erik's and Brian's editing activities. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
So are you telling me that the checkuser should be at the end of my research, rather than the beginning? --Aguerriero (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Checkuser is not for fishing Kelly Martin (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Just saw my name mentioned here. I can assure you that I am not Erik the Rude. I was drawn early to Caatemorphism's RFA because I have their talk page on my watch list (thanks to some content disagreements months ago) and saw that they had been nominated. I would appreciate my privacy not being violated, as there is no evidence based on our edit patterns that I have any relationship to these users. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Account-cest" RFCU

I had a feeling about that, however, Chrisbrownwifey06 identified as a girl, while the other accounts were guys. And I do not know if they are actually separate people who are all just on the same connection/computer. Still, I don't think the English Wikipedia would be losing anything if they were all indefblocked (that and the semi-racist remark made by one of them, and the personal attacks by the unrelated user on other users would be greater reasons to have them go to MySpace or livejournal where they can be a part of a community). --Ryūlóng 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Latest fair use weirdness

Hi. I noticed that you left this comment. Relevant discussion is at WP:AN/3RR (Ed g2s section) WP:AN/I (Ed g2s section), Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists (a somewhat derailed centralised discussion), and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific. I suggest that there is plenty of room for some blunt sanity to be applied. Jkelly 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have mentioned you in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton. I am unclear on whether or not you qualify as someone who can make the second endorsement. Jkelly 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility does not mean "something I don't like"

If a question makes you uncomfortable, that doesn't make it uncivil. I believe you only reflect poorly on yourself by removing polite, but difficult questions as you did here. Calling it uncivil doesn't make it so. Friday (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I almost removed the question myself as incivil. This question, polite as it may be, has been asked again and again, and Kelly's response is for all to see in ANI archives. The whole situation regarding these lists only went on as long as it did because people ignored her responses, and kept badgering her with the same questions again and again. So, yes, I find it incivil to start the same thing over now, and putting the original poster's intentions aside, I think that's all posting such a question is going to accomplish. --InkSplotch 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The question was asked in a different context. Computerjoe's talk 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not a fan of the manner in which it was asked, questions about this do seem to be relevent and will probably come up again. The simplest (and most transparent) way to deal with it would be for Kelly to make a summary of all the "black-list" pages created with links to diffs where the reason for their existance was explained. This would be easier than having repetative discussions or deleting repeated questions, wouldn't it? - brenneman {L} 09:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: ConfirmationImageOTRS

Hello Kelly,

I was wondering if you could shed some light; I was looking through an editor's image contributions. This editor left Wikipedia under somewhat of a cloud and uploaded a large number of images from stock image or other online providers, and for many of them claimed to have obtained permission from the authors for cc-by-sa-2.5 licensing. I had doubts about this claim, and at any rate it doesn't follow the procedure at WP:COPYREQ, but then I saw this image, where apparently you tagged it as having confirmed permission from the author via OTRS. Also at Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission#Permission from Iranpix.com, Michael and Hushie Inc. etc., the editor claimed full permission for many of the others. Can you verify what permission was verified via permissions@wikimedia? I'm a bit surprised that all of these images were granted cc-by-sa, especially the Reuters image of Hamid Karzai, and the numerous photos from a commercial stock photo provider. Thanks, KWH 05:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I probably assumed good faith inappropriately on that image. You have my permission to delete it. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I saw and agreed with your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rmrfstar (second nomination). I almost felt like messaging most of the oppose voters to ask if they wanted to reconsider. I didn't do it, except in one case where I felt I knew the editor concerned well enough. I suppose in a way that the candidate is at fault for putting such brief answers up in the first place, but come on. The process needs to be stringent at weeding out those who would be bad admins, but at the moment it seems like a kind of Spanish Inquisition, and must put a lot of people off applying, when we need more admins if anything. It certainly intimidates me. Oh well. --Guinnog 15:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you look at

.. Big 12 Conference. I'm not sure what step to take next. ed g2s • talk 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We talked about this extensively at Wikimania. The logo galleries are not acceptable. You are hereby informed that you may block any editor who reverts an edit removing a gallery of team logos from a sports league, provided that the edit removing the gallery indicates in its edit summary that the use of logo galleries in sports league is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. I will personally back you up in any dispute that arises as a result of this, as will any number of other admins. This has gone on too long. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In all due respect, I think that this is a misguided desicion. To end the debate now is robbing Wikipedia's chance to improve through concensus. I firmly believe that Wikipedia is NOT an oligarchy. If several users have an idea about a change in policy, then they MUST be heard out, and I'm not talking about sports logos here anymore. I'm talking about Wikipedia and where I fear it is going. I do not believe that Wikipedia is run by one, or a few administrators. Wikipedia is a group project where EVERYBODY works together, especially if a problem arises. You can cite all the guidelines you want, but the bottom line is that if editors aren't given the chance to present there case for changes, and Wikipedia remains static with its guidelines, than Wikipedia's sense of community will be greatly damaged, which in my mind is more importnat than all the wikiguidelines put together. Dknights411 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyright laws are non-negotiable. No group of Wikipedians, no matter how large, can come together and override copyright law, because we will then simply be sued into oblivion. Copyright policy on Wikipedia is hewn out with the assistance of Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers, and to the everyday Wikipedian editors, it is set in stone. --Cyde Weys 14:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
We let the debate run for some time, and I've been monitoring it. We reviewed the debate during several different meetings and came to a conclusion that the proposed use offends our core principles too much to be allowed. Our core principles are not up for negotiation; adherence to them is a requirement for participation in Wikipedia, and if you are not willing to follow them, you should find another hobby. This is not so much an issue of copyright policy (since the risk we will be sued by one of the holders of one of these logos is rather low) but rather one of our core principle of "creating a freely redistributable encyclopedia". Unnecessary fair use of unlicensed media is in direct opposition to this principle. The logo galleries are not necessary; therefore they are unacceptable. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Who's trying to negotiate copyright laws? This is a strawman argument. I'm trying to argue for a looser interpretation of what's allowable under fair use, not trying to overturn the fair use policy. Powers 18:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What else what discussed at this meeting? Are there minutes somewhere? ed g2s • talk 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There may actually be a video floating about, if this was one of the conference talks, anyway. I wasn't in attendance, I was probably at something else ... Cyde Weys 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I take it applies to cases such as this? ed g2s • talk 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. That usage is qualitatively different from the league logo gallery issue and needs to be discussed separately. I'm not yet convinced that those usages do not add encyclopedic value, especially given the relatively small size they're rendered in. I'd like to have more discussion amongst reasonable people before declaring a concluded policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The only difference I can see is that the Montreal article has some text in the gallery. As for your contention about size, that is rather bizaare- the Big 12 thumbnails aren't even twice as big as the Montreal thumbnails. --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Kelly Martin, please explain what basis you have for believing you have greater authority to decide this question than anyone else involved in the discussion. Last I checked, you are not an arbitrator and you don't have a seat on the Foundation Board or any other special qualifications to determine this issue. Also, scanning the conference schedule for Wikimania, I see no talks on logos, fair use, or anything else that appears relevant to this discussion. Did you have some hallway or late-night-bar chat session about this, and if so, what would make that more relevant than any similar discussion held by any other gathering of Wikipedians? Johntex\talk 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no basis for beliving I have greater authority to decide the question. I've simply decided to make the decision, because someone had to. You are free to ignore the policy I've decided on; however, doing so may be problematic for you. As to the schedule for Wikimania, there were several sessions on copyright and I believe the issue came up in at least two that I attended. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. However, this only leaves me more confused. If you have no special basis to make the decision, then why wouldn't the decision be made by the people involved in discussing the issue? Why do you use the phrase "policy I've decided on" if you have no special basis to step in and unilaterally decide policy?
What do you mean by "You are free to ignore the policy I've decided on; however, doing so may be problematic for you."? Problematic in what way?
Also, the Wikimania schedule does not include any session with the word "copyright" or "logo" or "fair use" or "policy" in the title. Can you please point me to the correct place? Thanks, Johntex\talk 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Anybody on Wikipedia can attempt to set policy. I just happen to be good at actually doing so, especially in the copyright arena, and so I have decided to do so in this case. If you choose to ignore the policy that I have decided is best for Wikipedia, you may find yourself blocked, a state which many Wikipedians find problematic. Finally, the list of sessions you refer to is merely the list of sessions for which audio or video content is available. Soufron's copyright session was not recorded, and I believe Brad also talked about copyright in his legal issues discussion, which was also not recorded. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
So are you saying that any one person can set a policy and then threaten users with blocks if they don't believe that the policy was legitimately made? Johntex\talk 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as long as it's the right one person and the right policy. Otherwise it'll be a disaster. Oh, and the blocks aren't for not believing that the policy was legitimately made, but instead for not following the policy. I won't block you for not believing in the policy, but I will block you for not following it. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. This opens the door for some 1984ish scenarios to reign over Wikipedia. This is too dangerous of an approach for Wikipedia to use. Dknights411 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You do not have the power to decide such issues and simply the need for a decision to be made does not grant you power to decide. If someone had claimed your power to decide because there was a need for someone to do so had decided on the opposite view, would that make it any more correct? How would you feel about such a claim? There is a process of dispute resolution at Wikipedia (which has been initiated on this matter) that must (it is policy) be followed. Your decision to avoid the dispute resolution process is in poor acting for the best interests of Wikipedia. Please see WP:DR for the process. To be specific, the informal method to resolve this case was referal to the mediation cabal here. We must attempt an informal method such as this before being allowed to goto the formal method of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation which also must be attempted before Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I ask you to retract your statements that you will block users violating the policy you have generated, and engage in the dispute resolution process for the benefit for everyone involved, especially Wikipedia. I would also ask you to provide evidence of your claim that you are both good at setting policy, especially in the copyright arena. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You can dance around the happy tree for as long as you like. Just don't create galleries of unlicensed media anywhere on Wikipedia and you won't have anything to worry about. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have decided to file a Request for Comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin2. Johntex\talk 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fine; I don't mind discussion. Just don't attempt to create any galleries of unlicensed media on Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Great, I look forward to the discussion. Thanks, Johntex\talk 22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies Kelly, for getting your gender wrong. I checked your userpage to see if I could see any reference there, or a photo, but I didn't find either. I tried to refer to you everywhere by "Kelly" just to be safe - but I geuss a pronoun or two must have slipped in. I'm sorry about that. Johntex\talk 01:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy violated at Big 12 Conference again. Fun. ed g2s • talk 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not a policy so it can't be violated. Johntex\talk 04:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rmrfstar's RFA

I note with intetrest that you placed a noted under several of the oppose votes at Rmrfstar's RFA urging the closing Bureaucrat to disregard the vote becuase the rationale provided was that the user is unlikely to use the admin tools. I'm curious, is there in fact a Wikipedia policy that people voting on RFA should ask themselves "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools?", or is this just your opinion about the question voters should ask themselves? (I ask this not as a criticism, but purely out of interest. I personally voted support in this RFA.) Zaxem 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion. I am not aware of any specific policy (although there may very well be one, as there is a lot of really silly policy these days) on that point; it's simply that it's freaking obvious that that's the question we should be considering. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see three votes at a quick count which rely solely on this argument, and I agree with you that it isn't a very strong one (I won't comment on whether it should be disallowable). However, many of the votes you said should be discounted cited other reasons, the first one in particular starts with "Weak answers to the questions, low wikipedia namespace edits, less than 3,000 total" - all of which are perfectly valid reasons to oppose, yet you "encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote" anyway. Some of the ones you similarly annotated said "oppose per above", which as far as I can see means "all of the above" rather than the single preceding vote. I think you could have gone a little easier on the Ctrl-V in this case. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The last sentence I wrote three different ways before hitting 'save' and I guess all could be seen as condescending :-/ Not meant that way, of course. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in your further comments on this matter at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rmrfstar (second nomination). --Guinnog 12:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do that. You have a valid point (that I partly agree with-the part about the trust, not the bit about ignoring that many people's opinion), but pasting it below that many oppose votes is not only not helpful or necessary, but it's near WP:POINT. Make your point and move on. We are able to read your reasoning, we don't need to see it 12 times. - Taxman Talk 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

Hi Kelly,

Would you consider unblocking User:Cardsplayer4life? I don't have an opinion on the image use issue you disagree about but it seems to me that blocking him may have been unnecessary. Haukur 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems you're not online. I'll raise the issue at WP:ANI instead. Haukur 09:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I will not unblock him. He is deliberately creating pages that are well-established to be outside the scope of our copyright policy after being so informed. His block is earned and will remain. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
He disagrees with you about interpretation of our copyright policy but he has remained polite and from what I can see he's a good editor. Would you mind if I unblock him? I'd advise him to refrain from making edits of the type you dislike until a consensus has been reached on the intepretation of policy. Haukur 11:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would mind very much if you unblock him. I will reconsider if he posts on his talk page a statement acknowledging that he acted well outside of policy and promising not to do so again. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've thrown in the towel. Haukur 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
While I applaud your concern for copyright law and fully support your upholding of the fair use policy, wouldn't a promise not to do it again suffice? Asking him to acknowledge that he acted well outside of policy sounds punitive rather than preventative. AnnH ♫ 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
A promise not to do it again would be sufficient. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be civil

It's alright to disagree, but characterizing the statements of those who see things differently as "blathering" is needlessly rude. Friday (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, you left out the context. Samuel Blanning said:

It would not surprise me in the least if the group of Wikipedians that looks upon Jimbo as not just as Chairman of the Board of Trustees but as "God-King", and cannot distinguish between what Jimbo believes and what Jimbo makes into Wikipedia policy, was disproportionately present at Wikiwhatsit. Of course such a group would be more likely to come to what they saw as a conclusion. That doesn't mean that if you go back to the wiki and tell pretty much everyone from Europe, Africa and Asia "Hey y'all, we done just figured it out! Prepare for shock and awe blocking if you don't do this!", they're going to react with "All praise be to The God-King and His Heavenly Choir!"

His blathering was a lot more incivil than the act of calling him out on his blathering. --Cyde Weys 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, I believe that civility and good faith have been thrown out the window in this whole mess. While Sam's comments might have been incivil, the actions Kelly and Ed took over the past few days can be described as incivil as well, even IF they were just following policy. The fact of the matter is, there's too much bad blood on both sides of the aisle in this case, that finding a resolution might result in a total split in the Wiki community. Dknights411 22:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing would please me more than if the people who feel that our copyright policies do not apply to them would fork off of this project. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, that isn't the issue here. There is more to this than copyrights and fair use. Second of all, you just helped in proving my point about bad blood among Wikipedians. This isn't good for admins AND regular editors. Dknights411 14:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, Sam's comment is not blathering at all, it is much more inciteful than most of the comments we've heard on this issue. Wikimania draws a certain type of editor that is not representative of the general population of Wikipedia editors and readers. That may be both good and bad, but it is a fair point to make. Nothing would please me more than if the people who insist on incivility would fork off the project. Johntex\talk 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Groundless accusations of incivility and "blathering" appear to be the closest thing we'll get to an indication that Kelly, Tony and Cyde actually read anything that doesn't agree with them. Most of their replies form a bizarre attempt to pretend that the RfC is about copyright policy, rather than about the impression a user created through an unnecessarily rushed attempt to make instant policy (just add water) without considering the possibility of a backlash. I take comfort in knowing that Kelly and Cyde actually read enough of one of my posts to declare that it was incivil blathering. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My RfA

Hello again! I just wanted to say thanks for all of the support on my RfA. If it had passed, it would have been largely because of you, and I greatly appreciate the effort on your part. -- Rmrfstar 02:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WikiEN-l

I've recently tried to post to the mailing list, but all I get is "your message will be moderated", but checking the archive, none have gone through (a few days later).

  1. Am I doing something wrong?
  2. Can I get moved off the "new users requiring moderation list"?

Thanks, ed g2s • talk 15:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would need to know your email address. Drop me a note via wikimail and I'll look into it. We get a GREAT deal of spam on wikien and it's easy to miss a real message. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jtkiefer arbitration

Please be advised that Tony Sidaway has filed an arbitration request regarding Jtkiefer here. Given your level of involvement in this affair, I believe you could probably provide significant input (as well as evidence, if the case is accepted). Editor88 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rudeness

If I have offended you, I suggest you take that feeling and remember it in the future, you imposed that feeling callously upon other people's work, apparently to salve your own sense of self worth. Karma is a universal constant, Wikipedia or otherwise, and it always comes back to get you if you act poorly. Attic Owl 15:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Giovanni33 proposal

Hello, Kelly. Since you indicated here that you did not think Professor33 was a sockpuppet for Giovanni33 (based on the IP evidence available at the time, without having seen the linguistic evidence, and possibly without any knowledge of Giovanni's long history of sockpuppetry), I thought I would direct you to new discussion, in case you have missed it. Jayjg has confirmed through checkuser that Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks are all sockpuppets of Giovanni33.[5] [6] Giovanni has now come as close as I think he can come (without losing face) to admitting sockpuppetry. He has agreed here that it doesn't pay, and has asked to be unblocked on condition that all suspected socks can be assumed to be his, and that he will not revert or make supporting arguments where they are, and that if he votes with them, his votes can be struck through. I think the idea is that if they are his puppets (which he doesn't want to admit, and I see no reason to force a confession), he will ensure that they don't show up to revert for him, and if some future editors turn up and support him and start reverting to his version, and are suspected of being his puppets, he is prepared to leave the pages where they are. I've made a proposal here, at the Incidents Noticeboard. If you really have nothing to do with your time, you can read Part One and Part two immediately above! Also, this section of Danny's talk page gives a summary of this history and contains links to all or nearly all the places where it has been discussed. The blocking admin has indicated that he will consider unblocking early, and I'd be happy with that, but I think we need to work out the conditions that Giovanni agrees to first. Don't feel you have to get involved, but if you have time, a comment at the noticeboard would be welcome. I'm hoping to have this sorted out as soon as possible, because I need to go on wiki-break to finish some writing. I presume you did receive my long report and the fairly recent update with new evidence? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 19:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility does not mean "something I don't like"

If a question makes you uncomfortable, that doesn't make it uncivil. I believe you only reflect poorly on yourself by removing polite, but difficult questions as you did here. Calling it uncivil doesn't make it so. Friday (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I almost removed the question myself as incivil. This question, polite as it may be, has been asked again and again, and Kelly's response is for all to see in ANI archives. The whole situation regarding these lists only went on as long as it did because people ignored her responses, and kept badgering her with the same questions again and again. So, yes, I find it incivil to start the same thing over now, and putting the original poster's intentions aside, I think that's all posting such a question is going to accomplish. --InkSplotch 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The question was asked in a different context. Computerjoe's talk 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not a fan of the manner in which it was asked, questions about this do seem to be relevent and will probably come up again. The simplest (and most transparent) way to deal with it would be for Kelly to make a summary of all the "black-list" pages created with links to diffs where the reason for their existance was explained. This would be easier than having repetative discussions or deleting repeated questions, wouldn't it? - brenneman {L} 09:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted a bot archive of this section. Perhaps it would be good to turn it off while a candidate for the board, so that information that might be useful to people in making their decision doesn't get lost by mistake?
brenneman {L} 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think not. Questions regarding my candidacy for the Board may be raised and discussed on my meta talk page, which is not automatically archived. If you have a concern, make it there. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please reconsider my RfA

I lost my temper with Ultramarine a year ago. If I knew then what I know now, I would have resorted to Mediation much sooner, and kept at it until somebody responded. As it was, you were the first to do so; and you did so when we newbies had already driven to Arbitration. Ultramarine is perhaps the most provoking editor I've ever met; even Massimamanno, who is very placid, has been driven by his mis-citations on DPT to remark "you can't read".

Is this to be a permanent disqualification? Septentrionalis 04:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "stir up the hornet's nest"

Would you be willing to weigh in on a policy proposal at WP:RECALL? Given your desire to shake things up for the long term better, I think you'd agree with something that would give admins the ability--with an extremely simple ancillary system to RfA--to police their own and remove people who are not serving the best interests of Wikipedia. rootology (T) 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a recall policy. It's called Requests for Arbitration. All of the proposals for community review of admins will favor the stubborn over the sensible, and will place good admins under constant fire. Implementation of any of them will harm Wikipedia far more in the long term than any one "rouge admin" could ever do. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the consideration. I thought I had covered all the bases on my proposal to protect admins from the "crap recalls" and abuse (support from 31+ users/3+ admins, tenure to file, 9 month exemption etc.). Thanks though! rootology (T) 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Any system that allows open community voting to determine adminship will be abused. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
But that's what RfA functionally is...? rootology (T) 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, grasshopper. There is hope for you yet. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
But Sensei, thus is my confusion. My goal for the policy proposal was to simply provide the missing half of RfA that should be there: a means for the community to directly address concerns and change it's previous decisions (albeit much, much, much harder to undo). rootology (T) 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Outside voice here, but I think the idea is that if the initial RFA process introduces errors (bad admins), than repeating that process to remove people is more likely to produce more errors, not fix them. --InkSplotch 21:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
A good point, but what if the person's behavior takes a downward turn from what they were previously? Someone could be RfA'd in in 2003/2004, and be fine through 2006 or 2007. Then their peers come to the realization that he needs to be reviewed... rootology (T) 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In drafting a response, I'm having little conversations in my head, so forgive me if I'm jumping ahead. My point is that RfA can be wrong, and that your proposal can, essentially, also be wrong in the same way (the whole "voting is evil" concept). OK, so, it's being proposed to fill a need, which I can only conclude is "we don't trust arbcom." Where that trust has gone astray can vary. Some may feel arbcom just takes too long, is understaffed, whatever. Some may feel they give too much consideration to entrenched admins. Others go all the way to cabals and secret societies.
So now we weigh one against the other (because introducing two overlapping processes which we know to introduce errors just makes everything worse). Which process do we trust more? The arbitration comittee, or random community votes? Even though I've heard rumblings that "ArbCom favors admins" before, I've never seen a truly outspoken reaction to any of their decisions from the community. I think, at this time, ArbCom is drastically much less likely to introduce errors (keep the bad admin, desysop the good admin) than any proposed community voting system is likely to. Part of that, for me, is the current system in which arbcom has been voted into place by a consensus of voters and Jimbo (on behalf of the foundation), on a positive vote (we believe in you, vs. we don't believe in you). Plus, this system has the "vote" one or two steps removed from the immediate desysoping issue...we voted in arbcom then Jimbo appointed them then the case was raised. It might be much slower than a community vote, but I think it's drastically more reliable. --InkSplotch 22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Trolling - help me out

Hi, I see you've come up with some concerns about my edits being trolling in this comment. Would you care to specify which recent edits of mine are trolling so I can better work towards being a productive editor? I'm currently actively involved in a discussion of a proposed policy I'm eager to see come into existence, and trolling on my part will only hinder that policy, so I'm particularly eager to cease trolling. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kelly_Martin

Hi, Kelly! I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kelly_Martin. Haukur 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility does not mean "something I don't like"

If a question makes you uncomfortable, that doesn't make it uncivil. I believe you only reflect poorly on yourself by removing polite, but difficult questions as you did here. Calling it uncivil doesn't make it so. Friday (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I almost removed the question myself as incivil. This question, polite as it may be, has been asked again and again, and Kelly's response is for all to see in ANI archives. The whole situation regarding these lists only went on as long as it did because people ignored her responses, and kept badgering her with the same questions again and again. So, yes, I find it incivil to start the same thing over now, and putting the original poster's intentions aside, I think that's all posting such a question is going to accomplish. --InkSplotch 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The question was asked in a different context. Computerjoe's talk 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not a fan of the manner in which it was asked, questions about this do seem to be relevent and will probably come up again. The simplest (and most transparent) way to deal with it would be for Kelly to make a summary of all the "black-list" pages created with links to diffs where the reason for their existance was explained. This would be easier than having repetative discussions or deleting repeated questions, wouldn't it? - brenneman {L} 09:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted a bot archive of this section. Perhaps it would be good to turn it off while a candidate for the board, so that information that might be useful to people in making their decision doesn't get lost by mistake?
brenneman {L} 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think not. Questions regarding my candidacy for the Board may be raised and discussed on my meta talk page, which is not automatically archived. If you have a concern, make it there. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please reconsider my RfA

I lost my temper with Ultramarine a year ago. If I knew then what I know now, I would have resorted to Mediation much sooner, and kept at it until somebody responded. As it was, you were the first to do so; and you did so when we newbies had already driven to Arbitration. Ultramarine is perhaps the most provoking editor I've ever met; even Massimamanno, who is very placid, has been driven by his mis-citations on DPT to remark "you can't read".

Is this to be a permanent disqualification? Septentrionalis 04:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "stir up the hornet's nest"

Would you be willing to weigh in on a policy proposal at WP:RECALL? Given your desire to shake things up for the long term better, I think you'd agree with something that would give admins the ability--with an extremely simple ancillary system to RfA--to police their own and remove people who are not serving the best interests of Wikipedia. rootology (T) 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a recall policy. It's called Requests for Arbitration. All of the proposals for community review of admins will favor the stubborn over the sensible, and will place good admins under constant fire. Implementation of any of them will harm Wikipedia far more in the long term than any one "rouge admin" could ever do. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the consideration. I thought I had covered all the bases on my proposal to protect admins from the "crap recalls" and abuse (support from 31+ users/3+ admins, tenure to file, 9 month exemption etc.). Thanks though! rootology (T) 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Any system that allows open community voting to determine adminship will be abused. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
But that's what RfA functionally is...? rootology (T) 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, grasshopper. There is hope for you yet. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
But Sensei, thus is my confusion. My goal for the policy proposal was to simply provide the missing half of RfA that should be there: a means for the community to directly address concerns and change it's previous decisions (albeit much, much, much harder to undo). rootology (T) 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Outside voice here, but I think the idea is that if the initial RFA process introduces errors (bad admins), than repeating that process to remove people is more likely to produce more errors, not fix them. --InkSplotch 21:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
A good point, but what if the person's behavior takes a downward turn from what they were previously? Someone could be RfA'd in in 2003/2004, and be fine through 2006 or 2007. Then their peers come to the realization that he needs to be reviewed... rootology (T) 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In drafting a response, I'm having little conversations in my head, so forgive me if I'm jumping ahead. My point is that RfA can be wrong, and that your proposal can, essentially, also be wrong in the same way (the whole "voting is evil" concept). OK, so, it's being proposed to fill a need, which I can only conclude is "we don't trust arbcom." Where that trust has gone astray can vary. Some may feel arbcom just takes too long, is understaffed, whatever. Some may feel they give too much consideration to entrenched admins. Others go all the way to cabals and secret societies.
So now we weigh one against the other (because introducing two overlapping processes which we know to introduce errors just makes everything worse). Which process do we trust more? The arbitration comittee, or random community votes? Even though I've heard rumblings that "ArbCom favors admins" before, I've never seen a truly outspoken reaction to any of their decisions from the community. I think, at this time, ArbCom is drastically much less likely to introduce errors (keep the bad admin, desysop the good admin) than any proposed community voting system is likely to. Part of that, for me, is the current system in which arbcom has been voted into place by a consensus of voters and Jimbo (on behalf of the foundation), on a positive vote (we believe in you, vs. we don't believe in you). Plus, this system has the "vote" one or two steps removed from the immediate desysoping issue...we voted in arbcom then Jimbo appointed them then the case was raised. It might be much slower than a community vote, but I think it's drastically more reliable. --InkSplotch 22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Trolling - help me out

Hi, I see you've come up with some concerns about my edits being trolling in this comment. Would you care to specify which recent edits of mine are trolling so I can better work towards being a productive editor? I'm currently actively involved in a discussion of a proposed policy I'm eager to see come into existence, and trolling on my part will only hinder that policy, so I'm particularly eager to cease trolling. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kelly_Martin

Hi, Kelly! I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kelly_Martin. Haukur 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A question for you

Hi, your RfC is going nowhere, as you can see. It's getting to loopy and broad. I've introduced a specific question that might break some ground in using the RfC as an actual discussion, rather than just a shouting match, which is unfortunately what everyone seems to have made it into (I don't mean you, since you haven't commented in a while). The question is here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin2#Question_for_Kelly, and I'm hoping the others will give you time to answer before ransacking it. Looking forward to hearing from you, Karwynn (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, my request that you help me out with "trolling" still stands if you're interested.

Thanks very much for your answer, but I've thought of another one and would really like to hear your opinion: [7] THanks, Karwynn (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki talk:Blockiptext

Kelly Martin, I've added to this discussion with a solution that will hopefully please everyone, and be useful. When you have get a chance, please comment on that talk page. — xaosflux Talk 02:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MathStatWoman

I would like to seek your opinion. You have dealt with this user before, and you made a comment that you were tempted to try to block or ban her. She has continued to make personal attacks, create unencyclopedic pages, and generally create havoc in Wikipedia (including bad editing, poor markup, a lack of regard for policy, and inappropriate editing). Do you think it is time to consider banning this user? Chris53516 14:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, Chris may be referring to your sockpuppetry confirmation back in January (User_talk:MathStatWoman#Sockpuppetry). This user has recently become active again, with all the troubles Chris mentioned (including this recent article edit), to the point where even my Wiki-politics inertia may get overcome to consider an RfC or some sort of community involvement. I just wanted to check to make sure it would still be appropriate to refer to your January determination in discussions of this user. Thanks - David Oberst 19:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing to either add or remove from my prior statement. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)