Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:33, 26 January 2006

User:Kelly Martin/Vacation

Note: If you are here to make a request for the use of CheckUser rights, please make it over on WP:RFCU instead. Thank you for your cooperation.

• /Archive1 (December 2004 through April 2005)
• /Archive2 (May 2005)
• /Archive3 (June 2005)
• /Archive4 (July 2005)
• /Archive5 (August 2005)
• /Archive6 (September 2005)
• /Archive7 (October 2005)
• /Archive8 (November 2005)
• /Archive9 (December 2005)

Note: I may remove comments that are inserted without a section header. Please be nice and create a new section if you want to leave me a comment. If you add to an existing section, I may miss your comment. This is a very busy page.

ArbCom Candidacy

I would just like to let you know that I support your upcoming candidacy for the ArbCom.Mikeroberts 15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Thrax Sock

I have blocked User:JacobGrimm indefinitely as an obvious sock of User:Thrax. Yawn. Bishonen | talk 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of userboxes

I've moved this entire discussion elsewhere. Please make any comments you wish to make on the RfC instead of here, and spare my talk page the workout. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fancy meeting you here!

Almost all I do here is avoid double redirects and make sure sentences have full stops, so I'm not surprised you didn't know I was here. Thanks for adding the first non-template message to my talk page. Michael Slone 01:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

==

CheckUser request

Could you make a sock check on User:Hollow Wilerding, User:Winnermario (see Mel Etitis' suspicions) and User:DrippingInk (see Bunchofgrapes' comments)? I don't have a strong opinion about the puppetry, but please note that if DrippingInk and Winnermario are her socks, they're abusive all right. They always vote to support Hollow Wilerding's FACs, and jump in to scold those who oppose. The affair is highlighted at Hollow Wilerding's prematurely delisted but very interesting RFA. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

Positive match: these three users are, without any question, the same editor (or, possibly, two or more people sharing the same connection, but I doubt that). Feel free to block based on attempt to use sockpuppets to stack opinion on FAC. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So you doubt we're the same people using different accounts? Please read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, because you did not exercise good faith, but merely the negative. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Recently an anonymous editor who appears to be familiar with Misplaced Pages has been making edits to The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask resembling those of Hollow under the IP addresses of 64.231.163.117 and 64.231.160.28. This user also took the unusual step of defending these edits on the talk page without prompting. These are similar to an IP used by Hollow on 13 Jan, 64.231.176.254. I'm afraid I'll spark an edit war if I revert again - can you find out this is Hollow evading a block? Thanks, Pagrashtak 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I apologize, I've (fortunately for me) never had to deal with this yet and wasn't aware of WP:RFCU. --Pagrashtak 02:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Disobeying orders...

... I know I am, but I hope you don't mind this one. Whilst I am not certain I'd have done the same thing, I am impressed by your boldness and courage in defending Misplaced Pages from division and copyright problems in userboxes (which I loathe, apart from the useful language templates). So have this Defender of the Wiki barnstar! Cheers, and happy new year, ] 16:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:82.42.237.114

I am the system administrator of this network. Please email me via this site, I believe the block is unwarranted. --Craig Whitford 17:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Top warning

Please remove or modify the top warning on this page, there is no policy that supports this kind of statement of blocking for any personal attack. _→AzaToth 20:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ignore All Rules, but only when it applies to me. For only I am above policy." -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not. That statement of personal policy is firmly grounded in no personal attacks and I will not retract or alter it. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

From the policy in question; "In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked, though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial.". Based on that, blocks for personal attacks aren't "firmly grounded" even in "extreme cases"... let alone blocking for a single instance. I think personal attacks are a major problem, but policy doesn't say you can block for them at will. Indeed, that proposal was specifically rejected... probably because standards of what is and is not a 'personal attack' are very subjective. --CBD _☎ 22:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle

I strongly advise you to file some sort of RfC or RfArb against this user, who in my view should be indefinitely blocked for the worst case of WP:POINT and WP:NPA I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. I'm a rational admin, and have only blocked trolls to date, but I can't help but look at this user as wiki-stalking you, and don't want to stand idly by. Maybe if they file a request for arbitration against you I will make a statement against her poor poor behaviour in these matters. Harro5 22:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel that there would be any benefit to taking such punitive measures against Ms. Kyle. I am content to allow the community to decide what, if any, action should be taken in relation to her conduct. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuck it, I quit

Well, if you hoped to drive off Misplaced Pages contributors with your three-ring circus, you've succeeded. I will not be editing here any longer. Enjoy your little circle jerk; no person of stature or dignity could abide such disrespect and remain. Firebug 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Present

A present for you: {{User Wikipedian}}. Use it. Nuke it. Whichever, enjoy. Happy New Year. --CBD _☎ 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Fairness to both sides

Happy New Year Kelly! So anyone that tries to edit out bias, mis-quotes, expand controversial articles is a member of the entity that is the subject of the article, and those that join the editing, reverting are too? Why would anyone want to edit articles at Misplaced Pages if he would be subject to such allegations? I request that the arbcom also deal with the issues that I and others have raised. I look forward to a solution that is fair to both sides of this debate. Sincerely, Johnski 02:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You can help Misplaced Pages

Yes YOU !!

You can help Misplaced Pages. Believe it or not there is a big brou-ha-ha going on that is wasting time and energy of dedicated wikipedians and YOU can help solve the problem! Really! Honest to gosh, cross my heart. The solution is, well, um its secret. I can't tell you. But Slim Virgin can. Ask her. Do what she says. Do you want to help Misplaced Pages or not? WAS 4.250 05:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

For deleting a load of useless shit, and refusing to drop your principles. Top banana! Rob Church 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Another possible PHP open proxy

See this edit and others by User:Brian Daniels. They show the same PHP open proxy damage as the last time (replacing all instances of ' by \'). It would be good to do a checkuser and indefinitely block the open proxy, if it's really another open proxy. --cesarb 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Request For Arbitration

Hello, a Request for Arbitration has been filed against you and Snowspinner here karmafist 01:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Can you please check User:Flavius Aetius, User:Almeidaisgod, User:Brian Brockmeyer, and User:24.186.219.3 if they are sock puppet of each other. I suspect them to be because they have been blanking the same section of the article University of Miami. I also noticed that User:Almeidaisgod and User:Flavius Aetius have very few edits. In discussions, they always support each other. I think they are violating the sock puppet policy. Thanks for your attention.--Ichiro 10:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

To prevent redundancy, just to note you don't need to check it anymore. It's already been done :) --Ichiro 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I think that the actions of this user in deleting a large portion of userboxes without following process have seriously undermined the wiki way. Please be aware that there is a process for deletion, and that it does not involve unilateral action with no warning. Being bold is one thing, being destructive of the wiki way is another thing entirely. --Dschor 11:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Chat transcript

 <karynn> i deleted a bunch of useless shit, and the people in love with it whined. 
 <ambi2> meh, I'm all for deleting them now. It's interesting that basically all the people who voted against you on that RfC were newbies irritated that their l33t toys had disappeared. 
 <karynn> yeah, pretty much. along with a handful of process wonks 
 <karynn> by the way, i'm just loving this. i should get RfC'd more often. 
 <karynn> i peed on someone's playground, i guess." 

Hi Kelly, I was just wondering if you actually wrote the above passages or if they were made up to smear you. If you did actually write them, I must admit that I have concerns about your suitability as an admin. As admins, we have a certain responsibility to serve as an example of civility. By failing to uphold civility, you undermine the ability of all admins to conduct the business of administrating. Kaldari 14:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That respected contributor User:SPUI was banned for a while shortly after posting it on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin#Assumption of bad faith and incivility by Snowspinner (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (and permanantly from the chat room by Kelly's friend Ambi) and the fact no one denied it was said pretty much says it all, really.. --Mistress Selina Kyle 15:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As one of the admins who sometimes frequent the IRC channel (no, I can't check these sentences were legit, since I wasn't there at the time, and even if I were there I wouldn't say if they're legit — we're not supposed to post transcripts), I can say admins there sometimes "blow steam", joking about things. You must always take what's said on the channel with a grain of salt, as it can be hard sometimes to know if one is being serious or joking (just take a look at m:bash for a lot of examples of the latter kind). --cesarb 15:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only is what CesarB states true in this case, but those quotes were also taken out of context. If you think those quotes in any way indicate that I am unfit to be an admin, I submit that you have unreasonable expectations of administrators.

Also, I am blocking Mistress Selina Kyle for 4 hours for a personal attack against Ambi. You were warned by the message at the top of my page. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember that doing that is probably against the rules _→AzaToth 15:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If I felt that such blocks were against the rules, I wouldn't issue them. Misplaced Pages prohibits personal attacks, and I simply will not stand for them on my user talk page. If you don't like this, I suggest not using my user talk page as a space to make personal attacks. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious: where is the personal attack against Ambi? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I consider the comments made by Ms. Kyle about Ambi's conduct (which, by the way, are false: SPUI is in the channel as I type, in fact) to be a personal attack of Ambi. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your response. I didn't realize she had made that up. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, interesting, I didn't notice that. There's no way that channel would be silent for a whole 23 minutes, or even one minute and a half. Now that I think of it, it's quite visible that the context has been completely removed. And not only the usual offtopic talk and parallel threads; it's hard to believe you wouldn't have gotten at least five other people commenting on the situation. --cesarb 16:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That transcript covered 40 minutes of time. An enormous amount of relevant material/context was removed. Rx StrangeLove 16:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what context they were in, those comments show that your actions were motivated foremost by contempt, not by the best interests of Misplaced Pages as you have been asserting in your RfC. That type of derisive and dismissive attitude makes all of us, as admins, look bad. I would respectfully suggest that you take the criticisms against you seriously. Being an admin entails a certain responsibility to promote civility and wiki-love. If you are truly interested in the best interests of the encyclopedia, please realize that your behaviour can have a very real impact on the cohesiveness of the community that builds this encyclopedia. Starting a wiki-war is certainly not in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. If you would like to end this bruhaha so that we can all get back to the business of encyclopedia writing, you would do well to seriously consider swallowing your pride and apologizing to the community. Just my two cents. (And for the record, I have never created or used a userbox, nor do I care one way or another whether they exist. I also do not consider myself a "process nazi". I do however take civility seriously.) Kaldari 18:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you don't know the context they were in, you are not in a position to comment on what they were motivated by. I'm naturally a very sarcastic and acerbic person, something which I try to keep under control on the Wiki itself. One of my release vents for this tendency is the IRC channel. The people who habituate it understand that and have learned to recognize when I'm being sarcastic, ranty, or downright contrary (as I was in several of those statements). Having more of the context would have helped to make that clear, but SPUI did not see fit to let you see that content. (If you are upset with this, take it up with him, not with me.) I stand by my behavior on the wiki itself and on the IRC channel as well, noting their respective roles in maintaining our community. The standards for conduct on the wiki are not the standards for conduct on IRC, after all, for very good reason. It was inappropriate of SPUI to have transcribed that content (as he well knows); doing so seriously undermined the utility of the IRC channel.

I do hold those whose purpose for being on Misplaced Pages is other than to write an encyclopedia with contempt. Such people do not belong here; they should be asked to leave, and if they do not leave they should be forced to leave. Misplaced Pages is not a social experiment; it is an encyclopedia. I do not believe my actions will have a serious impact on that portion of our community that actually writes the encyclopedia; my actions did not target them.

I will not apologize for my actions; they were motivated by my belief in what is best for Misplaced Pages. Nor will I apologize for the response to those actions because it was not I who responded. Nor will I apologize to my response to the response, as I have done nothing for which an apology is appropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize that it was completely inappropriate for those chat transcripts to be posted. Regardless, the damage is done. I don't care so much about the userbox issue, but I believe it would be most ecumenical if you (and Ambi) would consider apologizing for the chat comments, as I feel they are insulting to a good many upstanding editors. Otherwise, I'm afraid you may risk losing some of the respect of your fellow editors and admins that you have deservedly built up prior to this incident. Kaldari 18:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Spread your wings!

I am awarding you these wings regardless of the ruckus going on. There are some of us who apreciates fine mopping work. --Cool Cat 17:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK

FYI WP:AN/I#User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle. SlimVirgin 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Comment

Please do not make threats on my talk page. I have far less need to apologize than you do right now. karmafist 19:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And so, an advise becomes a threat. This looks like a job for Kitty (please deposit payment in tuna). El_C 20:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

But where'd Kelly be without her threats? Dan100 (Talk) 21:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of Mistress Selina Kyle

I'm curious why you believe that Mistress Selina Kyle's statement that Ambi banned SPUI from an IRC channel was a personal attack? SPUI has made the same claim and Ambi has thus far refused to deny the allegation. Kaldari 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the manner in which she made the statement (and the fact that it was factually incorrect, as SPUI's ban was temporary, not permanent) is what causes it to rise to the level of a personal attack. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So instead of correcting the statement (which I would consider hyperbole at worst), you decided to immediately block the user? For what it's worth, I understand your frustration at dealing with MSK (whose problematic behavior is well documented), however, taking unilateral actions like that only adds fuel to the bonfire. Are you honestly that unconcerned with being typecast as an unrepentant member of the elite wiki cabel? I suppose your unwillingness to play politics is, in a way, respectable. However, I can't help but worry about all the townsfolk with pitchfolks and torches at the gate. Kaldari 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't tolerate bonfires on my talk page. Correcting the statement would have simply perpetuated her personal attacks. The policy I've adopted is there for a reason. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy you adopted? Do you have the right to define your own blocking policy? _→AzaToth 01:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the right to say I can't? Kelly Martin (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The right to say it? Yes, unless things around here are much worse than even the most passionate of the nay-sayers have alleged. I can, and do, say that you don't have the right to define your own blocking policy... if that policy is wider than Misplaced Pages's blocking policy. Which it clearly is given the quotation from the official policy I gave above. I can say that. I can't do anything about it, but I can definitely say it. --CBD _☎ 11:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your block on MSK was completely out of line. Given this whole userbox debacle, I am well within reason to consider you and her to be in conflict, and therefore it is absolutely not your place to enact a block on her, as she is someone you are in a dispute with. If you feel that she has commited a blockable offense, you should seek out a neutral Administrator to consider enacting a block, but it in entirely out of place for you to do so yourself. Your repeated and willful disregard for the policies and customs of the Misplaced Pages community is appalling. Ëvilphoenix 00:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Evilphoenix; I suppose this ought to be a question for your ArbCom candidacy. —James S. 04:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add it to my candidate's questions page. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

checkuser of Australian vandal socks

The Australian-topic vandal seems to have come back for a second round. He's obviously using open proxies, if you look in the block log for (dozens and dozens) of Australia-related socks that have been blocked, we should be able to close off a whole bunch of open proxies.

PS, is there anyone but you that's doing this sort of thing? As far as I can see, the other admins with checkuser just use it to look for people double-voting on AfD and such, which is fine and dandy but doesn't do much for the vandalism problem. In fact, Jimbo really, really ought to have a full-time salaried person working on this: closing open proxies and especially Tor; or, if it's an ISP, regularly getting in touch with their abuse contact persons to get them to lean on their wayward customers. Who knows, perhaps you yourself would be ideally suited for that? -- Curps 06:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if he wants to offer me pay and benefits comparable to my current position and let me work from my house in Chicagoland, I'll do it. But somehow I doubt that'll happen; I don't come cheap. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's just wishful thinking on my part, I don't have Jimbo's ear. I'm increasingly convinced, though, that this is something that needs to start getting taken care of, with slowly increasing urgency. -- Curps 08:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Tip jar

Do you plan on donating that to the project, or are you implying that you deserve to be paid for your work on Misplaced Pages? When the link is followed to your paypal page. It says "Payment for Misplaced Pages." No one should be paying you, or anyone else for Misplaced Pages. I find this highly troubling from an admin. --WAvegetarian (email) 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a tip jar. If you feel that I deserve a cash tip, you're free to use it for that purpose. If you don't feel that way, don't bother. I already donate substantially to Misplaced Pages, so unless you put a whole hell of a lot of money into the tip jar, it'll just become part of my routine donations anyway. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you should disclose how much money you get from this "tip jar." Hearing this is troubling and it makes you look like even a worse person that you already do. I can tell you are not going to get re-selected for ARb Comm next time. And I'm a mentally Challendged south american saying that! Why don't you do us all a faovr and just step down? I've already asked you once and it was before all this started with the user boxes thanks.Wiki_brah 05:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request / result of a personal threat

User:Bumpusmills1 is a new user whom I have worked with in an attempt to teach him Misplaced Pages guidelines, manners, and so on. To his credit he is trying to learn. Unfortunately, he was a bit abrasive at first and stirred up some vandals and such, especially anonymous editors User:68.45.146.191, User:199.216.98.66 and User:216.13.219.229 who placed User:Bumpusmills1's personal contact info on User:Bumpusmills1's user page and threatened him. (Examples of these threats are and , although there are more examples in the history.) It appears these anonymous users are sock puppets of one user. To cut to the chase, I was told to check with the people on the arbitration committee to see if one of you could do a checkuser on these ISPs and see if this is a Misplaced Pages editor making threats. Thanks for any help you can give.--Alabamaboy 16:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This incident has take a more serious turn (see the comments on the admin noticeboard). Can you please run this checkuser request if you get a chance? Thanks, --Alabamaboy 00:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in this

Dunno if you know of this already, but have a look at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_support_Kelly_Martin. --Gurubrahma 17:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

Per our discussion on the admin discussion board, you said, "Note that deleting the edits removes the IP edit history (meaning we can't find the underlying IP from which a logged in editor made the edit). I don't know if the IPs are restored when the edits are undeleted; perhaps a developer can answer that. (As an aside: it would be really nice if CheckUser searched deleted edits, too.)"

Since I'm still a new admin, I was wondering if I did the right thing in deleting the page? The user was frantic about removing his personal info (actually, his parent's address) before people starting sending threaten stuff and the only other way I knew to remove the info was to bring a developer into the game (which seemed unlikely). Just for future reference, what's the best way to handle stuff like this? Thanks in advance.--Alabamaboy 14:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a big deal. Deleting the inappropriate content is more important than preserving the IP address history. Although you should consider undeleting selected revisions so that the page history is maintained. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that next time. Best,--Alabamaboy 19:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Backslashes

I've indefinitely blocked User:207.150.184.44, per your comment on inserting backslashes before quotations. Tom Harrison 17:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert I case

Re: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Robert I as Robert I has resumed editing I'd like to request an injunction. Homey 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser Request

You might want to take a look at the following:

• Gulzarres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gui_Redfor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guizaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All blocked by myself. Their sole actions were adding {{defban}} to user pages and the associated talk pages. I presume it's somebody that has been banned, but you'll do a better job of identifying who it is. --GraemeL 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably best if you answer at the AN post on the same subject. --GraemeL 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Addding fuel to the fire

I have no idea as to the accuracy of this, but it was clearly uncivil. Can you please stop doing things just to upset people? - brenneman 02:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about. It's perfectly true that Cool Cat took the idea from me, and I thought it was an amusing addition to the chain. I guess some people have no sense of humor. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't understand that editing the user page of someone who had just been blocked for an "attack" on you was a bad idea, I'll attribute this to total lack of comphrehension of human beings rather than malice.

But I find that really hard to believe.

brenneman 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the block. I don't pay a lot of attention to this. I don't really care if people who attack me are blocked or not. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I sent an email to you to request that you remove the block, Kelly, so I think you were well aware of it. And I only objected to the edit on the basis that it was not referenced, and apparently false, as CoolCat had such a box before you (according to page history). I think it was rather bad form to edit my page in such a way. At this point I hardly expect an apology, but it would have been nice to at least revert your own edit upon my request. And thanks, Brenneman, for keeping an eye on this, too. I agree that I find it rather hard to believe that Kelly did not understand exactly what she was doing, but I will assume good faith. --Dschor 04:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Grammar fascist

You claim to be a "grammar fascist". I assume you mean something positive by that. I have no idea what positive relationship to grammar one could have that I would call being a "grammar fascist". I don't care to hear anything about the word "fascist". I do care to understand what you perceive your relationship to grammar to be. The reason I ask is (1) I find the evolution of language very interesting and (2) recent unfortunate incidents have brought you to my attention. Thank you, in advance, for favoring me with a little insight. By the way, I'm all about accuracy and sourcing myself. So long as I'm accuratly communicating, I care about the grammar as much as Shakespeare cared about spelling. On the other hand, I love the subtle distinctions English is capable of. To me "grammar nazi" or "grammar facist" would be one who railed against ending a sentence in English with a preposition. Surely, that's not you? WAS 4.250 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm a grammar nazi myself (and I have Kelly Martin's talk page on my watchlist, for what purpose I have forgotten), I'll pipe up here. The deteroriation of the English language which has been steadily occurring appalls me. I mean, there are typos, and then there is "hay cn u giv m3 teh hw from ms smiths class plz thx" is awful. Run-on sentences also are particularly nauseating. Abuse of the English language (when not used for artistic license, as in Shakespeare's case) is simply being lazy, and that's all there is to it. If you don't care enough about your first language to learn it properly, in my opinion, you don't deserve to pass high school. Period. Basic English skills and the ability to write are essential skills, and it's important not to look like an idiot, as you would if you said "Its about time!" No one uses the damned apostrophe anymore unless they're using it in a pluralized noun. All in all, people bandying bad grammar about simply irks me. There are my two cents; I wouldn't be surprised if Kelly feels similarly. (But, of course, I offer no guarantees.) —BorgHunter (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"hay cn u giv m3 teh hw from ms smiths class plz thx" Man I got a headache just looking at that. If it means fewer headaches, I'm with you BorgHunter. :) Jokermage 04:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Different people are good at different things. Should someone not pass high school if they are blind? if they are dyslexic? if they can create great poetry but can't grasp the number line (a friend of mine (age 40; on disability) was like this; 2 minus 3 was beyond him but his vocabulary and creative skills in English were amazing). I'm of the opinion that society, like the human body needs its brain cells, muscle cells, white-blood cells, etc. While Robert Heinlein is right that specialization is for insects, rejecting capable people because they can only help in some ways but not in some special way is, well, Nazi-like, and is a losing strategy. The winning strategy is to accept anyone who can help. WAS 4.250 05:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Name a job that requires a decent level of education in which fluency in either written or spoken English is not a requirement. My opinion: If someone cannot speak or write English, they do not deserve a high school diploma and are perfectly capable to either A) try harder to learn proper English so they can pass, or B) accept that they don't have a diploma and go ahead and succeed despite that. It's up to them. There is a C, but it's not pretty and it involves the person being lazy, which is something my idealistic mind cannot comprehend. The error in your reasoning comes when you assume that not granting someone a diploma shuns them; it does not. It merely indicates that they do not have a sufficient grasp of the proper skills to function at an educated level in today's society. If they are great at math but bad at English, surely they can get training and become a mathematician if it suits them, despite the lack of a diploma. (Incidentally, shouldn't we consider moving this off of Ms. Martin's talk page? She hasn't contributed to the discussion, and I don't know if she wants us cluttering her page with this.) —BorgHunter (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I would suggest that you move this discussion elsewhere. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving to User talk:BorgHunter. --cesarb 16:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your email

Hello, please check your email. Sent information re: WebEX and Min Zhu case. --FloNight 18:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your comments on my request for adminiship, the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me.

I hope that in time your opinion of my understanding of the 'ways of the Wiki' will improve, please assist me with that if you notice me going off in the wrong direction, I obviously hope not to do that, but we are all fallible.

btw, I am frequently in IRC, should you wish to discuss anything there, where I use the nickname AlienLifeForm. --Alf 11:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your contribution to my request for adminship.

Banned user returns?

Hi, what do I do if I think a recently banned user has returned under a different user name? I hesitate to post my specific suspicions on a public page because if I am wrong, a user gets needlessly tarred. Thanks.--Cberlet 16:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You can request an investigation by email (see links on my user page) as well. Please be sure to explain why you think the user in question is the same person as a recently banned user. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Backslashes before apostrophes

Hi, you asked to be notified of vandals adding backslashes before apostrophes. TequilaAndLime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did so. (Curps already blocked TequilaAndLime indefinitely after TAL marked Obesity for speedy deletion as an attack page. In the edit summary, TAL claims to be Mindspillage's "autoedit bot", which is IMO extremely unlikely. --Angr (tɔk) 16:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Proxy-hunting

A list of open proxies here, please block accordingly: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Sunfazer/Open_proxy_list

Hope this helps!

--Sunfazer 21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I already blocked these after seeing the post on the noticeboard. However, I'm not a checkuser user, so I cannot follow the trail to the accounts that used them. You can take a look the IPs on my block log and do your magic, if you feel there is a need. --cesarb 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Grammar Fanatic Help Needed

The phrase Indirectly Personally Responsible. Are there any oxymora or redundancies in it? Robert Taylor 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Shooting

I think it is wrong to use terminology suggesting violence, even in jest, such as vandals being "shot". That's not compatible with a compassionate outlook, in my opinion. I know you probably think that's ridiculous, but understand that it is troubling to some people, myself included. Everyking 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey

One and the same. Nice to see a fellow Agoran here! Chuck 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. Inquiry

Nothing personal, but I felt that comments such as the following are inappropriate: I do hold those whose purpose for being on Misplaced Pages is other than to write an encyclopedia with contempt. Such people do not belong here; they should be asked to leave, and if they do not leave they should be forced to leave. Rhion 18:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The bit I find objectionable is the "contempt". Rhion 19:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just find "contempt" inappropriate. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Rhion 19:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, it's a harsh way to say it, but in essence I agree with Kelly. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a facebook type website. We obviously disagree to what degree that should be enforced, but the basis of her message is sound.Gateman1997 20:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hell, I don't agree with myself on the degre to which that should be enforced; but I do know that if someone is causing trouble and is not helping write the encyclopedia, I have no qualms at all with banning them. That's probably the extent to which I would enforce that particular "contempt". I certainly don't support witchhunts of any sort. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - having read this and one or two other comments I was going to change my "Oppose" vote, but on logging in found you had withdrawn. Rhion 21:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Compassionate Leave

I respectfully disagree. Your behavior indicates, to me, that your time ArbCom has sufficiently rattled your perspective and love of the project. You remain dedicated, but pretty angry and prone to ranting. You're a vaulable editor, adminstrator, etc, but even if you remain somewhat planted and stable enough for ArbCom, (which I don't doubt really), it takes too much of a toll on you for me to do it in good conscience. Find me on IRC if you want more of an explanation. I may reconsider towards the tail end of the vote.--Tznkai 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your inquiry

Kelly, my comment, just as the comments of most other opposing people, referred to the recent userbox controversy. I hate to join the lynch mob in this, especially because I myself believe that many userboxes are crap that does not benefit encyclopedia-building (or community-building) efforts in anyway, but the way you handled the matter did not strike me as appropriate for an ArbComm member. Whatever your reasons were, I hope you will not resort to unilateral actions in the future and wish you best of luck with your run. I do otherwise find you as an exceptionally good candidate.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to keep my reasoning brief since I figured that by now you are probably sick and tired of hearing the same things over and over again, and whatever I have to say would probably be a repetition of what others already said. According to your comments above, that's not the case, so allow me to elaborate.

The thing that troubled me the most was your decision to delete something as widely used as userboxes without offering a discussion of any sort, based on your decision alone. From what I understood, you did not suggest to delete them, you simply did. Users did not even get as much as a warning that the userboxes were going to be gone. One would expect that an ArbComm member has better judgement than to stir a nest like this. And judgement, as it logically seems, is one thing an arbitrator needs the most. I do not know what prompted you to act unilaterally in the userboxes case, but, regretfully, they are likely to haunt you for a long time to come, and I do see the whole thing as a pretty poor display of judgement. You are right that one arbitrator cannot decide a case outcome, but s/he is certainly in position to influence it.

I hope this was detailed enough. If you still have any questions regarding my vote, or if you think I see something in the wrong light, please do not hesitate to let me know.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Kelly, for this quite detailed explanation. It made me realize that I, being affected by the mob mentality, never actually sought to hear your side of the story before voting, taking everything said by the others at face value. Obviously, it's very easy to see how the things "should have been done" in the hindsight.

While your explanations still did not me feel entirely comfortable with casting a support vote, I found them convincing enough to withdraw my opposition. Thank you for providing a reason and taking time to provide your view on the matter.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

DickyRobert stalker

For several months now, a vandal known only as "User:DickyRobert" has been spamming and vandalising Misplaced Pages articles, as well as stalking, harassing, and otherwise making threats toward other editors (and administrators). About an hour ago I just marked over 112 registered accounts as sockpuppets of this person. If you would work some of your CheckUser magic so that we may determine what ISP(s) are being used, and put a halt to this ongoing problem, it would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if it is at all helpful, the three most recently used sockpuppets to date are User:Bill O' Rielly, User:Simon West, and User:William Shakespear. Hall Monitor 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder.  ;-) Hall Monitor 20:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Inquiry

The reason I opposed; was because I did not like the way you handled the userbox matter with the mass deletes. I did not feel that; that was appropriate for an ArbCom member to be involved in.
If it wasn’t for the userbox matter I would have been more than happy to support you, as you have done good work on the ‘pedia. I find you an extremely good candidate, and wish you best of luck. Hope this answers your inquiry. Brian | (Talk) 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I did not like the way you handled the userbox matter; was because your decision to delete the userboxes without an RfD; or even discussion, you just based it on your judgement alone. Yes I agree that some userboxes are inappropriate, but is this not a poor display of judgement, Judgement which you need to be on Arbcom. Hope this answers your inquiry, Brian | (Talk) 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your question

Hi Kelly. I'm glad that you asked me, firstly because it's clear to me now that my comment was much too terse and vague, and secondly because I had (and still have) a vast amount of respect for you prior to all of this silly "userbox" ugliness. I have a number of reasons for voting the way I did, and I'll do my best to answer your questions while I explain the rationale behind my (very difficult) decision.

It did not especially bother me that you took a unilateral action, even though it was unusually broad in its scope. What did concern me was the attitude with which it was executed and the lack of compassion you felt for people who were affected by it, however trivial you personally considered their userboxes to be. You've heard this many times before, I'm sure, but as this is a major point of my argument, I'll explain why this matters.

First, your initial action opened with a confrontational comment unbecoming of an arbiter: "Screw process. Those templates are crap and should be deleted". When the initial outcry was raised, you minimized the feelings of the other editors in a manner that made it very clear to me (and perhaps to others) that you mentally caricatured those who disagreed with you as a "whining" "angry mob" (a comment you made in the very question you just asked me), and that you no longer saw them as people who could be worked with (something else you just underscored in your question to me). We often fail to remember that the whole point of process is to place everybody at the same level, and to disregard this fact is to say that your thoughts are more important or more right than the thoughts of others.

As the RfC process continued, it eventually became clear that a large majority of editors disagreed with your actions and the justifications behind them. At a time (and, in fact, long after) when it would have been prudent to take the "human factor" into account and show some political savvy, you put out a statement that read that (to paraphrase) you were right and that was that . While it's fine to stick to your guns, your comments read as stubborn and confrontational, thereby alienating yourself from those who disagreed with you and further polarizing the issue.

To summarize, it cannot be successfully debated that you are an excellent administrator, Kelly. One of the best we have. However, I made a few conclusions based on how you acted and reacted. I mean this all very constructively – and even lovingly – so please try not to take offense.

• You opened with what may be described as a "sweeping" action against userboxes with the comment "screw process". With your experience, you should have expected the reaction you got, which shows me that you are either out of touch with the community or don't care about the community's opinion.
• You minimized the response of your opponents in a straw man-like manner. This shows me that you either lack compassion, or that you no longer see relative newcomers as equals.
• When the shit hit the fan, you turned inward and allowed others to do the fighting. In addition to the above conclusions, this shows me that either you don't care to or don't know how to handle conflict gracefully. Yes, you remained cool, but you did it in a very unproductive manner by failing to understand that difference between rationality and withdrawal.
• After this entire uncomfortable mess, you still think (or seem to think) that you did everything right – except for convincing the community of just how right you were. This shows me that you let your ego get in the way of your actually helping the community. You didn't even consider anybody else's perspective, and that's not a useful trait in an arbiter.

You ask me what you could do to resolve matters, and that's a fairly straightforward answer if you accept my analysis. Ideally, you would have opened this up to community debate and stated all of your points strongly and succinctly; at worst we would have been exactly where we are now, but without all the bad blood, at best a few people may have been convinced. That time has passed, so I strongly recommend that you consider making a very public statement that your approach was not the best one. If you do choose this route, it is important that you avoid using qualifiers ("but I was still right"), which would make you sound insincere and are likely to do more harm than good.

I have two mottos that I repeat to myself from time to time that maybe you can make use of (if they make any sense outside of my own brain):

• You can't control the action of others, but you can always control your own actions.
• When your're caught in a shit storm, it takes more than keeping your mouth shut to come out clean.

Thank you, Kelly, for hearing my opinions, and I hope that you read this knowing that I have only the most modest of intentions. My most sincere regards, ClockworkSoul 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not at all, Kelly. I know you've had a stressful few days, and I'm more than happy to wait until tomorrow. Be well. – ClockworkSoul 04:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Inquiry

Hey. I read your message to me and understand your concerns. I am definitely not questioning or attacking your full dedication to the Misplaced Pages project at all, because I know you're a good administrator who has the respect of many long-term users including Jimbo Wales. The only thing that I'm concerned about was your one decision to delete such a vast amount of userboxes, impacting on so many users, without the proper and just discussions with others that should have taken place before your actions. I haven't contacted you personally regarding the issue prior to this message, and I probably should have before making a vote, but I just felt that you'd already had enough messages to respond to so I believed I should stay out of it. Anyway, I'll consider changing my vote though if you can convince me to. Cheers. mdmanser 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Backslashing anon

Hi Kelly. I just indef blocked User:207.81.250.6 as a result of the backslashes in this diff, and per your announcement on AN. I figured I'd let you know. -Splash 02:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Open Proxy

I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'m an open proxy, yes, I am, here is my hostname (bypassit.de), here is my IP (206.51.232.40), here is my URL to confirm that (http://www.bypassit.be/index.php?q=uggc%3A%2F%2Fra.jvxvcrqvn.bet%2Fj%2Fvaqrk.cuc%3Fgvgyr%3DHfre_gnyx%3AXryyl_Znegva%26nzc%3Bnpgvba%3Drqvg%26nzc%3Bfrpgvba%3Darj). Regards, you know who. 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, it appears that the URLs expire. Now I\\\'m vrijsurfen.nl and my ip is 69.9.43.130, if the post goes through - lots of open proxies don\\\'t allow POST. 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I\'m privatizer.net and my IP is 212.94.64.2 - what is it with these open proxies inserting backslashes everywhere? Are they all running the same badly-written software? Leave the answer on my (real) talk page if you know... 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I\'m roachhost.com! 69.46.2.210 03:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My response to Questions

Hi Kelly, My vote was based on the tone of the answers more than the content. The response to Radiant's first question was a non answer that left the impression you were not keen on negative feedback. The response to Radiant's second question seemed unnecessarily sarcastic. The response to SnowSpinner's third question seemed more of a witty attack on unnamed parties than a genuine attempt to answer the question. The response to Brenneman's question seemed arogant - I believe an important trait for the 'perfect' arbcom member is an ability to "tolerate fools" firmly and with sympathy. Comments about lynch mobs and "a large number of relatively clueless people" suggest an unwillingness to understand the far side of at least some arguments. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

POV and Consensus

Hi Kelly, I've been sitting in the sidelines watching the controversy and Clockwork's opinion above closely matches my own. As an admin, I feel that it is important NOT to push my views too strongly. I've been working on changing some categorization guidelines for over a year now. We are just about at the point of reaching consensus. Consensus is a very slow process. It often leads in places we don't expect. I suspect that this is the case with Userboxes. Yes, I think most of them are silly, but usually I find them good for a laugh. I've thought long and hard about what people should say on their user pages. I started Misplaced Pages:LGBT notice board, which I thought might create some controversy, but it didn't because many of us strived to keep the page somewhat NPOV. If I see that someone is a democrat or republican or whatever on their use page, I also look to see if that POV is reflected in their edits. This helps me spot POV and NPOV editors. Howard Zinn, in the introduction of his book The People's History of the United States states that every historian has a POV, it is just that most of them are not honest about what it is. People complain about Misplaced Pages by saying that some editors write with a POV. I say to them, Yes, that is exactly what makes Misplaced Pages better than any other encyclopedia. It is possible to discern what the POV of an article is. Talk pages are rich with this information, and Userboxes add another layer to this. Anyway, my point is that perhaps you were not open to these arguments and acted a bit rash by refusing to hear them. Anyway, I have great respect for your work around here, and have empathy that you had good intentions in all this. I just wonder why you can't say "I'm sorry, I should have engaged in dialogue and not acted so rashly" -- Samuel Wantman 04:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Inquiry to Sjakkalle

Hi Kelly! It is not only the opinion and stance on IAR which matters, but also the actions people have made while invoking it. It was quite painful to put my name in the oppose column on your vote, you have always been nice and friendly towards me, but in your disfavor were the deletion of a number of userboxes and a subsequent "screw process" comment, actions which were more drastic than anything Mindspillage has ever done. Because so many people were upset about the userboxes disappearing and messing up their userpages, I disagreed with your position that process could be ignored in this case. I don't agree 100% with Mindspillage's views on IAR either, but she has agreed with me that IAR should not be invoked when it makes people really upset. The difference in views at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2 illustrates the difference (even though you endorsed Mindspillage's outside view, you also endorsed a view by David Gerard). Of course, in your favor were the facts that you are sensible about 80-90% of the time, and that you are one heck of a hard worker. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your statement...

Thank you! —Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the statement. I think your olive branch to the community will do a lot to rebuild the trust and respect that has been lost in this conflict. I think much of the ill will came simply from the perception that you seemed unwilling to accept censure or criticism (correct or not). Personally, I am quite relieved to find out you are not completely unreasonable :) Kaldari 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreed with the above. The statement you made showed a lot of guts on your part to admit that you were wrong in that you avoided process, even if it was a little belated. As Kaldari said, I, too, am pleased that you are not completely unreasonable in these situations. I look forward to seeing your future contributions to this project. Werdna648/_C\ 03:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser

There's generally a bit of confusion here, I think. There is currently Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Curps going on. I don't think this is an appropriate topic for a community vote. Perhaps you, as a frequent user of CheckUser, could make a comment? ] 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My arbcom vote

You certainly may. I really have nothing against you personally, I think you have on the whole done the project a lot of good. However, many of your actions have been controversial, and the very fact that there are many people (that I respect) have problems with you makes me want to vote against you. The by far biggest problem with wikipedia these days are the bile and general loathing that exists in the community. The ArbCom, by far the most influential members of wikipedia needs to be as uncontroversial as possible. As many people as possible need to approve of it for it to work effectively.

That is my main reason, but your oppose to User:Johnleemks request for bureocratship I found very, very strange, especially since a long way back, a similar [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Alkivar&diff=11423219&oldid=11423206 accusation was leveled against you and you (and many others, me included, I was called User:Gkhan back then) reacted very strongly. If you are willing to explain that vote, I may reconsider my opposition.

As I said, it's a weak oppose. I think you have done the project a lot of good. Oskar 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that response, I really appriciated your clarification on the subject. I respect your position on subject of electing inoffensive arbitrators, but I'm respectfully of a different opinion. I do think that an inoffensive arbcom can be an efficient one. We do have extrodinary wikipedians that have a very firm grasp of wikipedia policies, that will level "verdicts" (perhaps not the best choice of word, but you know what I mean) that are fair, neutral and command and enormous respect from the community (take SimonP for example, plus some of the former/current members of the arbcom). You yourself has said that the community is suffering major problems due to animosity, and I think that the way to repair that is to make arbcom-appointments that pretty much everyone can support.

However, I do see your point. In principle, I do not like the idea of electing people based on that other people like them. But in the case of wikipedia, I think it is a principle that would work, and it needs to be implemented, and that is why I am keeping my vote. I hope that there are no bad feelings for my it, I acknowledge (btw, I have no idea if I spelled that word right, I'm hopeless at spelling) your fine work as an arbitrator and respect you as a contributor and dispute resolver. Oskar 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: as far as userboxes go, I'm on your side in that particular issue :P

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA/William M. Connolley 2

You participated in the first RFA so you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. (SEWilco 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Vandals

Hi Kelly.

I would be very surprised if

• User:Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
• User:The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
• User:The Man Who Knew Too Little

are not all the same person, but all of them seem smart enough to not trigger the autoblock. Can you block the IP, I'm tired of them already. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And User:The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is another. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Probable open proxy. Blocking the IP permanently. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How many points do I get for guessing that User:Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is a sockpuppet of the other four? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I think User:Christina Aguilera should be worth more points. I think it's trickier to determine that she is a sockpuppet since it's not a movie title. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What type of celebrities do you have there in America? First Christina Aguilera, now User:Kelly Rowland. (Let's be glad the last name wasn't "Martin"...) I cannot remember having blocked so many in one day before! Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How about User:Jayne Mansfield? (Edited one minute after you blocked the second IP). Yep, I think a range block is in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Range blocked. Alkivar has determined them to be sockpuppets of User:DickyRobert. Unfortunately, the two indef-blocks you imposed will expire along with the month-long blocks which I have now imposed. Nonetheless, thankyou very much for your efforts. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom nomination

Kelly,

I appreciate the statement you made regarding the userbox affair, which finally clears a number of points up relating to your conduct. I think in the light of your willingness to explain your actions that you may like to know why I voted to oppose.

The only sure fact surrounding user boxes at this time is that this is a very controversial issue. It is not as simple as an attack article, or spam, or unlicensed images. These boxes are designed specifically to go onto user pages, where it is permitted to display POV statements. Whereas templates such as User_against_scientology and User_against_Jews gained some level of support in their definition as personal attacks, the ones endorsing a particular religion or belief did not. The only policy offered in support of your actions was WP:IGNORE, which IMHO was scant justification for your actions. Speedying is an admin power that really should only be used for a page where it is fairly self-evident that everyone is going to vote delete, as per attack pages, patent nonsense etc.

If there's any doubt about this, then speedying is not the way to go. My concern is that if there were a policy allowing so-called "attack" articles to be speedied, then it may be exploited by some admins to stifle legitimate criticism of some individuals or groups. After all, admins are human and do make mistakes, but some really do misuse their powers. I feel you did misuse your powers in this case and with Mistress_Selina_Kyle, but this does seem to be an isolated set of incidents. I recognize the quality of the work you have done for Misplaced Pages and don't doubt that you will continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages in a positive manner.

There are three reasons why I cannot support your nomination:

• Firstly, in the way you have dealt with the userbox incident, I feel that you have proven yourself to be a potentially polarizing figure. The role of ArbCom is exactly what it says on the tin - arbitration. This means that maintaining a strict level of neutrality is a must, and I feel you have not been able to offer these, especially when it comes to very controversial subjects.
• Secondly, your refusal, until late in the day, to apologize for your actions was concerning. I don't think anyone except the "OMIGOD MY USRBOX IS GONE" brigade was expecting you to apologize for deleting the userboxes or even expressing your view of userboxes. What they were expecting was an apology for ignoring policy at a time when it would have been highly effective in resolving the issue.
• Finally, and I know this isn't really your fault, the userbox incident and the blocking incidents have made you a controversial character. Judgements made on ArbCom could be compromized simply by accusing you of partisanship - and this wouldn't be based on a userbox, but on your past actions, which have drawn a great deal of attention.

I hope this clears things up for my part. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I apologize for the ambiguity, Kelly - my fault for writing in the passive! I have already read your comments on the situation, and I know that you personally never tried to use WP:IAR as justification, but looking at the request for comment, it was more or less the immediate thought that came to the minds of those who supported you. Other than that there has been little justification on your part than to say:

I do hold those whose purpose for being on Misplaced Pages is other than to write an encyclopedia with contempt. Such people do not belong here; they should be asked to leave, and if they do not leave they should be forced to leave. Misplaced Pages is not a social experiment; it is an encyclopedia. I do not believe my actions will have a serious impact on that portion of our community that actually writes the encyclopedia; my actions did not target them.

I will not apologize for my actions; they were motivated by my belief in what is best for Misplaced Pages. Nor will I apologize for the response to those actions because it was not I who responded. Nor will I apologize to my response to the response, as I have done nothing for which an apology is appropriate.

Beyond that there have been numerous quotes of support, usually citing WP:IAR. As someone concerned about the abuse of this policy, you can see the problem I have. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 14:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I judge equally by the justifications you give as much as those by your supporters. I found your comments regarding the purpose of Misplaced Pages as no justification whatsoever for what you did - at least WP:IAR is "official", even if it is misguided at times. A motivation in what is best is not always what is best - sometimes we make mistakes, we apologize for them and move on. You didn't, and the abrasive tone you adopted with many (including, I'm sensing, me now) doesn't help the situation. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you withdraw from the ArbCom election!

Anyone able to see the "unfitness" of Karmafist for being an admin and so willing to say it so plainly, has some real credibility capital with me. Best of luck. r b-j 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (BTW, i know nothing of this userbox affair and don't really care about it.)

Withdrawal

Out of curiousity, may I inquire why you stepped out of running for arbcom..? -MegamanZero|Talk 22:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you Withdrawl

Even though I didn't vote (left a neutral for you) I hope you don't stop at the pace you are going at. I do not disagree with your deletion of userboxes, just the way you went about it (even though I just learned about some clauses like the ignore all the rules for the betterment of wikipedia, which you could have been considered to have done). I am sorry this incident caused you to withdrawl, you are a great admin and wikipedian and wikipedia would be lost without you. Like I said your past history speaks volumes over your one "mistake" (if you can call it that). Mike 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The WikiMedal for Outstanding Janitorial Services

This medal is hereby awarded to Kelly Martin for her tireless, good-humoured efforts cleaning up the mess left by others and then saying, "I guess that's the way the ol' mop flops! Take off, eh?" Barry Wells 23:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

""Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." -- Mr. Burns

Question, please: Who's Mr. Burns? Barry Wells 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

See Mr. Burns. Funny how Misplaced Pages can answer questions like this. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm one of the few people on the Earth who've never watched a single episode of The Simpsons. I'm still working my way through The Beverly Hillbillies and I Love Lucy reruns. But it's an excellent quote and timely. Almost as good as Robert Mitchum's successful proposal to his future wife, "stick with me and you'll be farting through silk." Barry Wells 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election

Hi Kelly, Speaking as someone who tried to vote against you (failed on sufferage), I find your adding the Burns' quote to your userpage at this point in time offensive - a roundabout attempt to slight myself and everyone else who did not support you. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke, honestly everyone needs to get off her back about everything. Mike 01:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No kidding. You mean to say that there's people around here who take offence at that hilarious and pithy quote? C'mon, let's lighten up a tad and have a drinkie poo or two! I mean, like complaining's fun and everything but ... Barry Wells 01:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you're not anonymous I assume it was not aimed at you Ben. David D. (Talk) 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ding ding ding we have a winner!! I didn't even notice that. Mike 02:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, forgive me if rather than responding to your speculation I wait for a reply from Kelly. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Leave her alone and stop harassing her, Ben. This is starting to get really sad. She doesn't have to justify her use of a damn Simpsons quote to you. Sheesh. And you're actually wondering why the quote is there? Take a look at your own behaviour. Sarah Ewart 03:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sure Kelly appreciates your efforts and explainations but I still believe that she is capable of answering my question herself. Am I am wrong in assuming that the appearance of the quote is a comment on some or all of those who voted against her? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This quote is clearly not directed at anyone, shes making a joke, thats all, its a joke, why get upset over it? Mike 03:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see where Ben is coming from. There have been accusations on Kelly's part that people who voted against her "just don't get it". An unfair assumption, but I'm not sure the quote has anything to do with it. After all, Mr. Burns is hardly an "ethical", "fair" character and I've just taken the quote to be in good humor. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

grammar fascist

The articles I have created could use a visit from a grammar fascist, please take a look at them if you have the time. you will find a list on my user page. oh and please keep it british english as all mighty bob intended. Bartimaeus 10:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a display of good faith

I would like to request that you unblock Mistress Selina Kyle as a show of good faith. The block that has been placed on her is not justified, and should be removed as soon as possible. You are a good candidate for the task. --Dschor 12:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Mistress Selina Kyle devovled into edit warring within two hours of her first edits at Misplaced Pages, and has been a disruptive influence ever since. I see no reason why someone who causes more trouble than she is worth should be allowed to continue to do so. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. BorgHunter 13:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Burns quote

I found this to be absolutely hilarious. Thanks for keeping WP fun. I could not have found a more appropriate quote. I hope you don't have the desire to go to jail. --Dschor 12:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, side-holdingly funny. Keep up the good work, Kelly. :)

Re:Withdrawal

I see. Despite my vote, and our previous encounter, I hold no ill will towards you and I think you a rather determined individual. I was surprised to see you withdraw. Despite our previous encouter, allow me to say I wished we hadn't gotten off on such a bad start, and I hope we can be on good terms in the future. -MegamanZero|Talk 14:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack on Mistress Selina Kyle

Your statement that Mistress Selina Kyle "acts like a shit" and is a vandal is a personal attack. While her behavior merits improvement, it is innappropriate for you to use such language. I am blocking you for 6 hours. Please refrain from editing on her Talk page in the future. Ëvilphoenix 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I just won't do any of the CheckUsers I was going to do this evening. Have a nice day. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked you. I don't agree with most of your views but I appreciate your crackdown on the open proxies, and would suggest better word choice in the future. See also WP:DFTT. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:12, Jan. 13, 2006

Barnstar

I awarded you the resiliency barnstar on your user page for doing things that hurt personally (withdrawing and stepping down from ArbComm, apologizing when you still feel you were justified in your actions) in order to restore tranquility to the Misplaced Pages community. It is these sorts of actions which will keep the community coherent in the future so that we may accomplish our actual goal, writing an encyclopedia.--CastAStone| 06:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I withdrew from the race because it was pointless to continue and I resigned from ArbCom for solely personal reasons related to the amount of free time I have for the moment due to obligations at work. Interpreting these acts as attempts to "restore tranquility" is misplaced. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Still, your comments of January 9th did what nothing else seemed to be able to do. I was not among those who supported your original actions but I am among those who feel that you took care of things already, and we can all get back to work now. You're welcome to remove the barnstar if you feel its been errantly awarded, but I don't feel that way at all.--CastAStone| 07:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Disputed" template

Kelly,

I've recently had to make use of the "totally disputed" template (as it does describe the present situation where its used) but I wanted to suggest on the talk page that "disputed" be changed to "contested" - or that we create a new template on this theme. If you don't think it wise to unblock the page perhaps I could forward my message through you? Thank you.

THEPROMENADER 08:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, as after a bit of reading I see that the "disputed" tag as it is actually quite fitting. Thanks all the same. THEPROMENADER 10:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:192.195.225.6

I was just contacted by a friend of someone who works from behind that IP address, which you apparently blocked indefinitely as an open proxy. Since this is the IP address that belongs to a college, don't we usually not block those indefinitely? I've unblocked the IP for now, because it's really not acceptable to block an entire college campus like that, in my mind. Please leave me a message on my talk page if you decide to take any action, so I can keep tabs on this. Thanks, Mo0 06:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Open proxies are banned no matter who they belong to. If the good students of the University of Evansville want to edit again, they should speak to their computing services department about fixing their open proxy problem first. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Archiving your RfC

The Request for Comment logged against you has been moved from the active disputes to the archives based on overwhelming (26-5) community consensus to do so. I will attempt to remove any links to it from pages such as Wikiproject/Userboxes.--CastAStone| 13:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I ment to give you this earlier :) --Doc 23:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

Umm, Checkuser: An access level that lets users with it see the IP addresses of logged-in users, usually to determine if someone is using sockpuppets to violate policy. Currently only granted to certain members of the Arbitration Committee. Check me out all you want. I only want to comment that having that power in the hands of someone who comes across as vindictive is personally discomforting to me. I know that you don't feel vindictive or you would have done something about it before now. It is your own lack of your perceived behavior that is troubling. Hey, I'm just one more "lowly" editor around here and rarely involve myself in the politics (cabal) of WP. However, once in a while something crosses my path about which I feel that speaking out would help me to sleep better tonight. So, with all of the controversy surrounding your appointment by Jimbo, the apparent lack of support of that decision, your failed election to be a Bureaucrat, your on-and-off again decision about being an ARBcom member based not on your desires but on your "friends on IRC" and your own harsh words I have decided to leave you this note on your talk page.
I have crossed paths with many "right" and "wrong" folks in my lifetime and it amazes me as to how many right perceived as wrong and wrong perceived as right I have encountered. For what it's worth and for the record I believe you are right, it's just how you come across. I expect that you and yours will be around here for a long time (I hope) so I also hope that you enjoy my thoughts with a grain of salt. --hydnjo talk 00:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac

Hi, I was wondering how you verified the checkuser infomration for User:Zordrac and concluded that he was a sockpuppet of User:Internodeuser. Internodeuser used a common Australiann ISP with a IP assignment within a certain range, and was a conspiracy theory editor that made legal threats and viscious personal attacks. These things don't seem to be a hallmark of Zordrac's activities. So beyond a checkuser test which may not actually be conculusive, how did you conculde that these two are are the same person. As a discalimer I have no interest in the Mistress Selina and co. mess, but I think the link between Zordrac and Internode user is tenuous at best.--nixie 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Convincing evidence was provided to the Arbitration Committee. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I must say, a more cryptic reply hardly seems possible. The ban of Zordrac couldn't possibly have to do with outspoken criticism of certain administrators on the ArbCom, could it? Nah... --Dschor 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

See confirmation here. AvB ÷ talk 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser Khoikhoi

Would you Please run the CheckUser on Khoikhoi I posted on Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser. I know things are time-sensitive, and I want to confirm this before taking other steps. -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

LawAndOrder checkuser - Thanks!

Thanks for getting to it, karynn, it is much appreciated. NSLE _(T+C) 08:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you do a check user for the anon IP 67.19.84.100 with LawAndOrder, Mackensen, and NSLE. I'm pretty sure it's one of the three. freestylefrappe 03:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would I do such a thing? Please make your request at WP:RFCU, noting the policy violations that justify the use of CheckUser. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Tt1 CheckUser

Hi, would it be possible to check whether 82.80.37.123 (talk · contribs) is the IP of Tt1 (talk · contribs). I think it's pretty obvious, since that IP always comes to Tt1's aid when revert wars adding bogus military ranks to Comparative military ranks of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Air force officer ranks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Naval officer ranks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Check their revision histories. Thanks (I don't know whether this is where i should have made this this request). Izehar 19:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sock check for user involved in the disputes on Germanisation and Anti-Polonism

I highly suspect User:87.239.90.151 of being a sock puppet of User:Molobo in the revert war on both Germanisation and Anti-Polonism to evade 3RR. To begin with, Molobo has had revert wars on the page before. Secondly, the anon has added a source that Molobo added onto the talk page of Anti-Polonism months ago. Thirdly, both Molobo and the anon like revert stubbornely and radically. See their user contributions. Fourthly the anon and Molobo revert both against me and another IP, their views are apparently the same. And last but not least, it is confusing that they have they have similar edit summaries "restored information.examples given on talk page", said Molobo months ago. "Restored information on persecution of Poles, and reverted German nationalist POV" proclaims the anon.

If they're the same, they have violated the 3RR. That's why it is noteworthy to make a user check. There were very many reverts made today but let's just have a look at the inclusion about German discrimination towards Polish football players. The anon first adds it here. The anon reverts it once, twice, three times. And just as I was about the file an 3RR against him, out of the blue comes Molobo and reverts it for the fourth time, fifth time, sixth time and seventh time. But before I'd file the three revert rule, I'd like confirmation that they're the same users. I saw and thank you for getting rid of the Bonaparte puppet theatre but Molobo watched it too, which makes me doubtful as to whether they did the same mistake twice or not. Not merely blocking Molobo for 3RR but also having evidence he pushes the 3RR would be useful feed for an RfAr following the successful RfC and in spite of this Molobo only getting worse. You'd really do me a huge favour. Thank you in return. Sciurinæ 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

I would like to request for you to unblock me. You've seen enough of me to see that I am a good user. I would also like for it to say "Internodeuser is a sock puppet of Zordrac" as Internodeuser is not a name I have ever used anywhere, and not a name I want to use anywhere. I also didn't evade any block. I didn't get a new ISP or anything. I think that I have shown good behaviour and have done enough to demonstrate that I should never have been banned in the first place. I submit my contributions as evidence. 203.122.230.206 09:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration regarding Tommstein

I have requested arbitration regarding Tommstein. In the request I have cited an incident that took place between you and him. I was hoping you could make a statement regarding your encounter with him and perhaps explicate some of the comments you made, such as "lay off the rhetoric" and "CheckUser is not intended to assist with a witchhunt or with wikistalking, and I am concerned that you may be engaged in one or both of these activities." You can find the request here (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Tommstein). Thank you. Duffer 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Need third opinion

Please check these nonsensical templates and their use here and elsewhere. I\m really at a loss as to what to do. --Ghirla | talk 19:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Could you please run the following checkuser to insure a fair vote?. Thank you!--Urthogie 12:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected move required

Hi again. I'd like to request a protect move from Islamist terrorism to Islamic terrorism. It has been discussed here and even opposing editors admit that policy dictates that this move is correct. Thank you.--Urthogie 14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please list this request on WP:RM. I'm a little busy today to investigate the circumstances behind this request; there are other admins there who can review it and act appropriately. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

About sockpuppetry

Someone has been accusing me of using sockpuppetry, and directed me to your talk page, unfortunately, with harsh and unkind language, which I do not appreciate. I have not posed as anyone else. Could this be because I often use many computers, four of which are in an office and are used by many other people? I do not want to be blocked. I did nothing wrong. MathStatWoman 07:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the person accused me as posing as DeveloperFrom1983, and I would like my user name removed from that user's page, since that was not I, and I do not appreciate having my user name posted there, with an accusation that is not true. Can you please help me? Please contact me on my user talk page. Thanks. MathStatWoman 07:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the evidence in your case and find your statements unconvincing. You and your sockpuppets (DeveloperFrom1983, Amy Internet Avoider, and PreHistorian) all edit with the same style, keep the same (late) hours, and edit from the same IP addresses -- which appear to be residential DSL service. My deeper investigation confirms my original conclusion, rather than weakens it, and I am strongly tempted to block you for disrupting Misplaced Pages. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

MathStatWomen

While I do not now of the whole history behind the sockpuppetry incident, MathStatWomen has been making valuable contributions to mathematics articles. I would therefore kindly request you not to block her (unless (s)he becomes really distruptive (again)). Cheers, —Ruud 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me what to do

I was just about to add to the article on empirical processes. Then, I was planning to add to the article on shattering, and to begin a bio on one of the important researchers, R.M. Dudley, in the field of empirical processes. But if you want me to stop editing, I shall honor your wishes. So please let me know; I shall wait until you answer me. All I wanted to do was to help with mathematics articles, and a bit on others that are related to my hobbies, e.g. "B" movies, Macs, literature, etc. But what I told you was true; I have not used another user name. It is possible that I forgot to sign in now and then, but that would have been only an oversight. I am not the only person who has access to the computers that I use, and two of the offices/computer labs that I use are in what might be a "residential" setting, One of them is a tutoring center that is located in a shop located among houses and apartments, another is in a converted house and used by students and developers, another is affiliated with a small college, also located in a converted house near the college. Still other computers are in libraries that I visit, one of which is a very small neighborhood library. Students, their parents, visitors, poor people who cannot afford their own machine and want internet access, and serious researchers have access to these machines. My family, roommates, friends, friends of friends, and visitors, and I use the same laptops and desktops at our homes. I do not know who among them got onto Misplaced Pages, but I suspect that I might know who they are. This is the first I heard of Prehistorian or AmyInternetavoider, so far I was (unjustly) accused of being DeveloperFrom1983. Did they do something wrong too? If so, what? I might or might notbe able to find out who they are. About editing style being the same, I have observed similar editing styles among many groups of users who seem to form "style clusters" on the Misplaced Pages, so that is not "proof" that they are the same person.

So, I wanted to work on Misplaced Pages b/c I was enjoying it (until all this started), because I thought I might be helpful, and b/c I love to do and write about mathematics and other topics. If I did something wrong while editing articles, it was under this user name, and I meant no harm; I am just learning about Misplaced Pages, and I did not think it was fun to have another user get personal and call me names, which did happen. But I shall wait to hear from you before I do any other editing.

Although you might have evidence that some computer or service was used by several people, you cannot possibly have "proof" that I used other sign-in names, because it did not occur.

Please contact me on my user talk page. Thank you. MathStatWoman 17:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As the great Denis Healey was fond of saying "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging". And as Shakespeare wrote: "Methinks thou dost protest too much". In other words, the best thing now is probably just to forget about it, keep your head down and work on what you want to work on sensibly and quietly. It seems to me that the contributions to a number of mathematical articles you have made are great - not that I understand them to be honest - so I don't think there's a sufficiently good reason to ban you. Keep up that sort of contribution and you'll soon win many advocates and friends. Graham 23:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Backslash watch - Anonymous proxy vandalizing school article

Talk:Lewes Priory School#\"I may despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it\" - Voltaire / Talk:Lewes Priory School#School admins are abusing anonymous proxies. --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually having read it I just realized that all of the school IP range is blocked apparently to prevent possible vandalism from schools in the area - and it seems that both the admin and pupil are using proxies because of this --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Gibraltarian

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian

As per the request at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests, Uncle G's 'bot is ready to prepend this template to the talk pages for all IP addresses in 212.120.224.0/21. Just say the word. Uncle G 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

My request was not in bad faith. I have serious reasons to believe that at they are the same people and I would really ask you to check them. It is funny how you checked me but you did not check Irpen. In fact, I think that you are abusing your powers and you are the one acting in bad faith. I am not Bonaparte, I have not even spoken to the guy so please don't make comments like the one you did. Your job is to check IPs not to harass people even when found not guilty. Duca 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No rights

"This user understands that editors on Misplaced Pages have no rights except for the right to leave and the right to fork."

There is another very important right that you forgot: users still have copyright on any work submitted to Misplaced Pages, under GFDL license. There may be also some other rights that all Misplaced Pages users have. As such I find your userbox quite misleading, and the way it is worded ("this user understands") seems to imply that you actually don't understand Misplaced Pages policy, which I hope isn't true.  Grue  19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAITH

Snark has nothing to do with it. I never said you resigned because of the election, I only said you resigned during the election, which is verifiable fact. Please don't draw needless inference. Radiant_>|< 13:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not resign during an unsuccessful bid, which is what your edit claimed. I had already withdrawn before resigning, and further resigned for reasons not related to the election. Your statement was therefore technically incorrect. Furthermore, you know that pointing out that I resigned "during an unsuccessful bid" will have the effect of linking the two in the reader's mind. We don't list reasons for anybody else's resignations on that page. For you to decide that I, amongst all other former Arbitrators, deserve such "special consideration" most definitely gives one reason to question your good faith.

I close by quoting from WP:FAITH: "Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith." You may wish to contemplate on those words. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - rather than simply accept the fact that your election would not be succesful, you withdraw from the election while it is running, then resign from the ArbCom a few weeks before your term actually ended, and then claim you didn't resign during the election because you had withdrawn from the election before resigning. That's a lot of meaningless technicalities. I know you have a legal background but Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy.

I withdrew from the election because it was apparent that it would not be successful and that continuing in my bid would not be beneficial to Misplaced Pages; furthermore, my resolve for remaining an Arbitrator at that point was rather weak anyway. You may have noticed that I went 'away' from the ArbCom before the start of the elections, on the grounds that I was too busy at work and at home to spend enough time on ArbCom to do the position justice. I resigned because I did not envision that condition changing during the remainder of my term, in consultation with Jimbo. I've said all of this before, and I don't understand why I have to say it over and over again, just because certain people are not willing to accept my statements in the good faith that they are offered.

• Yes, I am aware of that. Given that, I find it mostly synonymous to the statement that you "resigned during an unsuccesful reelection bid" and I really don't see why you're making such a big deal out of it. Radiant_>|< 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And just for the record, how well have you contemplated WP:FAITH yourself? Judged by your reactions, you have been assuming the worst of me (and of several others) for several months now, suffering from the fundamental attribution error, and not generally considering if people disagreeing with you might actually have a point. You seem fond of proclaiming that you have the arrogance of someone who is usually right, but it appears that you lack the wisdom to realize it when you're not. Radiant_>|< 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. I've consulted with others who are held in trust not only by myself but, if the recently concluded elections are any indication, by the rest of the community, and I feel based on those consultations that my opinions of your opinions, and my evaluation of your general attitude, is appropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am aware that there are several people that get upset when their friends are criticized, and that given the factionalizing nature of WikiCulture that makes them dig in and discount everything the critic says, regardless of whether it's "omg rouge admin!!11!" or "this guy is doing a good job overall, except for this thing here". This is both stagnant and self-perpetuating. There are people that view the world as black-and-white, applaud the people they like regardless of what they do, and criticize the people they dislike regardless of what they do. I am not one of those people, and that means that I praise good actions even if made by bad editors, and criticize poor actions even if done by excellent editors. If that earns me the enmity of black-and-white thinkers, so be it. Radiant_>|< 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing what you believe is best for Misplaced Pages

I realise we don't always see eye to eye on what that might be, but I just wanted to say thanks for your extensive efforts, just the same. I am very sorry that things have turned out the way they have. You may not think much of me, if you think of me at all (I don't flatter myself to think I am anyone special) but I think very highly of you and wish you all the best. Here's hoping you have lots of happy editing in the future. No reply necessary. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RE.: Arbitration

How do I do this ? My first time being involved in this. Martial Law 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I do recomend that User:Beckjord be placed in a mentoring protocol that has no skeptics, since they set him off, and yet follow Wikipedian protocol. I, like him have seen some really strange things, but I don't let it get to me. My short time here will disqualify me to be a mentor at this time. Martial Law 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

All he has to do, is to look at things as a doctor or a police officer would, all in a NPOV manner, then Cite all sources. Martial Law 06:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kelly

• A) You resigned
• B) You wouldn't have passed the vote anyway.

...So, why are you now seeming to be doing things as an arbitrator? I looked through your contributions and its filled with all kinds of arbitration stuff. Everyking 05:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerk's office. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Another backslash-inserting vandal

This just popped up on my talk page. 65.129.181.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) went on a one minute vandalism spree today, inserting slashes. Also may be someone's reincarnation, as directed vandalism indicates. Could you investigate it? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerk's office

The Clerk's office has gone live and I set up a section of the talk page for applications, which are already coming in. As the chair, there's a few things you need to do now - once the number of applications tapers down, you need to submit a list of the ones you approve of to the mailing list. I suggest an initial group of a half-dozen, which we can expand later once things become more organized. Speaking of which, I have created Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerk's office/Organization for you to organize the clerks, once they are appointed. Raul654 16:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing my mistake

Hi, I'm not sure how I did it, but I accidentally editted the wrong page, a template. I couldn't figure out how to correct it, but you managed to. Thanks. --BostonMA 18:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my fault, I forgot to subst an ArbCom special use template. My bad. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Request to block vandal IP address

Hi Kelly, I notice that you are an admin, so perhaps you can help. I'm not sure of the appropriate way to handle this. If there is somewhere else I should go to deal with this sort of thing, let me know.

Anyway, IP address 24.189.163.184 has been engaging in anti-Tamil vandalism. See his/her "contributions" page. Thanks for your help. --BostonMA 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo quote

 "Misplaced Pages hlps make the internet not suck"

I disagree, and I note even on this page is a huge mismash pf users and non-reg users, complaining about you, Kelly, and the Committee. Like HUAC if you recall those days.

By allowing NON-experts to edit, you and JW open a can of worms. MNost of your arbitrati0n problems come from disaffected people resenting having their edits reverted, the entire wiki culture is a huge, weird, boiling soup of authoritarian types like you, play policeman over a bunch of kids with no quals.

Wiki needs to allow only qualified people with knowledge proven in the topic to edit.

Not just "anybody"..... Yea Gods!

soupersammy

Dyslexic agnostic and T-man

I see you opened and moved the material on this arbitration. There was also material on the talk page... will this be moved too? Can you explain what this arbitration means? Will there be submissions made by the parties? Thanks in advance for any information you can supply. Dyslexic agnostic 02:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yum.

Buffalo Trace Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey My new favorite bourbon. · Katefan0/mrp 03:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Opening of "Proposed Decision" pages

I've noticed that over the past few days, when you set up the "Proposed Decisions" page for new cases, the "Workshop" link in the "Motions and Requests by the Parties" section is broken - because you forgot to replace "(Name of case)" with the actual case name - I've had to correct that every time. Please remember to do this the next time you set up a PD page. --TML1988 03:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I thought there were only two locations on PD requiring substitution. I'll check the template over more closely. Thanks for noticing. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Lackey applications?

Not sure what there is below "Clerk" but, I've been following the discussions with interest and would like to help out. My personal caveat: I'm very new to Misplaced Pages. I've known about it for some time, but was really drawn into things back in the big Webcomics case. Since then, I've just been watching, quite often with fascination, much of the administrative process both in Arbcom, and ANI. The short of it is, I guess, I'm highly inspired by seeing admins who focus on doing what's right and setting policy that way, versus blindly following policy to try and find what's right.

By the way, I think the French and Russian judges were in cahoots and you we're definitly robbed of the gold.

Anyway, folks like yourself, Phil, Tony and more have inspired me to get myself involved in Misplaced Pages. I'm finding my way through editing articles, and I'm investigating member advocacy, but I'm still fascinated with the overall process of making this whole place, well, go. So, when I saw the Arbcom Clerk positions, I thought it'd be a great place for me to do this...but I still think I'm too new at this to apply. So, I'm approaching you as a sort of mentor. I plan to watch the new Arbcom and clerks, to learn more about the process. I'd also be happy to volunteer for any small tasks you might have...whatever I can do to help out you and the clerks. InkSplotch 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)