Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sdr (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 20 September 2006 (Attempted to repond concerning...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Kelly Martin/Vacation

Note: Please do not make requests for the use of CheckUser rights or administrative assistance here unless it's related to a matter I've already engaged in. Requests for checkuser go to WP:RFCU; requests for administrative assistance go to WP:AN. If you are here to ask about my candidacy for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, please ask here. Thank you for your cooperation.

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.

unblock request

please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:65.98.90.51 - thanks in advance

DevianTart

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

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

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

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

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

Do not let the clowns eat you

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

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

A Wilhelm Scream

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William H. Kennedy

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

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

Kosovo sockpuppetry

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

Quite enough, thank you!

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

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

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

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

Bishonen's response

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

User:Tao Ching unblock-en-l complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transparency

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attempted to repond concerning...

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

The comment I was responding to:

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

My reply:

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

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