Jump to content

User talk:Kelly Martin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wiki brah (talk | contribs) at 05:53, 8 January 2006 (→‎Tip jar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Kelly Martin/Vacation

Warning: Anyone caught making personal attacks of any editor other than myself, on this talk page, will be blocked. This is a nastiness-free zone. If you have something you need to say about another editor, say it politely, and address the comments to me, not to any other editor who may have written something on my talk page.
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Repeated accusations and harassment   2 August 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 31 July 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024
Motion name Date posted
Historical elections 21 July 2024

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.

Motion to provide voting rationale

Please see [1]. Thank you. Rangerdude 18:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Arbitration Committee procedure re request by RedWolf

Please note that the Arbitration Committee appears to have failed to follow standard procedure as seen here and notify User:RedWolf that his "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone has been accepted" and that he "Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence." Please ensure this is corrected. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to provide evidence for the ArbCom

Hello. I am writing in reaction to this edit of you to WP:RfAr on the request to arbitrate between R.Koot + Ems57fcva and CarlHewitt, in which you vote to accept the case and say that you "find this case confusing and hope that the Evidence pages will be less so". As I intend to give evidence in this case (supposing that it is accepted) and I have no experience in the arbitration procedure, I was wondering if you could please give some advice on how to do this beyond the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration policy and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence. It would probably be easiest for you and useful to me if you could just point to some section of an Evidence page that you like. Thank you. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wonderfool alias

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Another_Wonderfool_alias. Uncle G 16:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:RSPW Poster

The latest in a long line of pedantic DinkSocks is now endlessly reverting several pages, including my talk page (to restore his harassing comments, while deleting my note for admins left because of his actions under other accounts), Category:Von Erich wrestling family (where he insists in restoring a version with a superfluous link only because I'm the editor that fixed it), and KTVX (where he is now reverting to a version that uses an incorrect name for The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints, simply because I was the editor who corrected it. His contrib history as "RSPW Poster" speaks volumes regarding his intent. Thank you for your attention regarding this matter. Chadbryant 23:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We really should stop meeting like this -- people are going to talk!
Once again I must remind you that you have absolutely no evidence of who is a "pedantic DinkSock." You seem to have a drooling fascination with "DinkSock," whoever or whatever that is, so maybe you need to take a break, get some rest, and get that out of your system. I'm pasting in my remarks to you on your talk page because they deal directly with your immature and illegal behavior while here on Wikipedia -- if you have a problem with it, address them in a place other than the comments for "Edit summary" and perhaps you will stop seeing them show up. For now, it seems as if your only motivation for deleting them is to have a complete and total avoidance of the issues that they address -- which, while technically your right to do so due to it being YOUR User Talk page, is still a bit immature, deviant, and otherwise makes you look like some sort of petty jerk. Mind you I say LOOK like, as actually calling you one is a personal attack, and unlike you, I try to stay within the bounds of Wikipedia policy.
Also, as for the Von Erich entry, you have been warned on previous occassions by other Wikipedia administrators not to tamper with the forwarding of wrestling entries in regards to their stage names or their real names -- a fact that you seem to have chosen to disregard and blatantly ignore for your own deviant purposes. I would suggest that you leave this one alone, as it can only end badly for you. Now, for these other issues -- what in all the name that is Wikipedia makes you think that I made the edits because YOU were the one who made them in the first place? This is paranoia and if you are unsure as to why I state that, perhaps you should peruse the entry on Wikipedia for better clarification? MY contrib history speaks for my intent? Holy shit, you are quite the hypocrite, as evidenced when someone takes a look at YOURS. This is all petty, immature, and, most importantly, stupid and pointless, and it would benefit you in many ways to simply walk away now while you can still do so without limping! -- RSPW Poster
FYI- I just blocked RSPW Poster for 48 hours for incivility, eg [2], vandalism, eg [3], and edit warring in ChadBryant's userspace, see [4]. I warned him about incivility and edit warring more than a week ago. Dmcdevit·t 02:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly

Is that really you and your daughter? Mousha Pippick 02:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Ye'or

Dhimmi (talk · contribs) is continuing his reverts with the pseudonym issue. --CltFn 16:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And where might this reference be?--CltFn 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom: Neuro-linguistic programming

Kelly,

This case is being documented. Its messy due to the sheer volume of what's gone on and trying to present it in the least confusing way possible. Also my personal life is getting in the way a bit too.

I'm sorry it's taking so long. I wanted just to let you (and via you the rest of ArbCom) know, so that there wasn't a question whether it is intended to proceed with the case.

Right now in preparing the case it seems there have been not just the original 6 or 8, but in fact a variable group of around 15 and 20 sockpuppets or meatpuppets in a 4 months period. Many of these are either no longer active or have switched names (we don't know which), but new ones still turn up to complicate matters. Distilling it to a reasonable size and a logical rational and easy to review single page, complete with diffs, isn't difficult, but has taken a lot of time. It's getting there shortly but will probably be about a week or 10 days longer.

Thank you for your understanding and patience, it's much appreciated.

FT2

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my mistake on S1066 page; don't know how this happened. I must be partly stunned by the near-complete absence of anon vandalism. :) Lectonar 13:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, picking you up on this, have you too got the impression that we have much more new users created now after the anon-accounts are being prevented from creating new pages (IMHO, the vandals now hop from newly created account to newly created account to vandalise the same article (see the history of Angela Merkel, e.g.) which makes vandal fighting and spotting much more tedious...). Sorry to bother you with this, I'm just interested and didn't want to jump on the admin pages or the village pump; after all, it may be to early to discern a pattern... Lectonar 14:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for that, so for once the personal impression is not biased... Lectonar 15:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

toolserver

hi. please mail me (keturner [at] livejournal.com) an SSH key and username for the toolserver, and make an edit to this page to confirm it's yours. thanks, kate.

On their way. Thanks. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check User

Hi Kelly, I'd like to request that check user be run on some ip's. Is there a page to do this, or is your talk page the right place? How far back in time should I go collecting the various ip's to check? How many can you check (is the check run on one ip at a time, or several)?

I'd like to see if various Earthlink ip's (related by their editing histories) have a user account. This is for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier. -thanks --Duk 23:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelly, Did you see my message? I see you've answered other people since I left it. Anyway, I'd appreciate your help here. thanks --Duk 06:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking for me to do with that request. Can you be more specific? Kelly Martin (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure!
How do I get the ball rolling on a check user request. I went to your page because you were the first listed at [5]
A series of anons from Earthlink is accused of inserting copyright violation into Winter Soldier Investigation. I'd like to do a check-user on the addresses, but need some help forming the request (per above). I understand if you are too busy, just say so and I'll go to the next person on the list. --Duk 06:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomics ArbCom Case

I notice you disagreed with a lot of what I've said on the Webcomics ArbCom page, and in particular I seem to have made some suggestions about findings of fact that were actually contrary to how ArbCom usually does business. My experience in this arena is rather limited. I've been trying to defend some users who I felt were under-represented in the same manner in which they seemed to be being "prosecuted," but I now wonder if that was the wrong thing to do. If you have any suggestions for me about the manner in which I make further contributions to the workshop page, I would very much appreciate them. -- SCZenz 04:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CVU talk page template

The thing is this is in the talk page on articles that are already hammered by vandalism. The problem of being quiet is CNN reporters being unaware of our existance. Being brodcasted on national TV as an "uncredible source" and that "we aren't making an effort to prevent such incidents" is very very bad publicity for wikipedia. There is no reason to hide the fact that George W. Bush is getting hammered on a hourly (or much less) basis and that RC patrolers are watching, reviewing, reverting.

When someone is repetively accused/declared of assasinating JFK and are unaware of our existance they rightfully think we tollerate such nonsense on wikipedia as they are unaware of RC patrolers. Of course the template wont scare away the vandals but it will definately contain the apathy of CNN reporters whom (from what I understand from the CNN transcript) are also subject to random accusations. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr request

(crossposted from Talk:RfAr)

A request about the Ben Gatti case

Didn't know where else to put this, so I'll put it here. I request that the case be retitled to just Ben Gatti and that zen master be excluded. I'm arguing for this because this case is about Ben Gatti, NOT about Price-Anderson. Our side has absolutely no intention of bringing up the issues that are involved in Price-Anderson. None. You guys don't take content disputes and this is not a content dispute. By including Price-Anderson, Ben is trying to muddy the issue and make it less about him and more about P-A. This case is about him NOT price-anderson so I request that it be titled just Benjamin Gatti. the precedent here is to name cases after the user involved, not the articles involved. As for zen master, he's been involved in P-A for less than a week. And as far as I know, his involvement as a party to this case is only to argue on Ben's side for Price-Anderson Act. Well if this case is about Ben and not P-A, then I don't see how zen is involved unless he's going to defend Ben's actions. If he is, I can see why he can stay. Otherwise, I don't think he's a party to this dispute. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, Ben has retitled it to include all parties. I still don't think that's correct. I see no charges against Simesa, katefan, I or zen. It's all Ben. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another request. Could you unrevert the comments of Kaosworks - He's an admin, also a legal scholar and gets it. Others might not, and god save the plebs who would take it seriously. Benjamin Gatti 05:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See what I mean? Benjamin Gatti 14:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Evidence

Hi, I am sick of this mess so I didn't want to take the time to gather and present formal evidence, but FYI, I left an extended comment on the talk page in which I tried to summarize why I also have concluded that Carl Hewitt is a problem user who should be banned from editing (at least, from editing the math/physics article space, if that level of specificity is even technically possible, which AFAIK is not the case). Good luck. ---CH 02:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to barge in here again, but User:Chalst moved my comment someplace mysterious. The original is here ---CH 09:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppet#Dealing_with_suspicion

Since you were mentioned there in responce to my querry, I thought I could ask you for a comment on this issue. Section is (so far) fairly short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet check request

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I'd like to request a sockpuppet check on Mpaks (talk · contribs), whom I believe to be currently banned user Iasson (talk · contribs). I base this on the user's first two edits being to revert Iasson's user and RFC talk pages to a state that Iasson and his sockpuppets have constantly been reverting to, as well as his third edit, to the user page of an Iasson sockpuppet. And yes, I found his fourth edit personally annoying.

I used to have a list of Iasson IPs (the only one I dug up on a quick search was ((User|146.124.141.250}}, but he's likely to be using a Greece-based IP. --Calton | Talk 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User-check request

Kelly, would it be possible to have a user check on User:RachelBrown, User:Poetlister, and User: 81.153.41.72? I believe the anon IP has said somewhere that she is Lisa, RachelBrown's flatmate. The reason I'm requesting it is that they're involved in disputes about some Lists of ... pages e.g. List of Jewish jurists and List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, though I'm uncertain of the details, and they may not be at fault. The accounts are editing as though operated by three people, backing each other up on talk pages, reverting against other editors, and requesting mediation, but the "voice" is suggestive of one user. On one occasion, they engaged in a series of reverts that would have been a 3RR violation had the accounts been operated by one user, and two of the edit summaries suggested that in fact they were. [6] [7] I'm hoping a check might clear up any confusion. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that User:RachelBrown, partly due to SlimVirgin, has now ceased to be a Wikipedia editor. - Poetlister 18:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine appears to have stalled. In the meantime, wholly independently, and coming upon this dispute by another route entirely, I have proposed a solution to the perennial neutrality dispute that appears to underpin this conflict on Talk:Criticisms of communism#NPOV. Both sides appear to have at least accepted the idea in principle, but have become stalled. The Arbitration Committee giving them a little encouragement, and perhaps a tiny push to get them over the initial hump and into the process of actually working, might help. Uncle G 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moo to you too!

Just a friendly Moo! from a Got Milk? aficiando on IRC (Mukluk_Kanuck) Barry Wells 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for IP check

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zatanna&action=history

Is User:DrBat the anon User:200.162.245.104, given the mess on that page? - SoM 16:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. All of DrBat's IPs are in Boston; the anon you list is in Brazil. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser and possible followup

Note recent charming pagemove vandalism twice in quick succession:

In one of his earlier edits, BillRoller mentions he is posting to Wikipedia from work: [8]

Can you do a checkuser to see if these two users are the same person (or same workplace), and possibly undertake followup as you see fit. -- Curps 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly add:

who may the the same or just a follow-on copycat. -- Curps 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of these users are the same person. Mustanglover used two different IP addresses both allocated to different webhosting facilities, which in my experience means that they're using compromised hosting servers. I have blocked both addresses, 72.22.69.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also used by NataIina smpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Brithackemack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both currently indefinitely blocked) and 72.36.221.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The other two users are clearly distinct both from Mustanglover and from each other. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another detail

Sorry to bug you again, but I noticed:

Mustanglover69 was blocked almost immediately as a vandal, while Mustanglover was a sleeper that waited until it could do pagemove vandalism.

Today we had:

WillemJokerr was blocked almost immediately as a George W. Bush anti-Jimbo vandal, WillemJoker hasn't done anything yet, as I write this.

A similar situation? Accounts created minutes apart, the second account is an immediate vandal, while the first account could be a sleeper, or it could be an innocent user whose name the vandal imitated, perhaps with an aim to get us to start preemptively blocking innocent users.

So does checkuser provide any enlightenment here? How about Mustanglover/Mustanglover69, now known to both be vandals, undoubtedly related, but does checkuser tell us this? -- Curps 07:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MustangLover69 (who shows no edits, although I suppose they may have been deleted; there is currently no way for me to get IP information on edits which have been deleted), was using an SBC PPPoX pool address (68.122.119.83), which basically means we know nothing about him. I suspect that they're the same person, and that the SBC PPPoX pool address is the address of a compromised machine as well, but it's on dialup or some other sort of connection that will move from time to time so we can't block it the way we can block the members of their botnet that are on static IPs.
WillemJokerr is also using a SBC PPPoX pool address (68.124.190.85). I think both of these are in the same general geographic area, so they're likely the same endpoint. This IP is also responsible for Jswannar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who I have now blocked) and This will help us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has already been blocked). We're obviously going to have to keep an eye on these SBC PPPoX pool blocks for a while.
WillemJoker was created from 144.132.247.110, which belongs to Telstra. There is one other edit from this IP, made anonymously, which appears to be legitimate. At this point I don't know if there's a connection. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, Mustanglover69's single edit was pretty much the same as WillemJokerr's single edit, only the latter hasn't (yet?) been purged from the database. Namely Jimbo-Wales-personal-information-edit-summary vandalism at George W. Bush. -- Curps 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's a story that made the rounds of various blogs yesterday: the guy who runs Second Life (some kind of online community) is apparently siccing the FBI on some vandals who disrupted his site. [13] Perhaps the FBI will give him the brushoff, but it would be an interesting development. -- Curps 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mcfly85

Hi there David, Im SWD316. I am informing all the users with the checkuser ability under "advice" given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85. This user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. (ex. Rock09, 4benson3, Capnoh, Oneandon, Sigma995, Sven66 and Pwner.) A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. Can you please run a CheckUser on him? SWD316 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a question of copyrights

Would it be a no-no to add part of the Nutuk speech or even the whole thing to the article--Kross | Talk 04:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)?[reply]

Those backslashes

216.255.176.250 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log) is adding those backslashes before quote marks ([14]). I've indef blocked, putting {{CompromisedWebHost}} on the talk page, and I'll leave it to you to take the appropriate action. Canderson7 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church Talk 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just an alert

I know the arbcom is very busy right now, but just alerting you that we do have a temp injunction request in the Ben Gatti case. Been there for a week now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And look at this. Action would be appreciated. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock attack

We've got a vandal coming in on at least a dozen IPs - Ropo (talk · contribs) and assorted socks. Please take a look at it. Radiant_>|< 03:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AOL user. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on steward elections

I was recently approached to consider running for Steward. I have elected not to do so at this time, for three reasons. One, I am not sufficiently multilingual, which is considered a requirement of the position. Second, I am not sufficiently active on Meta (I simply don't have time to spend a lot of time there). Third, I feel that seeking stewardship so soon after a failed request for bureaucrat on en would be viewed (by some, at least) as a continuation of the "power grab" that I am alleged to be engaged in. While I personally think I would make a decently good steward, I feel that a candidacy at this time would not be in the best interest of the Wikimedia project. Maybe next year. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image tags and licensing

I see you created {{CommunityUseOnly}} several months ago. You might be interested in the proposal at Wikipedia:Restricted image licenses. Your views would be welcome. DES (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Willies

Hi, I am noticed that there is a new user User:Sleeping Willies - the name sounds like Willy on Wheels ... u might want to check it out. Regards, --Hurricane111 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfArb query

Opinion I know that you are under no obligation to discuss your vote in my RfC, but I really don't get it. You say that "no attempt to remedy conduct issues", and yet in the section "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried", I summarised 5 points, of which 4 are taken directly from dispute resolution page, together with links showing exacty where they occured, including TWO RfC's? What am I missing? (cc. Raul654) --Iantresman 20:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DrBat arbcom request

Hi,

You commented, "undecided. I don't understand how this fails to fall within the scope of our prior order. Perhaps this should be brought as a summary motion to expand scope instead of a full hearing?"

Questions -

  1. Is there a different procedure to expand scope and enforcement? I agree, a full hearing doesn't seem needed. It's just scope and enforcement. If there is a difference or a different procedure, could you clarify briefly for me, as I'm unaware and it would be useful to understand better.
  2. I am unclear if your comment means that you don't understand (a) how it fails to be adequately covered already, or (b) how it fails to be appropriate to request, given the previous ruling.

Part of the problem is, that the understanding stated by one ArbCom member regarding the previous ruling is incorrect. The ruling was drawn up in an extremely limited manner that did not prevent abuse, and even so that ruling has been breached. This was a fear of the original proposers of that request who forsaw that he would be unable to resist returning to the subject. The previous ruling covers only "closely related articles", nor is there any significant enforcement or deterrent power given, the only enforcement allowed is a maximum 24 hour ban.

In view of his extreme past and renewed activites, and repeated breach since November, and again even after the ArbCom request was posted, the request is basically that ArbCom reviews and updates the ruling so that DrBat can actually be prevented from such edits on the subjects in future, whatever article they may be in, and editors have an effective enforcement/deterrent power if he should violate the ruling.

With thanks, FT2 21:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

image upload vandalism checkuser

Hello,

Today a bunch of sockpuppets have overwritten images with crudely photoshopped images. These include:

These mostly seem to have been created within a few hours of one another on December 19. Perhaps there are more socks that you could catch and block with checkuser.

In most cases you'd have to look at Special:Log/upload for their handiwork, since it doesn't show up in the other logs, or it's briefly visible at Special:Newimages before someone reverts the image back to the original version.

Regarding e-mail notification, I think that's a bit complicated to implement. However, many of your Willy proxies detected by checkuser (mentioned at WP:AN/I) had already been blocked by myself and others, which suggests that the block log itself could be a rich source of usernames to mine systematically with checkuser, in order to find open proxies and compromised hosts. A sample of recent blocks by me is here, naturally many of them were routine vandalism but many others are obvious Willy-type names.

Sockpuppet checkuser request

I've been trying to get someone with CheckUser powers to do some sockpuppet checks, but apparently my making such requests makes people fall off the face of the earth. Beware! Nevertheless, here is the request I have been making:


To make a long story short, a couple of us were suspecting that some users that suddenly appeared out of nowhere making trouble and backing each other up were sockpuppets, and, it turns out, they more or less incriminated themselves. Read all about the festivities at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections, something one of them started in support of the other (sorry that there's a lot of unrelated stuff there), and the initial suspicions at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". But now that these first two basically incriminated themselves, we need to check on a few other users that also aroused suspicion before going around slapping sockpuppet tags on pages. I simply request a yes or no answer to a simple question: are these people from Denver (or the surrounding area in Colorado) too? Of course, if you do find some kind of smoking gun, that would be of utmost interest. Following is the list:

Retcon
Missionary
Netministrator
Cairoi
bUcKaRoO
Duffer1
Kool8
DannyMuse
IP law girl
Cobaltbluetony
Elgoodo
Steven Wingerter
Lucille S

I would personally doubt that every single one of those is actually a sockpuppet, but I only seek the yes or no answer to that one question (barring a smoking gun(s) of some kind), nothing that is especially useful to anybody for anything other than confirming or quelling suspicions of sockpuppetry. Thanks.Tommstein 11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retcon (talk · contribs), Missionary (talk · contribs), Netministrator (talk · contribs), and Steven Wingerter (talk · contribs) are pretty certainly all the same person, along with Satrap (talk · contribs), IP Law Girl (talk · contribs), and Tomnstein (talk · contribs) (none of which you listed). The others all appear to be distinct individuals. I am somewhat concerned about there being both a IP Law Girl and a IP law girl as that suggests impersonation; the same can be said of Tomnstein (impersonating user:Tommstein). . Kelly Martin (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to thank you profusely. I would do a happy dance in your honor, but you wouldn't be able to see it, and I would feel silly. Do you mind random people putting barnstars on your page?Tommstein 19:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also wish to thank you Kelly, I suspected most of those you have revealed, and it's wonderful to see this problem get some kind of resolution, as that new user seemed to be multiplying out of control with so many IDs it was getting stupid. Thanks again for your time in resolving this problem, regards. Central 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meals-on-Wheels of White Plains

Hi Kelly, I ran across this user name during my RC patrol. I had reported this name in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism as a suspected sock puppet. Admin User:Marudubshinki dismissed the claim stating "meals on wheel-s hasn't done anything and user name does not violate policy. nto warned either". I disagreed with his assessment. Anyways, I hope that you can keep an eye on this account to see whether it is used for Willy on Wheels. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, --Hurricane111 16:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Account creation logs suggest that this account is unrelated to Willy on Wheels. I would class this account as legitimate. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. I'll be passing through your part of the world tomorrow, so I'll keep and eye out for you - wave if you see me ;) Guettarda 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Today's pagemoves

There were a number of pagemove vandals today:

See also:

Perhaps checkuser will turn up a few more socks and open proxies. -- Curps 19:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it seems there is no more time delay between registering a username and being able to do page moves. A username like "Guillermo con sus ruedas" ("Willy with his Wheels" in Spanish) would normally have been blocked long before it could do any pagemoves, but this time it was able to do so immediately. -- Curps 19:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all of these were AOL accounts. The devs need to make fixing this a crash priority. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemove vandal User:76 Circles

76_Circles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sleeper created back on November 2. Checkuser perhaps? -- Curps 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had blocked the IP this user used today on a previous day, but the block was mysteriously removed (perhaps by the autoblocker). That's a bug that really needs to be looked at; the autoblocker should not be able to shorten a block. CheckUser evidence doesn't go back to November 2 so I can't hit the collaterals. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible open proxy

Since you like busting open proxies by using checkuser, you might be interested on this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I\'m User:JackSarfatti under a new name. --cesarb 19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind yet firm handling of the situation

Kelly, I have decided to distance myself from Wikipedia as an active contributor, as both the main account and addt'l ones have been tarnished by irreprehensible behaviour on my part. Your fair and balanced handling of this matter relieved a huge burden from my shoulders which cowardly fear on my part had placed there. And your appeal to fellow editors to accept me once more in good faith...words cannot begin to convey my deep appreciation. It was more than I frankly deserved. Regards. Retcon 06:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bans lifted

I thought that I would advise you that the bans on User:Poetlister, User:Newport, User:Taxwoman and User:Londoneye were all lifted yesterday by User:Dan100 for the reason of "no evidence", and he has since begun an investigation in to the matter, and is gathering evidence. As he is independent to the matter, and you were directly involved (by receiving the initial request from SlimVirgin to CheckUser the IPs #User-check_request), you may wish to contact him regarding the case. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Merry Christmas Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence on RachelBrown et al.

There is, in my opinion, solid evidence to support the allegations of sockpuppetry, based on CheckUser evidence. However, that evidence is private and cannot be published without breaching the policy we have on CheckUser data. The fact remains that for you to state that there is no evidence fails to assume good faith on your part. I think you are treading on treacherous ground here. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, one of the accounts is a sock (Newport) but the rest are genuine editors who happen to know each other in real life. From I've learned of the Checkuser results, several of these accounts once edited from the same computer. For people who live near each other and are friends, I don't think it's unexpected for them share a computer at some stage.
Further, all the accounts (apart from Newport) have very different edit histories and areas of expertise, and have been making good edits. Quite apart from anything else, Wikipedia the encyclopedia will suffer without those editors.
Finally, the blocking policy only allows for the blocking of socks when they are being used to violate policy. As far as I can see, that's not happened. None of the other accounts have been used for anything else that could justify a ban.
Have a happy and peaceful Christmas, Dan100 (Talk) 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "once edited from the same computer"; there is an ongoing pattern of edits by multiple accounts from the same group of computers (both work and home). I think it is unreasonable to say that there is "no evidence" as there clearly is evidence. Your argument should not be that there is no evidence, but that you think that there is countervailing evidence based on edit content (which I did not review, since I was merely asked to review the CheckUser evidence). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is some evidence of sock puppetry, that IPs have been shared, and that one of the accounts can certainly be viewed as a sock puppet (Newport). Dan100 (Talk) 17:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
note that the account User:Newport was created after User:RachelBrown left. It is a friend of Rachel who offered to carry on creating the articles which Rachel had intended to create but unfortunately could not due to the stress which all this has caused her. The other users may have voted on the same vfds relating to Jewish articles but this was only after they and many other users suspected sock puppeting of one user to try to force the deletion of these lists, which I later confirmed to be the case at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote. I have seen many people leaving messages on other users talk pages all the time requesting votes on vfds and I haven't seen criticism except in the case of indiscriminate spamming (i.e. sending messages to all Wikipedian Catholics asking to vote on anti-abortion or gay articles). Surely, all accounts, if they are not one person and have not just signed up to Wikipedia to help a friend should be allowed to express an opinion on vfds? Arniep 22:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

User:Canaen was using extensive PA on Veganism. Well then he sent out a meatpuppet request at several websites. Well now, poor User:Viriditas is getting nailed by attacks, Canaen's RfC is being constantly blanked and the IPs are nailing Veganism hard. Could you do a checkuser to see if Canaen is using the IPs of 195.82.106.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 195.82.106.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 212.18.228.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 195.82.106.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It's a last resort kind of request. Nothing else is deterring the vandals. We'd rather not semi protect Canaen's RfC if it can be helped. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Kelly Martin! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what's this deal with Karmafist?

at WP:RFAr, you noted:

"All the evidence I see is that he is simply not fit to be an admin."

to which i wonder: why is this not abundantly evident to the other ArbCom members (save Fred) or to the other admins? i just don't get it. the malignancy is so apparent that i'm just incredulous that there is any question. (my RFAr is dead anyway with 5 opposed, so i thought it would be safe to make this comment to your page without being guilty of ex-parte influence.) have a very merry Christmas holiday. r b-j 04:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

backslash-proxy vandal

Has the characteristic \', seems like another open proxy to block. -- Curps 06:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final statement

I have revised my final statement in regards to Nobs01 and others, please have a look if you have the interest. Cheers, Sam Spade 07:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome on Wikisource

Hi Kelly, there is a welcome awaiting you on your Wikisource talk page. Kind regards. Apwoolrich 15:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack Violations for User Tommstein

Kelly, I would like to respectfully advise you that the user known as Tommstein contrib appears to be violating to three areas of No Personal Attacks Policy. He has been repeatedly warned by a few fellow editors that they would be monitoring his interactions carefully. I hesitate to address this as I myself am an individual who had violated a policy here and then was not completely forthcoming in my initial apology, which I regret. However, for the sake of other editors, not myself (I deserve it for my own actions) and in line with your comments addressed to Tommstein, I would like to submit a listing of several comments he has made which I IMHO perceive as directly violating the policy in question. Thank you for your time in reviewing this list.

  • Negative personal comments & "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

“stop giving pubescent 15-year olds administrative powers” "half a day has been pissed away because of administrator laziness" “punk” “revert ignorance” “demonstrating him to be full of crap” "you're just flinging crap all over the walls" “Cairoi's dumbass threat” "Just for asking that dumbass ad hominem question" “Stupidity is not a defense” "idiotic, factless, rambling"

  • Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.

“Watchtower Society has told them they are to think is just some stupid dumbass” “refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as 'ignorant numbnuts'” "part of your religious shunning bullcrap" "Go find some old lady to preach to that you can try to abuse into submission like a good Jehovah's Witness, or kick your dog, or beat your wife or kids or something" "Kiss my ass, Watch Tower"

  • Profanity directed against another contributor

“bastard” ”numbnut” "you're an illiterate dumbass" "some people here...check whether they made an ass of themselves"

More examples available upon request. Retcon 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so is this what we're doing, absolutely nothing but trying to get other users banned by posting the same complaint on every other page on Wikipedia, and, when the complaints are ignored, continuing to repost them repeatedly? Let me know if we are in fact in full let's-find-everything-they've-ever-done witchhunt mode, because I know I could fill several pages with choice out-of-context (sometimes only one word) and even not-out-of-context quotes myself if that's what we're doing now.Tommstein 06:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly, I assure that what the user above has posted is only the tip of the iceberg. On top of Tomm's verbal abuse of every editing, and non-editing, Jehovah's Witness, (and extreme prejudice against the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society) his "contributions" are scewed to the point of nonsense and/or outright lies and misrepresentations of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, teachings, and doctrines. I'm tired of his abuse (and user:Central's), which you only experienced in a very small amount. The situation on the JW (and related pages) page is already out of control. I've submitted only the latest wars to the Mediation Cabal, but due to the extent of the situation, official input will likely be necessary. I've started the conflict resolution process (as I finally got the time, and internet connection to do so, plus I'm the ONLY active editing Jehovah's Witness lately or this likely would have been done alot sooner). I'm only posting this here as Retcon already has, plus you've had personal experience with Tomm. Your suspicion of his behavior is well founded and I encourage you to investigate further, if you have the time. I suspect you are very busy, and like I have already said, we have started the mediation process. I just don't want the situation on the Jehovah's Witness page to get even more out of hand. Duffer 12:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you believe that your edit history has been deleted or something.Tommstein 04:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no other recourse short of directly applying for investigation of a user directly to an administrator's discussion page? It looks like the above edit war mentioned may be settled soon, however it did/does not address the distress and disruption that user:Tommstein (and to a lesser degree, though that's not saying much, user:Central) persists in. His non-stop verbal abuse is almost always not in response to provocation, it's just how he chooses to speak to people he does not agree with, and he's been told this many, many times by biased, and unbiased Wiki users (even yourself User talk:Tommstein#Comment). I don't know how else to make this issue known, mediation doesn't cover it, and arbitration requires previous mediation (according to conflict resolution page). Duffer 05:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As promised, I refer all interested parties to see the other side of the story: User:Tommstein/List of Personal Attacks, Civility Breaches, Good Faith Violations, etc. by Jehovah's Witnesses.Tommstein 16:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open Proxy issue

I know you've been doing alot of 'open proxy' hunting lately so I thought you might want to look into this issue about the United Arab Emirates apparently being blocked. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yarak sock-puppet

Yarak appears to be Thrax's newest sockpuppet contribs. Can you check and notify Bishonen? Thanks. --Macrakis 16:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another

I've blocked User:WikipediaHasLostItsCredibility, contribs, as a probable Thrax sock. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And another

I've blocked User:WikipediaIsAJoke. Bishonen | talk 00:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thrax appeals

Thrax wishes to appeal against his block because it was made in violation of Wikipedia rules in order to gain advantage for one side in a content dispute as can be seen from the repeated unjustified reversion and deletions of his contributions to both the subject page and the discussion page (for which he has provided credible sources and scientific citations) in order to prevent anyone who shares his opinion from reading them and agreeing with him and in order to prevent discussion of alternative theories that do not agree with the so-called reconstructed pronunciation of ancient Greek. The fact that he is unfairly blocked prevents him from saying this himself and that's why he was blocked. --HereWeGoAgain 00:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the block message tells you, and as I've told you, you're free to use the Wikipedia e-mail feature to contact any users, so you are by no means "forced" to use sockpuppets. You may remember I specifically recommended you to e-mail Kelly Martin. Note that you can also edit your own talkpage. You can also write to the Mailing list to contest a block. All this as "Thrax". Bishonen | talk 01:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another assumed Thrax sock

I've blocked User:AskMelegi. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

does this mean that nothing is done about Karmafist?

i noticed that motion to desysop Karmafist was removed and not placed in the rejected bin and i cannot find anywhere else it lives. does this mean that this abusive, hypocritical, and unrepentant admin is off the hook again? does Wikipedia officially approve of this? what will it take to desysop him - a personal attack on Jimbo? (i know you were one who was able to see the obvious, that he is simply not fit for the authority vested upon him.)

dismayed and astonished. r b-j 21:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dismayed and astonished that you haven't been banned yet for wiki-stalking and personal attacks yet, "BJ". --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 21:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Miss Martin, I was certainly not attempting to be impolite to you, but I must address others properly. Nonetheless, I apologise if I offended you--Anglius 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several comments from AndriyK concerning the arbitration

  1. The Arbitration Committee is going to punish me for something what was (and stil is!) not forbidden by any rules (creating artificial histories of redirect pages). I did it to prevent disrupting Wikipedia and violating the Policies. Why not simply to say "do not do it anymore" instead of punish me for something which is not forbidden? How could I know that I was not allowed to do it if none of the policies forbids it?
  2. In view of the Arbitration Committee, the existing policy about Ukrainian geografic names do not address the question of names associated with the Kievan Rus. How could I know it? There is no any restrictions to particular historical period in the policy about Ukrainian names. How could I know that spelling of Ukrainian names in Wikipedia should be different from Britannica and other English language encyclopedias? Which policy says it? It seem the policy states the opposite.
  3. It's very funny that for a single revert of copivio article made by mistake I will get the same punishment ("Warning") as Ghirlandago will get for multiple insultigs and personal attack made on purpose!
  4. It's very surprising if I will be forbidden to correct Ukrainian names and those who were distorting them and ignoring the naming convention are allowed to do it further.
  5. It's very strange that multiple edist of my opponents that disrupted Wikipedia: broken links, sneaky vandalism, POV-pushing etc. were completely ignored by the Arbitration Committee.
  6. The group of users that has been squeezing Ukrainian editors out of the Community by persisting and scoffing trolling, insulting and personal attacks now is about to succseed to use the Arbitration Committee for this purpose. I called this group "Russian Mafia". It was not a personal attack. It was merely a stating of the fact. Is there a more appropriate name? I do not think so.
  7. The Arbitration Committee voted for decissions that were not discussed in the Worshop. And if any of them were discussed, the discussion has been ignored. As the result, the decissions contradict each other. The proposed enforcement #1 refers to Russian names, while #2 refers to Ukrainian names. What have I to do with Russian names? I did not change a single Russian name since I am here. What is the reason for this strange decision about Russian names? Can somebody explain me?
  8. Nearly all my statements, comments, evidence, proposal were ignored. It would be OK if the Arbitration Committee would discuss them and then reject. At least I would see a fair procedure. But I did not see anything but silent voting.

Even a serial killer has a right to be heard in the court. You deprive me of this right just for the attempt to protect Wikipedia against pushing of Russian POV and distorting Ukrainian names!--AndriyK 21:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silly templates

If you're tired of silly user templates, please take a look at Category:Wikipedians_by_stuff. Radiant_>|< 14:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing RFAr Motion

In the interest of fairness; your statement that you can find no non-edit war article edits by him in December is inaccurate. Prior to December 10th there were many ([15], [16], [17], Tim Tolkien, et cetera). Since then only this one. I'd also suggest that 'wikistalking' ought to require active disruption of the person's efforts to contribute rather than just complaining/noting every time they make negative comments about you. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is active disruption -- voting on Locke Cole's RfA before it was linked strongly suggests that he's monitoring Karmafist's contributions closely, which he has no legitimate reason to be doing. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Monitoring is not disruptive. Contrib logs are public for good reason. Radiant_>|< 19:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It becomes disruptive when he bases edits on what he finds while monitoring and those edits are disruptive. Anyway, I remain unconvinced that this editor brings enough value to Wikipedia to continue to entertain his presence here. One of the main failings of voluntary organizations, and the fault most likely to cause their eventual failure, is failing to recognize when it is appropriate to exclude a disruptive member. Wikipedia needs to be willing to exclude disruptive members. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== You have this a personal attack against me ==

The admins here have recently elected to begin deleting my userboxes and targeting my templates in what seems like a political message that may give the impression that Wikipedia is anti-American. User box templates of User:PeterZed were deleted without warning and commented upon by an administrator that indicates a very anti-US bias on the part of Wikipedia.

Also, I hardly believe calling US-themed user boxes "stupid" is civil behaviour for a citizen of Wikipedia who is supposedly striving to keep the application of policies uniform. Are you also going to delete those user boxes found here also: User:Knowledge_Seeker??? I suppose it is okay to be a fan of Star Trek on Wikipedia, but NOT a supporter of the United States? What gives? Why do some people have the right to freedom of belief and expression here but others do not? Why is it okay to identify yourself through a userbox as a user of the Firefox browser but it is not okay to identify yourself as a drinker of Coca-Cola or as a user of Taco Bell?

Please clarify this matter with other admins or, in fairness, delete all userboxes. If equality of adminship is what is being sought, than Wikipedia executives should seriously consider what message they are sending by deleting the contributions of some individuals who wish to express an affinity for a particular organization while keeping the submissions of other questionable organizations - I'm specifically pointing to contributions of supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, a known terrorist organization.

It is becoming clear that Wikipedia itself is becoming an international security risk and should be blocked from some legal jurisdictions before these matters in question can be settled. You have users User:SimonP posting addresses of North American embassies and identifying themselves with the logo of the incorporated city of Ottawa, Canada when they may or may not be affiliated with said organization. Please clarify and comment. PeterZed 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PeterZed's templates

Don't delete these templates out of process. Similar userboxes already exist and if you want these deleted, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is the place for that.  Grue  23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Screw process. Those templates are crap and should be deleted. No point in wasting TfD's time with them. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why these templates are "crap" and in what way they're worse than Template:User browser:Opera. You have 24 hours in which to explain why -- otherwise I'll file an RfC against you for abuse of administrative authority, violation of WP:AGF and harassment of users.  Grue  08:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also Template:User democrat for political-related userbox template. I don't see at all how advertising Opera browser and Democratic Party is acceptable, but advertising Intel and supporting US troops is not.  Grue  09:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I wrote here? Stop abusing the process. You have no right to delete these templates. And no, WP:IAR doesn't apply here.  Grue  20:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your only answer has been "process has not been followed" and does not go to the merits of the deletion at all. I'm sorry, but putting process over result is just wrong. As to the Democrats template, it should be deleted too, per recent comments by Jimbo. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted a number of templates, and have upset a large number of Wikipedia editors in the process. Taking the templates through the TfD process would be a more civil and appropriate way to resolve your concerns. You have broken the bond of trust that we all hope to share on Wikipedia - I would suggest that you take action to restore the deleted templates and then nominate them in the proper manner. --Dschor 11:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo death threat

I posted about this to WP:AN/I already.

Here

-- Curps 22:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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) 02:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I have posted a report at WP:ANI, asking what people think is reasonable in the way of a block and/or FAC ban. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

RfAr

Where is the prohibition notice? When Ryan Delaney did it. i had nothing to go on to tell me it was anything more than his personal preference, but now that two people have weiged in I have to give it more credencs. Also I don't see what purpose the prohibition serves. Hackwrench 17:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." It says so right on top of the Requests for Arbitration page; has for a very long time. The RfAr page and all subpages thereof are subject to the exclusive authority of the Arbitration Committee. And since I am an Arbitrator, you had better well give my comment credence, as I have the unquestioned authority to remove discussion from the page at any time. The purpose of this rule is to make Requests for Arbitration easier to comprehend by the Arbitration Committee, and to reduce the tendency of fights to break out on or within Arbitration pages. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the heavy handedness? Also, how can you tell it is serving it's purpose to make Requests for Arbitration easier to comprehend by the Arbitration Committee, what's wrong with fights breaking out, and is it serving that purpose as well. Furthermore, how do you tell if the benefits outweigh the costs? Hackwrench 18:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my purpose was to illustrate to the Arbitration Committee members the fallacies that were occuring. Also you appear to be confusing your will with the will of the entire committee Hackwrench 18:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser request

I just blocked User:Gibo1 as an abusive sockpuppet of Gibraltarian. After searching, I also found:

Could you check and see if there's any more where that came from? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 20:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"
Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another \' proxy

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

==

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Disobeying orders...

Defendrix of the Wiki, Kelly Martin

... 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 Wikipedia 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, [[Sam Korn]] 16:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Ignore All Rules, but only when it applies to me. For only I am above policy." -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fuck it, I quit

Well, if you hoped to drive off Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Present

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

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

You can help Wikipedia

Yes YOU !!

You can help Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia or not? WAS 4.250 05:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

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

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)[reply]

Request For Arbitration

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chat transcript

[19:03:53] <karynn> i deleted a bunch of useless shit, and the people in love with it whined. 
[19:18:34] <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. 
[19:18:55] <karynn> yeah, pretty much. along with a handful of process wonks 
[19:20:24] <karynn> by the way, i'm just loving this. i should get RfC'd more often. 
[19:43:19] <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)[reply]

That respected contributor User:SPUI was banned for a while shortly after posting it on Wikipedia 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 (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 15:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Remember that doing that is probably against the rules →AzaToth 15:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I felt that such blocks were against the rules, I wouldn't issue them. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
I'm curious: where is the personal attack against Ambi? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I see. Thanks for your response. I didn't realize she had made that up. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That transcript covered 40 minutes of time. An enormous amount of relevant material/context was removed. Rx StrangeLove 16:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what context they were in, those comments show that your actions were motivated foremost by contempt, not by the best interests of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 CatTalk|@ 17:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSK

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The policy you adopted? Do you have the right to define your own blocking policy? →AzaToth 01:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the right to say I can't? Kelly Martin (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia community is appalling. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion has been noted. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Evilphoenix; I suppose this ought to be a question for your ArbCom candidacy. —James S. 04:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add it to my candidate's questions page. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Kelly Martin! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. While you voted oppose (and I still don't know the reason for it – would be appreciated if you could tell me), I still hope you'll be content with the way I use my newly granted WikiPowers. If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia? When the link is followed to your paypal page. It says "Payment for Wikipedia." No one should be paying you, or anyone else for Wikipedia. I find this highly troubling from an admin. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Checkuser request / result of a personal threat

User:Bumpusmills1 is a new user whom I have worked with in an attempt to teach him Wikipedia 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 [18] and [19], 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 Wikipedia editor making threats. Thanks for any help you can give.--Alabamaboy 16:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You may be interested in this

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

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)[reply]

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

Backslashes

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

Robert I case

Re: Wikipedia: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)[reply]

CheckUser Request

You might want to take a look at the following:

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 (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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(t)(c) 02:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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(t)(c) 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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 "Timor Mentum Occidit" 04:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Indeed, I would suggest that you move this discussion elsewhere. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelly_Martin&oldid=34333928"