User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2007 May

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Shirahadasha RfA thanks 2 RfA and userboxes 2.1 Section break 3 Suggestions 4 DYK 5 Jimbo on WikiProject endorsements 6 A few questions 7 Requests for adminship comments left by Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 8 Just some thoughts 9 Your views on user pages and userboxes 10 Courtesy note... 11 Explain This Please. 12 I do beg YOUR pardon, Kelly... 13 Your note 14 RfA response 15 Award 16 FYI 17 Retiono Virginians RfA 18 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4 19 Certifications 20 Now explain this please! 21 Bot approvals group 22 Request. 23 {{SeeBeforeYouDieMoved}} 24 RfA pattern 25 My RfA 26 Blocked 26.1 Answer to Sean William 27 Naruto images 28 Message 29 Hey 30 Kumquat! 31 User page blog link removal request 32 Octothorpe 33 FYI 34 Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics 35 Still an unresolved problem

[edit] Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! --Shirahadasha 05:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I despise "thank you for voting" notes. If I had known you were going to bother me with this swill, I would have opposed your candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, cmon Kelly. That's pretty harsh. --Dweller 12:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what happened to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? The Rambling Man 12:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure his comments were good faith; I just happen to despise "thank you for voting" notes and said so. Nothing bad faith about that. And really, what's uncivil about expressing my opinion honestly? And stop spraying CAPITALIZED GIBBERISH on my talk page; if you are going to refer to Wikipedia "policy" here, you will do so using English. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. The Rambling Man 12:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly, you're a gem, but I do think "despise" and "swill" are pretty harsh words for him, not to mention the sentiment of the last six words. Anyway, to change the tune somewhat, I may be able to line up a WikiProject admin candidate. Regardless of whether or not you choose to support that particular nominee, it's an interesting step. Watch this space. --Dweller 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Voltaire said "The perfect is the enemy of the good." He was a wise man. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just to let you know, my suggestion won't be happening this time. More details at WT:CRIC. Shame. I think your idea has real merit. --Dweller 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA and userboxes

Kelly, I respect your evaluation that it takes more than a vandal fighter to make a good admin. However, if that's the basis of your opposition, then please present your opposition in that light. But there is a growing frustration from RfA candidates that RfAs are failing on completely arbitrary reasons and what you're doing is a direct contribution to that. In case you forgot, your oppose rationale is "Questionable user page content (specifically, the "I wanna be an admin" userbox, and the CVU "WikiDefCon" stupidity) compels me to oppose this candidate." The content of this candidate's user page is perfectly within the average spectrum of userpages of well-respected editors. It's perfectly comparable to many an admin's userpage. For cryin'out loud, it's not even to different from your userpage. If you have a problem with the WikiDefCon template, well start an MfD and if that MfD fails then just accept it and move on. What you're doing is participating in the current atmosphere of paranoia that surrounds RfA. Countless editors have asked you time and again to stop opposing on such trivialities and yet, all we get back is that we should be more civil to you. At some point, however, your insistence that you shouldn't care about what editors are telling you is really the more serious concern of incivility. Pascal.Tesson 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion, but I find that I do not wish to follow your advice; I do not believe that the approaches you recommend would be as effective in improving Wikipedia as the methods I am currently employing. If you have any further suggestions, I will be most pleased to entertain them. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is you are trying to change the average spectrum, or what is generally accepted on wikipedia through opposition on the RFA process?-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that instead of opposing users directly over their user page, you should go to their talk page and politely inform them of any problems you have, or alternatively, you could just do what you do with your endorsement policy, and just !vote neutral until the concerns are addressed. That to me seems far more civil than direct opposition. Acalamari 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that your methods would be less effective. I choose not to adopt them. Thank you for your input, however. I do, however, categorically reject your assertion that opposing someone's candidacy is inherently uncivil. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposition is not uncivil. I was just saying that you could take a more civil approach to your opposition over user page content. Acalamari 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not so much opposing over user page content, but instead opposing because said content indicates to me characteristics (based on my experience) in the candidate which I feel are undesirable in a Wikipedia editor, and therefore in a Wikipedia administrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, I am not trying to push a method on you, just trying to gain a better understanding. I guess I am just trying to understand why (and i dont mean to offend) you oppose on what appears to be such pedantic semantics. Having a want to be admin userbox. Just to let you know, most likley if they are at RFA, they want to be an admin some day. Does that mean everybody at an RFA should be opposed? I am not trying to discount your opinion, just trying to gain a better understanding of why you feel that such content of userpages is a reason for opposition? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that everyone requesting adminship should be opposed, but I am likely more parsimonious in offering support than most participants in the forum. I believe my comments elsewhere adequately explain my oppositions to date, but if you have specific questions do feel free to ask them. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In particular, I have seen two reasons that you have opposed an editors. The two of these that confuse me the most are for having the "This user is not an administrator but wants to be one someday" userbox and for vandalism counter userboxes. While I am not going tell you that you are wrong for these oppositions, I will however explain it how I see it so that you can understand why I feel that oppositions on this basis are wrong.(You are also totally welcome to ignore anything that I say). In regards to the "admin someday userbox," how does this show that an editor is unfit to be an administrator? I guess in other similar instance, I hope to have a masters degree and a phd degree someday and have told many of my friends. Does my public accouncement of such desires may me unfit? While the above example could be seen as comparing applies and orages (real life and wiki life), I believe that an editor who aspires to be an adminsitrator is a driven editor. Inr egards to vandalism counters, I strongly believe that they draw vandalism attention away from the article space and to the userspace if anything. I know many arguments against vandalism counters is that it encourages vandalism, and in fact, it may encourage an disruptive editor to vandalize my userpage. Personally, I am not offended at all by userpsage vandalism and am glad that they are wasting there time in the userspace. I resepct your opinion as an editor and am interested in understanding why you feel these are "oppose" worthy addtions to the userspace. Thanks again for your time. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also to clarify, I know that you do not owe me an explanation, however I am respectufully attemtping to enage in discourse over behavior that on the surface may seem disruptive to some, however if deeper reasons, not obvious to the casual editor exist that may merit such objections. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be saying with this that you consider opposition on an RFA to be inherently an act of incivility. Is that what you meant to say? - David Gerard 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is, lets say theoretically somebody failed an RFA yesterday and went around opposing all of the rfas for the reasons posed by Kelly Martin, while they may be valid, the said theoretical editor would most likjley end up being blocked for WP:POINT violations. Note, I am not likening Kelly Martin to a failld RFA WP:POINT violater, however contrasting a theoretical community reaction if said opposeds were by a disruptive editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I draw your attention to my request that contributors refrain from using capitalized gibberish in discussions here. If you wish to refer to Wikipedia policy documents on my talk page, you may do so using English. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's I what I was saying about being civil. You don't speak to people that way. Saying that Chrislk02 is using capitalized gibberish is rude. Acalamari 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Using capitalized gibberish is rude. If you wish not to be called rude, do not behave rudely. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(Coming in late) This is a definition of "rude" that is completely alien to the common definition. On the other hand, abruptly accusing someone talking perfectly normally of "using capitalized gibberish" is rude, and remarkably so. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In acalamari's defense, he as well as many other editors know that as the common practice. I do not see how biting us, being uncivil or rude regarding it is going to help spread your point of view. I am very patient, and am willing to talk and discuss things, however other editors may view this has being uncivil, assuming bad faith and being disruptive. I dont believe it to be any of the above and understand that you probably have really good reasons for said objections, and issues with "capitalized gibersih". I also respsect your opinion and feel that it is valid, at least in the part of it that is may be overused and may communication difficult. However, do you not admit you could come across a little nicer? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly, I sincerely apologize if I have offended you for use of "capitalized Gibberish". I am unaware of what you are referring to and cannot find a reference to it. Perhaps I have not read deep enough. I will however infer that you are referenceing links to wikipedia policies all in caps? If this is what you are referring to, I will kindly replace them all with lowercase fonts if you deem appropiate. The fact is, I am still interested in discussing this with you and believe my above comments are very valid, and not gibberish (while they may contain wiki linked sections in capital letters, last I checked, most of them were in engliush and understandable). However, if you believe that lowercase letters would aid in this discussion, or for that matter anything else, please let me know. Also, please understand I am trying to understand you and not jump to broad conclusions about people. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The way to avoid being rude by using capitalized gibberish is to use plain English to refer to Wikipedia policies. I strongly object to the overload of jargon that pervades Wikipedia discussions these days. The use of capitalized gibberish in lieu of plain English in discussions devalues meaning and interferes with useful discussion. In addition, I have found that communications laden with such comments are more likely to be in the nature of "power answers" or even outright threats, rather than legitimate attempts at discussion. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Kelly, you again have my sincere apologies. I apologize if that is what it came across as. I assure you that my comments were not meant to be power answers, or threats, however my attempts to express my concerns in the best way I knew how. I will kindly refrain from using caps when refering to wikipedia policies in discourse with you. Thank you for explaining what you meant when you refered to "capitalised gibbersih" I also as a reccomendation, ask you to remeber assuming good faith. While it may be potentially disruptive to have policies quoted in caps, it is my assumption that there are many editors (like myself) who use it out of habit, and with no intentions of abuse of power. Thanks again for your response. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's necessarily intentional; nonetheless, it happens. The use of jargon to shortcut communication has an exclusionary effect, and also tends to cause people to think in a more constricted, compartmentalized manner that actually decreases useful complex thinking. For example, referring to the policy regarding disruption as "WP:POINT" instead of "Wikipedia policy regarding demonstrative disruption" is likely to lead to forgetting that that policy does not actually prohibit all disruption. I've noticed in recent months that this particular policy is frequently quoted (as "WP:POINT") for things it does not stand, and I suspect this is in large part because so many people have taken to glossing over the actual meaning of the policy with its convenience shortcut. Feel free to use the convenience shortcuts to save typing when actually accessing the policies, or referring to them in the left half of a wikilink, but do not shortcut your thinking; Wikipedia is harmed by that. In short, it's a bad habit that you should try very hard to break. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that enlightnening explanation. I am glad I took the time to understand where you were coming from. I agree with you mostly. Your argument makes sense, I however kindly ask that you be a little more civil when somebody does not do it. It makes alot of sense but calling comments that contain it gibberish borders on insulting, especially when it is a widespread practice. I understand that the widepsread practice is a bad argument, as if it was used we would still have Slavery and many other horrible things in life that at some point were common practice. But, like ti anything that is a common practice, it willt ake time to get the point across, and being mean about it does not help. In short, I resepect your opinion, however disagree with the way you have chosen to get the said point across. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned slavery, which made me think of one of my favorite poems. I'm with W.E.B. on this one: I will not "speak soft, and try your little plan". Thank you for your input, however. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that my reccomendations are only to help further your point. However, if you wish to continue your, as blis states is, acerbic dialogue, I fear your valid point will be discounted. Thank you though for taking the time to discuss it, and I sincerly hope that you choose to be a bit more civil in your discourse, I assure you it goes along ways! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Kelly, please read Wikipedia:assume good faith and wikipedia:civility your arguments are incivil, talking about someone writing gibberish? Chris was simply writing an accepted format for quoting policy and guidline. Your comments in RfA are also verging on being pointy - by that I mean your opposing candidates for silly reasons to try and bring attention to yourself. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan. Since "capitalized gibberish" is not a commonly understood term here, it is unfair to expect all users to understand what you mean by it without explanation, and it is uncivil to call them "rude" for not following your poorly-worded request. As you yourself utilize the abbreviations "CVU" and "CRO", you could be said to be hypocritical as well. Please reconsider your tactics to enact change, and engage in constructive dialogue instead of acerbic retorts. -- nae'blis 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, you're defending capitalised gibberish by asserting that the phrase "capitalised gibberish" must be a personal attack because it's not insular jargon? I'm sure Kurt Godel had a theorem about this sort of thing - David Gerard 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find an assertion that it is a personal attack, at least in the immedatly preceding paragraphs. Could you please specify who is asserting that it is a pesronal attack? Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will assert here that it is. Not because of anything to do with jargon, but because it is flat out bad behaviour. I must also comment here that I find the manner in which David Gerard is replying to your comments quite puzzling. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also not trying to push anything on you. I would like to say, however, that from my experience on Wikipedia (and in real life), people are more likely to go with your suggestions if you are polite. Acalamari 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

I guess what I basically want to know now is do you have any intention of attemtpting to be civil when explaining how you think wikipedia should be? In the above discourse I found no reason to believe that you have any intetion of attempting to be civil about it. Specifically, I quote "You mentioned slavery, which made me think of one of my favorite poems. I'm with W.E.B. on this one: I will not "speak soft, and try your little plan". Thank you for your input, however.", from our above discussion. This concerns me as you seem to not care about anything but what you think wikipedia should be. How does this help build an encylopedia as opposed to break it down by, "snapping" at curious editors. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's a fairly obnoxious tone to take on someone else's talk page - David Gerard 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This feels to me like a threat. It's certainly not a productive comment, and I think I've dignified it too much with the preceding comment already. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I put alot of work into this project, and at all costs, i attempt to remain as civil as possible. Should I take a turn, and start biting people, become uncivil, i would appreciate a friendly comment from my fellow editors. It is a valid question, do you itnend to make any effort to be civil? The question still stands. I will make any effort to be civil, and you have my humble assurances that there is no threat in the above statements, merely me attempting to determine your intentions. What offends me is when you continue to show uncivil behavior, such as calling me a varmint, when I have made efery effort to understand you is far from being civil. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At best - and being generous - you appear to be assuming bad faith than attempting to communicate with someone who does not speak precisely in your manner. Civility (note lack of link - a link is as much an indicator of jargon as any capitalised gibberish) does not in conventional English require shibboleths - David Gerard 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will admint, I am not assuming good faith, but making no assumption to faith and attemtping to assertain this editors faith. I believe that i have complied with this editors requests that when i do refer to wikipedia policies, I refer to them in lower case. I have, since this user reuqested it, generally refrained from making references to policy. However, I feel that this editor is bordering on incivility, and am attempting to assertain if that is their intention. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No-one can possibly defend capitalised gibberish on Wikipedia and make any pretense at "civility." Wikipedia jargon is the height of exclusionary insularity. New editors write almost all the actual article text; jargon is deliberate exclusion and must be consciously minimised. That you have defended it even in the slightest and consider calling it "capitalised gibberish" unsuitable renders your claims of civility apparently utterly hypocritical. Work harder on being less passively hostile to new editors and less on policing others - David Gerard 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I in no way defend capitalized gibberish, a term I used after Kelly Martins first use. In all actuality, if you read through the above discourse, i agree with kelly martin on this topic. The claim that I, or any other editor use it as a "deliberate exclusion," is a leap of bad faith, an assertion you are quick to throw about my questions here. Furthermore, the only reason that I call it capitalised gibberish is because that is what Kelly Martin calls it. If there is evidence of me being uncivil, please bring it to my attention, however I have mad every effort here to remain as civil, cool and collected and believe that straw man arguments to the contrary do not help

Furthermore, if this editor has no intention of following wikipedia policies, why should they be treated any differnetly than anybody else who disregards policies. Just because you do not like them, does not mean that they do not exist. These are policies that request that we Participate in a respectful and civil way, Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia and ask that if you think you have a valid point, that you do not cause disruption because it is probably the least effective way of presenting that point All of these are official policies of wikipedia and should this editor intentionally and willfully disregard these policies, they should be blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's the bit where you say "talk like me or be blocked", the threat being referred to above? - David Gerard 21:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No this is the bit where I say if you dont abide by the wikipedia policies like the rest of us, you will probably get blocked. Pelase read the above discourse to see that I agree with Kelly Martins "capitalised gibberish" theory and actually plan to embody it in my communication with other editors. However, I disagree with the uncivil, disruptive way that kelly martin feels the point should be made. Please read the above comments before coming in with your guns blazing. My only request is that kelly martin attempt to express the point civiliy, not calling people "varmints", or calling everything they write in good faith as "gibberish" because of a concept they do not understand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I see (since, after all, you started with capitalised gibberish and userboxes and progressed to threats). Well, good luck with securing a block - David Gerard 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Again with the straw man arguments. No where to i start with capitalised gibberish, alas, it is this own users talk page who denouces it in those terms at the top. Now, please show me an innapropriate comment I made about userboxes and I will kindly accept responsibility for anything innapropriate I have taken. As far as threats, there is no threat other than the statement that, (and i expect this of myself), should this editor fail to abide by wikipedia policies, they will probably end up being blocked. So, please specify what was wrong, other than your failure to read and comprehend the entire conversation before commenting? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Threat? It wasn't a threat. Somebody who ignores policy is a disruptive editor. Disruption, last time I looked, is a blockable action. Chrislk02 was not threatening anyone. Acalamari 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, where Kelly Martin said that stupid policies should not be followed, obviously Kelly Martin believes that Wikipedia: Civility is a stupid policy that should not be followed. Acalamari 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean, burn the witch? Or what? - David Gerard 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Acalamari 20:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is degenerating into pointless bickering. I would go so far as to say that it is moving at superluminal speed, as no information is being conveyed. Without expressing my opinion as to why things have reached this level, enough already. Newyorkbrad 21:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is correct. I am peacefully withdrawing from this discussion. Acalamari 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Aarghh… why? I was following this, give that remote back! --Van helsing 21:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a similar topic, so I'll re-post my comment a couple sections above:

Thanks for commenting on my Request for Adminship! I had read something bad about vandalism counters, but I had forgotten; thanks for reminding me. Also, do you mind pointing out the grammatical errors on my page? I can't seem to find them (and I hate them!). Also, you mentioned that I declared I was going to run for Request for Adminship on my page, but I've not done that. Maybe you're confused with someone else, or I misinterpreted you. I'd appreciate a response; thanks!

<End>

Could you please answer? I'm a bit confused about your opposition, except for your opinion on my answer to question four (the one about Ignore all rules]]), as several users have explained that. · AndonicO ^Talk 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Might I suggest that this may be seen to some as a personal attack, if an editor has a concern, please assume good faith and if you choose to respond, do so respectfully. Also, why don't you go somewhere and actually attempt to propose a mechanism for your wikiproject endorsements, it's not going to move on unless you go somewhere and suggest it (note, by that I don't mean on live request for adminships). Ryan Postlethwaite 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I must correct your mistake. Already one project has discussed endorsements and another appears to have actually endorsed a candidate. You may want to reconsider your claim that it's "not going to move on" in light of these facts. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well surely it would be better to sort the confussion out and try and get some efficient way of wikiprojects endorsing candidates, I'm more than happy to help with it, I just really haven't got any good idea's of how it could work. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, read. The guy made the threat explicit a few paragraphs down - David Gerard 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 24 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donald Stephens, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo on WikiProject endorsements

Hi Kelly. To be clear, his comments did not explicitly name or mention your proposal, and I didn't mean to imply that that was the case. It was in a discussion about a shortage of admins (he said that there should be "far more" and that the process of gaining adminship should be easier) and the "drive-by !voters" (his term, my spelling) who he said included many who would not necessarily have direct knowledge of the candidate. Such !voters might just quickly review the user's pages and a few recent contributions and perhaps see if he/she had any barnstars. He said that it made sense that those who had close contact with a candidate were in the best position to judge his/her worthiness and ability.

I am paraphrasing, but the above is a fairly close representation of his words and the terms he used. That part of the discussion lasted about a minute, so it wasn't gone into in any great detail. There was no discussion of the mechanics of how this would happen. I hope that helps. Cheers. —Moondyne 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's refreshing to hear that Jimbo is talking about these important issues with Wikipedians as he travels. I have to agree with him about the people who have had close contact with a candidate being in the best position to evaluate the candidate; that's exactly where my endorsement initiative comes from. One of the problems with the request for adminship process is that it has been taken over by people who vote on each candidate's merits not based on their experience with the candidate, but instead on whether or not the candidate has satisfied various semi-arbitrary criteria. I admit to doing much the same, except that my attitude has historically been "support unless there is a problem" rather than "oppose unless my conditions are met". I've altered that to "withhold support pending input from the editor's colleagues" in order to create broader awareness of the need for such an evaluation, but of course people are widely misunderstanding (purposefully in at least some cases, I fear) the intentions of my initiative. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting; that's a very different reasoning than "withholding support pending a WikiProject endorsement". In fact, I could get behind the idea of having more direct involvement of those who know the editor, but you'll probably need to explain it a little more. Wikipedia is so decentralized and volunteer-driven that trying to require WikiProject endorsement as the sole and only means of gaining your support (again, per your stated words, if not your intention) seems counter-productive to the goal. -- nae'blis 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have both tactical and strategic objectives. The endorsement "requirement" is tactical, not strategic. That doesn't make it any less inviolate now, it just means that I will reevaluate it after a reasonable time and decide how to change it, if at all, depending on my evaluation as to whether that particular tactic is still furthering my broader strategic goals for Wikipedia. Much of this has previously been discussion on this page; I suggest you avail yourself of my talk page archives. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well acquainted with some of your strategic objectives, but I still think that requiring people to go through your talk archives or (worse) offwiki discussions to understand your motivations for misunderstood actions continues to be a source of conflict regarding your goals. The same goal could be handled in some cases with a slightly more direct 'tactical' approach, or a explanatory note. Thanks for the reply, in any case. -- nae'blis 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do keep meaning to write up an FAQ, but I simply have not had time to do so. Sorry. You are welcome to do so, of course; I would be glad to review any such effort. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Regretfully, my current workload here and elsewhere precludes such an effort, but I'll keep it in mind if I ever have a spare hour (shouldn't take longer than that for a first draft). -- nae'blis 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few questions

I was just wondering if I may ask a couple of questions regarding wiki-project endorsement. How is the wikiproject supposed to endorse a candidate? Who actually signs the endorsement on the RfA page? What is the mechanism that's currently in place for wiki-project endorsement? What is the candidate supposed to do to get an endorsement? Why is someone going to make a bad administrator if they don't have a wikiproject endorsement? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I too would like to understand how this is to occur and have a number of questions. Forgive me if you've answered some or all of them already, if you have would you be kind enough to point me in the direction of your answers.

1. Wikiproject Cricket has refuted the concept as another layer of beaurocracy in the Request for Adminstrator process. Should wikiprojects have their own !vote (or perhaps a Request for Endorsement?) to decide if a candidate is appropriate?
2. Who from the project decides on the consensus for the wikiproject, a bureaucrat perhaps or an admin or just another editor?
3. What evidence would satisfy you that an endorsement has taken place, other than a comment from a member of the project in question, or does this go back to needing a bureaucrat/admin to preside over the endorsement process?
4. Does a wikiproject have to have a certain number of active participants to satisfy your requirements, for example Wikiproject Cricket currently states 164 participants, Wikiproject Cats has 74, Wikiproject Cue Sports has seven, where is the cut-off point for a Wikiproject not having sufficient gravitas to endorse a candidate?

Thank you in advance for any time you might spend reading this and responding. The Rambling Man 12:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I will consider a candidate endorsed if there is a discussion on the WikiProject's talk page of the candidate's merits, and that discussion demonstrates consensus within the WikiProject that the candidate is suitable for adminship.
• I do not expect or require any particular form of notice on the candidate's request for adminship. Obviously the fact that the candidate has been endorsed by a WikiProject needs to be communicated, but this can be done by any reasonable means. Probably the best way for this to be done is for it to be mentioned as part of the candidate's nominating statement, since ideally the endorsement would precede the opening of the formal request for adminship. There is no particular signature requirement for this; if someone lies about having an endorsement, this fact will become evident promptly when I am not able to find evidence of the WikiProject's consensus.
• How a candidate obtains the endorsement is a matter between the candidate and any WikiProjects with which that candidate has interacted.
• I do not assert that a candidate who is not endorsed by a WikiProject will make a bad administrator. I merely feel that those who are are more likely to be superior administrators. If I believed that the lack of an endorsement implied that the candidate would make a poor administrator, I would oppose such candidates, and (as history demonstrates) I do not do so.
• The method by which a WikiProject decides who it will endorse is left entirely to each WikiProject. I find the suggestion that a bureaucrat needs to be involved in that process abjectly ludicrous.
• I will evaluate each endorsement personally and decide whether or not the circumstances in which it was made are sufficient to convince me that the editor has demonstrated his or her ability to work well with others. I decline to set forth rigid policies on which WikiProjects have sufficient "gravitas" to effectively endorse a candidate. Other voters may have different standards than I, and my standards (or lack thereof) have no application to them.

Several of these questions lead me to believe that there is a mistaken belief that I am trying to make endorsement a formal part of the request for adminship process. This is not the case. I am not seeking to create additional bureaucracies, merely asking that WikiProjects provide feedback regarding those who their membership interacts with in order to assist the rest of the project in evaluating potential candidates for administrator. I believe that WikiProjects, in their role as subject-focused editing groups, are well-suited for this task. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. The Rambling Man 13:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I as well thank you for the detailed reply. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for adminship comments left by Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I have retracted and struck out my bizarre, perplexing, vaguely accusing, incivil, tarnishing, sniping, useless, vaguely threatening, and overall disruptive comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Selket and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mallanox. It's too late for me to reverse the damage at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Walton monarchist89, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger2, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny because those Requests for adminship have since been closed.

I should stick to editing the articles, except I'm not sure which ones I should edit. Nobody cares about a bunch of defunct flour mills in Minneapolis, and I have no right to edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/COTW articles even though I've been doing some of them lately.

By the way, I left a report of my own vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but there was little interest in it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:21, 24 April 2007 (Coordinated Universal Time)

[edit] Just some thoughts

When I first saw your comments regarding admin candidates, it threw me for a loop. The demands seemed arbitrary and even a bit asinine, to be perfectly honest. My opinion became that you were probably doing so to prove a point. I asked a couple people with some more experience with the place, quite literally, what in the hell you were thinking. One of them was kind enough to suggest I read your talk page and archives, which I should have done in the first place. After reading them, I still strongly disagree with your methods, but I strongly approve of your motives. So, I encourage you to keep on going. I would perhaps suggest that you include a brief phrase in your comments there to help give context and meaning to the request. I believe there are better tactics to express your strategy, but I cannot express enough how refreshing it is to see standards that are not metrics-based with positive motives. Be well! Vassyana 09:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your views on user pages and userboxes

Hi Kelly. I'm interested in getting a better understanding of what you think is inappropriate content for userpages and particularly userboxes. I've come to respect you as someone who thinks carefully about the stances you take and find it rewarding when I understand your motives better - even if I then disagree with you in part or whole. --Dweller 10:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy note...

I have name-checked you (again) here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Current_system --Dweller 10:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explain This Please.

Would you care to explain what User:Kelly Martin/List of editors who need to be hit in the head with sticks is? Acalamari 17:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I will assume good faith, but the page seems highly inappropriate, and violates the user sub-page policies. Acalamari 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmmmm I think it's called a joke??? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked, in case it was a joke. I wasn't going to nominate the page for speedy deletion or anything like that. Acalamari 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it took you like seven minutes to notice this. That's not nearly fast enough. Dangerously evil editors like myself need to be watched far more closely. Get with the program already. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No attacks were intended. :) Though I admit I should have worded my question a bit politer. Acalamari 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For bringing this up in the first place I think you should gracously add you name to the list! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. :) Acalamari 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar Eaten By a Bear
		For making people smile. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I do beg YOUR pardon, Kelly...

But I did qualify that statement with "I don't think Kelly's supported an requests for adminship, ever. Or at least not recently enough for most people to be aware of such an event" The key emphasis here would be "I don't think", which allows me to state my opinion as I like. It's my opinion, perhaps with a bit of hyperbole, but I don't think legal threats are appropriate, so let's move on. I'm sure you've come up with some witty reply based on my "I don't think" qualifier, so amuse yourself with that until satisfied. Rather than stumble around on my own inadequacies, shall we move on to the essence of my comment? Excellent!

Now I've never claimed universal civility but unfortunately in a project such as this, disagreements do occur. So in answer to your comment, I will agree that my comment was perhaps not entirely civil, but the core thrust of my rhetoric remains thus: You've denied, or remained neutral on the majority of requests for adminship candidates on which you've commented, for the purpose of your own disagreement with current policy. Are you denying the fact that you've either opposed, or denied support on the vast majority of the requests for adminships that you've participated in, based on those items I've mentioned?

Incidentally, is "I don't think Kelly's supported the vast majority of requests for adminships. " better than what I wrote? I'm willing to change it if you'd like to actually address the meat of my comment. And hey, bonus! I managed to avoid to avoid capitalised gibberish! Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 04:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should retract the statement entirely. It is uncivil to attempt to forward falsehoods about other editors during the course of any community discussion, whether or not such claims are "hedged". It would be simply irresponsible for you to do anything other than to publicly admit that you were mistaken and take back the accusation entirely.

It is true that I rarely support a candidate for adminship. I fail to see the relevance of this, however, except insofar as it appears to be a highly questionable attempt on your part to suggest that my opinion ought to be given less weight. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't advance the position that your opinion be given any less weight. If you'd like to point out where I did so, please do so. I will not retract my statement, but I will change it to reflect the fact that you've managed to support... what, one request for adminship in the last two weeks? I shall retract my statement and replace it with the other statement I've outlined, since my hyperbole seems to offend you to distraction.

Now, the relevance of your support (or lack thereof) is the same as the relevance of my support for the candidate: You're as free to comment on my actions elsewhere as I am free to comment on your own. This community is comprised of individuals with as many opinions as there are stars in the night sky. It is only through constant critique on our fellows that we will achieve the sort of ideal, universal contributions on all manner of subjects that this encyclopedia was founded on.

Again, I'm sorry our opinions diverge and I'll update my comments to reflect the support you mentioned. However, I'll no more retract my statements than you'll retract yours.

Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to note that I just supported another candidate, and I expect to be supporting yet another shortly. But really, I think your claim that this is "defensible hyperbole" to be ridiculous. Lying about other editor's behavior for political effect is indefensible, and you quite honestly should be ashamed of yourself both for doing so and for having the temerity to argue in defense of having done so. You may do as you wish: at this point, I do not consider further discussion with the likes of you worthy of my time or attention. Kindly do not defile my talk page with your presence again. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly, a simple request would suffice: "do not defile my talk page" is not a civil way to respond to a reasonable discussion. -- nae'blis 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Lankybugger is not entitled to my civility. He lied and then, when caught, defended his right to tell lies; by so doing he moved himself outside the boundaries of civil society, and is therefore not entitled to the presumptions of civil conduct that other, more well-behaved people, will generally be afforded. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi Kelly! Just wanted to point out that if all of us didn't support candidates with userbox issues, who weren't supported by a Wikiproject, etc., there would be very few admins promoted. Just suggesting that taking into account the need to address the backlog of tasks, promoting candidates who are slightly less than perfect but willing to help the project would benefit the project more than retaining strict rules, or introducing new rules, about userboxes, WikiProject support, and other matters. Hope all is well. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not answering the question I asked you. Please reread it and essay an actual answer this time. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA response

Just letting you know, I responded to your neutral at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Rambling Man. I may be totally off the mark, but it was worth a shot :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will consider the information you've provided. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Here, you'll deserve it. I'm sure you've met the requirements "to give this award, the recipient should be of the highest standard. It is an opportunity for the entire community to praise a user who had made great contributions to Wikipedia." What else would the community want to do?--Doc^g 14:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Just as a heads up, one of your edits has been brought up on ANI, here. Please note that I didn't initiate the discussion, but since the person who did seems to have overlooked notifying you, I thought you should be advised. Newyorkbrad 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As a second heads up, I have just seen on the talkpage of another editor that he is considering taking a break from the project because of the way you have repeatedly addressed him. You have an inimitable style, and that is your prerogative, but please be mindful of the effect that your words and "tone of voice" are likely to have on other editors. Newyorkbrad 16:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that ridiculous discussion to my attention. As Tony aptly put it, Crotalus is behaving like a "silly sausage".

If my criticisms have caused a problematic editor to take a break from Wikipedia, I consider that a net positive. We need fewer such editors, not more of them. Wikipedia is neither therapy nor a social club. Any effect that my comments have on such people should be taken as intended. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Crotalus is querulous as hell and will happily use any excuse - David Gerard 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My second comment was not at all talking about Crotalus. The editor I'm referring to is a valued, hardworking editor and administrator. I'm not going to cite his name, though his comments are on-wiki if anyone wants to find them. Newyorkbrad 16:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Meatball:GoodBye is often a useful reference. --Gmaxwell 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, and in my respectful judgment not at all in this instance. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Where was Chrislk02's bleeding heart when Lankybugger attacked Kelly with an intentionally dishonest insult? I think GoodBye is a perfect fit. Chrislk02 attacked Kelly with his accusations of 'personal attacks' because she simply called out someone's lies. That Chrislk02 hid his attack with sugar and reference to important policies does not excuse it. If he doesn't like his interactions with Kelly he's free to discontinue them. In light of his role in provoking all communication between them that I can find, I can only view his goodbye message as an attempt at emotional manipulation.... "oh no, satan bit me!" --Gmaxwell 18:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to just your first sentence, I don't see the basis for "intentionally." Newyorkbrad 19:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lankybugger defended himself by saying specifically that his claim that he did not believe Kelly has supported anyone for adminship was intended to be hyperbole. I believe that justifies my use of the word intentionally. --Gmaxwell 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Brad, your circumlocution in referring to the overly-dramatic admin is really pointless. You know all I need to do is look at you contributions to identify User:Chrislk02. Oh well.--Doc^g 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Brad, you currently enjoy some degree of respect from me. Do not lightly risk losing that by defending a liar. It is clear from Lankybugger's comments that he either intended to lie or is not overly bothered by the fact that he lied. There is a long history of people lying about me (you can see all sorts of good examples of this in the hostile questions that were posed to me during my Arbitration Committee candidacy last December; there are others that I will not talk about in detail because I have not been able to locate the evidentiary diffs in the haystack, although I'm quite certain that they are there), and I am quite frankly sick both of being lied about, and even more so about the community tolerating such behavior. I hope you will agree with me that making false statements about another Wikipedian is inappropriate, that failing to apologize and retract such statements immediately upon being corrected is uncivil, and that either defending such statements as "hyperbole" or defending the right to make them is simply beyond the pale. I further hope that you will shape your future behavior consistent with such agreement. I would also prefer that you cease in the practice of enabling drama, as this entire thread (at least from the the point it moved beyond a mere notification of a discussion at the Noticeboard) has served to do. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification on my page (as it happens, I have this page automatically watchlisted, since I have edited it) as well as for your first sentence. My personal opinion is that Lankybugger most likely had simply failed to note, or had forgotten, that you had supported at least one RfA candidacy a couple of weeks ago. It should go without saying, but if you doubt my agreement with the principle I will say it anyway, that Wikipedians' comments about one another should always be accurate and made in good faith, and that any inadvertent errors that may occur should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. Fortunately, your goal of obtaining such a correction has been achieved: At this point, any user who has read any part of today's interchanges will be fully aware that the statement that you have not supported any RfA candidates in recent memory turned out to be incorrect, and I will add for the benefit of those who may not be current that today you supported another.

My bigger concern today has been that we were or are in danger of losing a valued editor and administrator, who has expressed unhappiness with the way he has been spoken to over the past several days, including by yourself. What you and several others call "enabling drama" by trying to address the unhappiness of such a user, I call part of the process of trying to help an editor deal with the stress and burn-out that afflicts many of our most dedicated contributors, which has cost us hundreds of good people at every level of seniority and which I regard as one of the two most serious problems facing Wikipedia. For myself, I can deal with being called various names, and perhaps am overdue for it, having for the most part been dealt with very gently in my time here so far. But not every editor or even every administrator reacts the same way, and given our communal commitment to civility we shouldn't require them to. We all self-develop our little job descriptions around here, and trying to address these situations is something I've decided to do from time to time, and to the extent I do enjoy some respect from some users as you open by suggesting, perhaps it's part of the reason why.

In my ten months of actively editing on this site, including the last three months as a relatively active administrator, never once has a user publicly said to me that he or she was considering leaving Wikipedia because of a series of comments that I made to him or her. If such a thing happened, I certainly would rethink my approach to that person and ask myself whether some sort of reaching out would be in order to address whatever dispute or misunderstanding might have occurred. With reciprocal respect for the respect you have extended to me, and having previously acknowledged many times in the past your dedication and contributions to this project, to you I would recommend the same course. You might conclude that you said and did nothing wrong, but then again, you might conclude that you crossed a line with this person, and acknowledge it. I will add that it has been suggested both on- and off-wiki that addressing you in terms like these is a waste of time and energy, and I wouldn't be doing so if I weren't replying to you anyway. So make of these comments what you will. But in the self-RfC that you filed on yourself last fall, you asked for greater community feedback on people's issues with you as an editor. That is some of mine. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Brad here- if someone brought it to my attention that the way I had interacted with someone had forced them to leave, I would be concerned (especially an admin or other established user rather than someone passing through). User:Chrislk02 is hardly a drama queen and if we lose him this project will be the poorer for it. Kelly, I'm aware that come in for a lot of unfair criticism (for example I don't see how anyone voting neutral in any number of RfAs could possibly be disruptive). That being said I have noticed you around in a number of contexts were you have been expressing yourself at the very least undiplomatically and in some cases you have been uncivil. I'm not an advocate of sycophantic politeness when clearly disagreeing with someone but inflammatory language makes things worse rather than better. WjBscribe 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel that I have crossed any line with respect to Chrislk02. If he leaves Wikipedia as a result of my comments to him, that might be unfortunate, but on the other hand if he cannot deal with the relatively minor way in which I have treated him, then he is clearly unfit to deal with the much more aggressive way in which some of Wikipedia's more dedicated trolls and malcontents will deal with him should he have the misfortune to cross one of them. I am not by any means the most venomous of the snakes that live in this particular pit. If I'm too much for him, he should consider finding a less troublesome hobby. As my good friend James Forrester has been known to say, "the Wiki is not for everyone".

Chris' problem, in case you have not researched it, is that he engaged in a direct ad hominem on me in a discussion related to someone else's candidacy for adminship, and when this was pointed out he defended it rather than acknowledging the fallacy and retracting. In other words, he engaged in uncivil conduct, and when called on it defended it as appropriate and proceeded to move forward with more of the same. This is beyond the pale. Chris is apparently allowing himself to become overly stressed over my attitudes toward the adminship process. I will not here publicly speculate as to why my voting patterns there are so distressing to him -- frankly I find all the kerfuffle over my adminship voting practices quite silly -- but I think this is really his problem to sort out, not mine.

You might want to think about why I, myself, supposedly a "valued editor" and formerly a "valued administrator", do not contribute at the levels and in the manners that I once did, and what you, personally, might be able to do to rectify this situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't believe that the turnover of users has anything much to do with civility or community. Wikipedia is a time-consuming addiction. People decide to take a break; to do other things with their time; they get a job; get married, or their partner starts complaining about their neglect of the housework and they decide to leave, permanently or otherwise. The problem is that it is easier to do that if you burn you boats with a dramatic exit that will discourage you from editing again 5 min later. I know, I've done it. We are also all narcissists and drama-queens, who can't escape the idea that we should be missed. And so we look in to see the flowers on our grave. Now, if one can leave in a manner that engenders sympathy one tends to do that. Leaving and laying the blame at the evil Satan that that caused you to leave is even more effective as both a sympathy card and, frankly, as a weapon. (This is maybe somewhat self-confessional.) The best thing to do is ignore the drama. The user will either return or his real-life will persuade him not to. That, I think, is the point of the 'Goodbye meatball' Greg quoted.

Brad, The role you are trying to play as honest broker here is admirable - upstanding and a fine thing. I've seen a number of good people try it in the years I've been here. (I've tried it myself.) But here's the reality....I've never see it do any good. You just become a bit-player prolonging the drama. And the drama is what is damaging. Walk away, walk away, man. That's the best remedy here. Kelly knows what you have said. If she thinks you've got a point - she'll ponder it, but is unlikely to acknowledge it. Alternatively, she may think you are entirely wrong, she wish to defend herself, but, if she's any sense, she too will walk away and keep her thoughts to herself either way. The winner is the one that shrugs and moves on - realising that this is going nowhere. Chris will return or won't, and it has nothing to do with what happens here next.--Doc^g 21:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Brad should be commended — not criticized — for his efforts here. Paul August ☎ 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of the second paragraph. I think that's what I did.--Doc^g 09:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retiono Virginians RfA

I find your comment on Retino Virginians RfA a stereotypical and nasty generalisation just about some ones political beliefs, yes the userbox may not be the best idea but is it worth opposing just because of their opinions? I suggest removing your vote, it is highly invalid and offensive.Tellyaddict 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remove it now, or I may start a case up on WP:ANI. Anyway, I removed the userbox. Retiono Virginian 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of altering my comments, as they were true and valid at the time. This persistent insistence that I am misrepresenting the reasons for my oppose is quite offensive. If you have, in fact, removed the offensive userbox, I will certainly update my comments to reflect this, but I will also strengthen my opposition to your candidacy on the grounds that you are threatening administrative action against me for honestly expressing my opinion. Attacking people because they disagree with you is simply not civil, and it is certainly not to be tolerated in an administrator. Feel free to raise this issue at any noticeboard you feel is appropriate; I am certain that Wikipedia's policies do not tolerate the sort of badgering you are engaged in. Also, I remind both of you of the request at the top of this page. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do start a case, then administrators can tell you just how grossly inappropriate your statements here are, and will have the opportunity to state what a bad case for administrator powers you evidently are - David Gerard 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I never attacked anyone and Tellyaddict and user Cometstyles agress with me. Plus I was only wanting to start up a WP:ANI case as I am unsure if it is fair or not. Retiono Virginian 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this doesn't belong on ANI. The remedy for an allegedly poorly-reasoned comment on an RfA is other commenters' responses to it, not disputing the validity of the comment on an administrators' board. Newyorkbrad 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairness in RfAs is not a matter to bring to ANI. The closing bureaucrat will weigh the strength of such comments. Leebo ^T/C 21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The sad thing is that you don't see how grossly unsuited to the admin tools this shows you to be - David Gerard 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest the RfA result has confirmed David's statement. Daniel Bryant 06:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are awful nasty people, and you prey on people like me, you know what. I RESIGN!!!!. Retiono Virginian 09:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to offend you or violate WP:NPA but I agree with Retiono Virginian, he would have made a great admin with a bit more experience, some people cannot cope with how nasty Wikipedia can be sometimes and its hard, I think he is right to leave if he feels this way and for that.Tellyaddict 11:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4

Due to your recent incivility to numerous editors, I have made a request for comment on your behaviour which can be found at the link above. Your comments are welcomed there. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be a 4? I know I've had three preceding RFCs. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that page was blank when I started it, if you want me to move it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4 then thats fine by me. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You should also check your facts; I resigned my rights (and left Wikipedia) prior to the onset of the Giano arbitration. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

cheers for the clarification, just to let you know, I've moved the page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4 to stop any confusion. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certifications

Hey, maybe you should thinking about letting the certification thing pass, it looks like the whole RFC thing is going pretty well for you. Gurch's outside view has fivefold the endorsements that the original statement does. Looks like people admire your lack of willingness to "suffer fools", as one person said, you should keep the RFC as a trophy :) Milto LOL pia 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I intend to waive that consideration; the purpose of my comments was simply to draw attention to the fact that the complainants have not made any real effort to "resolve" the "dispute" (or even to identify it, really). I do not intend to write a response on the request itself (in fact, I am technically prohibited from doing so because I have already endorsed an outside view); while it is tempting to point out all the errors in fact in Ryan Postlethwait's exposition, doing so is really a waste of time. It is my considered opinion that doing a full analysis and response to the response will not change anyone's mind, at least into my favor. The people who are opposed to me will remain opposed to me, and most of the people who are friendly to me will remain friendly to me. I have nothing to gain, and so much to lose, by writing an actual response. So I shan't. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now explain this please!

Nah, just winding you up. --Tony Sidaway 10:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot approvals group

Hi Kelly. Can you check out my suggestions here? Maybe you're OK with one or both of them? Thanks. —METS501 (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request.

Hey Kelly! I have a request. Could you refrain from voting at the RFA for a while? Even if your votes do not violate policy, they do not help Wikipedia. Thanks. -Mschel 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree completely here, if Kelly wants to comment in the request for adminship process shes more than happy to offer her opinion, whatever that may be. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I too, disagree, she gives reasons for her decision, so where is the disruption? David D. (Talk) 16:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just suggesting that she stop giving the "No wikproject endosment votes". I know they may not violate any policy but they have caused a huge amount of trouble. I am not saying she has to, but it might stop the seemingly never ending debate. -Mschel 16:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with never-ending debate but that did not start with Martin. The talk page for RfA has been a never-ending debate on reform for over a year. This is just another layer of discussion. Maybe i am less critical since i think this idea is interesting and worthy of a good airing. For me, anything that makes people head to the talk page and chime in towards reform is not such a bad thing. The more input the better. David D. (Talk) 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That few WikiProjects have yet endorsed potential administrators might suggest that potential administrators are not active editors. Maybe Kelly Martin's reasons for remaining neutral have identified a problem on Wikipedia which would be appropriate to rectify. --Iamunknown 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not inclined to respect this request. While I do acknowledge that there has been some disruption of the Request for Adminship voting community as a result of my activities, I do not believe that I am responsible for that disruption; rather, that disruption is due to the unreasonable expectations of some of the members of that community. I have hopes that this disruption, while certainly annoying at the moment, will eventually have positive long-term consequences for Wikipedia. This request has undertones of shooting the messenger, and while I don't fault Mschel for the request, I do not think it well-advised. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I take back part of this, I have found a couple helpfull RFA votes that you have made. Let me amend this request. Could you please stop giving "No wikiproject endorsment votes"? One other question: What is the point of making that type of vote? -Mschel 19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a completely unrelated question for Mschel: When people oppose an RfA because the candidate only has 89% use of edit summaries or has never written a featured article, do you feel that's a kosher criteria to apply? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{SeeBeforeYouDieMoved}}

I am suspicious of this tag. Does it apply to all images from the site from every photographer? Does whomever that gave the permission actually own the copyright or have the ability to relicense them? Even if we are asking the right person, were the request and response explicit enough? All of this and more answered on the next episode^W^W^W^Win the OTRS ticket (2006082710007408). Kotepho 02:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

P.s. Is OTRS capitalized gibberish?

That template is crap. I've handed it off to the copyright paranoia crew (who will nuke it) and reported the ticket to OTRS management as a mishandle. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. And for the record, OTRS is not "capitalised gibberish" because even I don't remember what it stands for. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTRS. Sometimes it just works, typing WP:what-has-me-confused ;-) Oh my, so does OTRS. Hmmm, m:OTRS works from within that page, but not from search box? So much to learn... Shenme 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, more specifically, OTRS is an initialism representing Open-source Ticket Request System. --Iamunknown 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. I tried typing WP:what-has-me-confused. That didn't work. :-( Carcharoth 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA pattern

Thanks for giving me a hint on User:Kelly Martin/RFA poll I have not seen a single opinion supporting your strange voting preference but indeed the consensus is to allow you to express your opinions in such an extravagant way. So be it. I would retract my calling you a troll then I would manage to assume the good faith behind these edits. Happy editing Alex Bakharev 11:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the talk page archives here you would find many who agree with her "voting preference". You should consider that it is probably only those who get worked up about this issue that bother to root out polls on this issue. Which makes one realise how useless such polls are in the big picture. Users need to focus on the message not the messenger. David D. (Talk) 16:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

I woke up this morning to see that my RfA had passed. I'm about to start with my thankyous but I thought I should say something to you first. While I did not think it was appropriate for me to comment while the RfA was in progress, I think the way people treated you on mine was a bit unfair. You have the right to oppose me for any reason you see fit -- even a vandalism count userbox. I think you are wrong, of course, as I believe it dissuades vandalism rather than encouraging it. I'll probably put an essay up on my user page at some point to that effect. Nevertheless, if you disagree you can oppose me on those grounds, and while your opposition can be questioned, you should not be insulted for it. I would like to apologize on behalf of my supporters for any incivility you felt. --Selket ^Talk 16:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

On that subject, I still don't understand what dissuading reputation meant to you in that RfA. That link you presented gives a very uncertain definition, that is not at all clear how that applies to having a vandalism count box. Would you be so kind as to explain what you think it means? (Otherwise, it seems that neither Newyorkbrad nor I would meet your adminship standards of knowing its importance either!) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what it means either, but that link is very interesting! I am going to have to avoid that MeatBall Wiki site. It's so cute though that they still use CamelCase from the old wikis - I guess that means it is one of the old wikis! :-) Carcharoth 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my experience, Selket, that vandalism counters encourage vandalism. I used to have a vandalism counter myself, and I've been a Wikipedian for over two years now and have seen the same pattern repeated many times.

As to how vandalism counters fail to "dissuade reputation": Any mechanism that memorializes an act of vandalism serves to reward the "reputation" of the vandalism. Dissuading reputation means that one does not provide reputational rewards to those who act in a negative way -- in this case, by memorializing each particular act of vandalism by incrementing a vandalism counter. Wikipedia very stupidly rewards vandalism in a number of ways, and the "vandalism counter" is by no means the worst of them, but I find this one particularly unwise. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could update the MeatballWiki to say that ... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Write a Wiki essay based on it, some people do not particularly like MeatballWiki (and that wiki should not necessarily be updated to be entirely specific for Wikipedia; Wikipedia should be updated to be specific for Wikipedia!). --Iamunknown 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kelly, I thought about it more, and I think that would be a really essay. I'd like to read it if you write it!  :) --Iamunknown 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I will keep the request in mind. I have to be in The Right Mood to write wikiphilosophical essays, and frankly the stupid drama and edit warring of the last few hours has definitely not left me in that mood. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

[edit] Answer to Sean William

In the previou section you wondered: "Wheel warring? One reversal does NOT a wheel war make. Sean William 20:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)"

I didn't go for it, although I could well restore my admin's action, because it was reverted without discussion. `'mikka 22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution to the wiki-drama. And there was much rejoicing! yay... --Iamunknown 22:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naruto images

If you insist on having these four images removed, you will need a better reason than "inappropriate context". All for are used are in use properly and in the correct context. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

List articles may not have nonfree content on them. This is consistent with Wikipedia's policy on nonfree content. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. In any case, these images are not being used consistent with the non-free image content policy, and they must therefore be removed. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing the nature of the consensus. This is for lists that have thumbnails for every single item. The jutsu lists were once like that, but were pruned so that only important, plot-crucial jutsu were depicted. –Gunslinger47 02:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that it is not possible for a screen capture from some barely interesting Japanese cartoon to be "important" enough to justify the use of non-free content. This is not Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima we're talking about here. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aside from pointing out the fact that your opinion might not be a shared one, I'll point out that the "barely interesting Japanese cartoon" you speak of happens to be quite popular both here and in Japan. Simply put, your opinion of the show does not determine how worthy it may be to use non-free content. Three images at the most is in no way excessive for something with 50-ish items, especially when the content they match is some of the show's most prominent features. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if it's the most popular cartoon in the history of man, it still doesn't merit the use of screenshots in this manner. In any case, I'm not going to pursue it now; someone else will probably come by later and remove them again and you can have this same pointless discussion with them too. Eventually, you'll get tired of fighting over this and give up, and they'll be deleted once and for all. Until then, enjoy your eye candy. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a productive attitude, but I'll agree to disagree if that's what you wish. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read that page, and nowhere on that page does it specifically prohibit the use of images on a list article. Your position is quite the disputed one, and certainly does not include the use of three or four images on a single article. When it comes to episode lists, large portions of sequential images and the like, you'd have a case that I would not dispute. Hell, I'd likely support you, however unhappily. In this case, however, I won't, as both articles are well within acceptable limits. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, you folks may want to check out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/List of Family Guy episodes. --Iamunknown 02:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been following that. Pretty poor place to hold such a discussion in my opinion, poorer still to draw the idea of consensus from. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message

Kelly, this will hopefully make you feel better. Whatever WikiDrama's happening, don't let it get you down. You're a good editor, and have made many good contributions, don't worry about people arguing about you on the administrator's noticeboard, and such things - you will get over it. --SunStar Net ^talk 17:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I just like the redirect's you setup here. Mathiastck 07:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kumquat!

Kumquat kumquat kumquat kumquat kumquat. Have a kumquaty day. :D DarkAudit 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page blog link removal request

Hello, I would like to request that you remove the link to your blog from your user page, as the link page currently lists: "Today's Worst Wikipedian in the World". I believe that it violates the spirit of "No Personal Attacks" and that links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed.

Perhaps if I don't like the link I should just ignore it, but there is a precedent the certain user page links are not acceptable regardless of claims that clicking on such a link is voluntary.

Please forgive my earlier removal of the link prior to dicussion.

Thank you

I agree with the comments above. You should remove the link immediately, as it does link to an off-site personal attack against a Wikipedian (for something as inoffensive as an RfA thankyou note, no less), and therefore is (in spirit) equivalent to posting personal attacks against that user on your userpage. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have struck out my comments above because, on reconsideration, I don't want to start an argument. Please ignore my posting. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Octothorpe

#

Your userbox is godly. :) ~EdBoy^[c] 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

You should probably be aware I read one of your blog posts and decided to do something about it, namely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics Sorry for the late notice. My excuse is that just nominating the things took me such a long time, and then I somehow neglected dropping you a note. You're not required to participate, but I thought you should be aware, as honorary catalyst or some such.

For what it's worth, I think they're now mostly meeting Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics

Have some faith in Wikipedia! User:AnonEMouse read your blog post about this article, apparently agreeing with your pessimistic view of the future of that stub:

I suppose the idea is that someone will come along and add endless details about each member of the Sudanese team and how they placed in each event they were in and so on and so forth. Yeah, right. That's going to happen.

Well, it did happen. The resultant AfD debate caused the members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics team to scramble and add to those stubs before they could be deleted. However, I'm quite concerned about this cause and effect — editors shouldn't be forced by threat of deletion to work on articles within a one week AfD time limit. In this admittedly massive WikiProject, we keep telling ourselves that there is no deadline, but apparently that's not true.

I can see some situations in which your blog post could apply — namely, individual stub articles that are started and forgotten. However, when a stub article is clearly part of a larger series, especially under the umbrella of an active WikiProject, and there is evidence of steady (if slow) progress on those stubs, then it is counter-productive to take steps backwards and delete work in progress.

I encourage you to post a follow-up to your blog if you agree with any of my points here. Thanks for your consideration, Andrwsc 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRIC has faced the same issue with very stubby articles on international cricket tours - see the redlinks at Template:West Indies cricket tours of England, for example. They can be very good - West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 is a featured article - but the deleted ones were of the form "The West Indian cricket team toured England in the 1969 season." Shrug. They can be recreated when we have time. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still an unresolved problem

As you were an arbcom member in the former cases concerning Onefortyone and Ted Wilkes, may I ask you to have a look at [1]. To my mind, there can be no doubt that User:Northmeister is identical with Ted Wilkes alias multiple-hardbanned User:DW, as he constantly removes the same content from Elvis-related article pages that Wilkes removed in the past. There may also be some further sockpuppets at work as in the recent case of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, because there are too many editors now removing well-sourced material I have contributed to article pages. See, for instance, this edit that deleted well-sourced information and even removed a discussion of important sources concerning Elvis Presley, another edit that also removed blocks of well-sourced material and put relatively unimportant information about Bush's and Koizumi's visit to Graceland in first place of the article, and this one which again removed blocks of well-sourced information I have contributed. Furthermore, if Northmeister is actually identical with Wilkes, then this sockpuppet has clearly violated Wilkes's probation. Some administrators were also of the opinion that there is something fishy about the matter and they suggested that this material be removed to WP:SSP for thorough investigation. However, I am at a loss what to do. Perhaps you can help. 80.141.216.40 18:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)