Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/KellyAna


 * OK, it's clear that an outcome was made by the Checkuser, as it is stated right above. I would like to move this conversation back over to the WP:SSP report. I will inform the case of the outcome of the WP:RFCU. Thanks Thatcher for all your help. DJS --DJS24 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have some more questions above. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also added another question above.--DJS24 (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * . We're done here unless you have specific evidence against other accounts. Thatcher 11:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you at least say whether the edits post-3/19 are consistently the same IP, then we have some evidence she's lying about something she really has no reason to lie about ... unless that account was always a work-only account. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We don't need to know if IrishLass0128 changed jobs or not, and if someone else turns up and edits abusively, we can always come back. Frankly, if she decides to return and edits productively under a different account, then who really cares. Ani  Mate  11:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh for the love of the Gods. I come back from Texas to NORTH CAROLINA (never claimed to ever edit from California always said I was from NC) for a night before going to Phoenix and I see this lovely load of carp along with an email from Irish that freaks me the hail out.  (personal information removed)  Irish is a nice person and I'm one hell of a raging bitch. She convinced me because of tweedle DJS' sock report to not come here but an unrelated search lead me to Wiki. Elonka, you're a liar about me sending you an email. I'm done with that and haven't done it in a couple weeks. Antigone28 is my NBC name and I never used it here and I sure the fukc havent sent the likes of you an email from here. Here's the hysterical part, we travel with NASCAR and I could edit from anywhere they are but I was blocked and respected that block. I could have edited from Texas, I could edit from Phoenix this weekend, BUT I DON'T. Elonka knows why Irish isn't editing, has she bothered to offer that up or blame it all on me? I can break the sister code and post Irish's email that she BCC'd to me that will explain why SHE hasn't replied to any of this.  (personal information removed)  She's right to fear DJS. I would too but I'm pretty sure the 12 year old wouldn't be much of a fight for me or my husband. KellyAna (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They also defend the same things and each other, see here and here.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 07:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And by the way, leave Rm994 alone, he's not me and it's just nastinest adding him to this. KellyAna (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 12 year old, I'm insulted. At least I took you two on by myself. I didn't have another user to team up with. You and Irishlass should know all about that. --DJS24 03:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * KellyAna, your main problem (throughout your entire edit history, even before this occurred) is that you're very hot tempered and quick to read an insult into nearly anything that occurs on Wiki, whether it's a minor edit to an article or someone offering constructive criticism. After a while, the people who could help you have started to tune you out. Calling Elonka (an admin I trust) a liar about nasty e-mails (which have occurred with apparently more than one user), combined with your -- at times, vicious and vitriolic -- temper, I'm sorry, dear, but it doesn't make me side with you. It's like the case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Now you need the help and nobody's going to help you, and I hate to say it, but a lot of this was your doing. Mike H. Fierce! 03:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope i'm putting this in the right place. I came here after doing some digging, because I noticed KellyAanna and Irishlass were removed as participants of the soap project. I haven't had much to do with either users on a one-to-one basis, but I have noticed that she (or they) have done a lot of good work on soap articles in the past, which I think is being overlooked. I dont wanna step on anyone's toes, but there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence that they are the same person. I realise that the line of thinking here is to block one (the most problematic, KellyAnna) and leave the other account unblocked so she can come back and edit again one day. This makes sense if they really are the same person, but if there's even a remote chance that KellyAnna is speaking the truth, and that Irishlass is not going to be editing here anymore, wouldn't it make more sense to block Irishlass (seeing as she apparently wont be back anyway) and eventually allow KellyAnna access to edit instead. That way you can monitor her more easily than if she were to make another account, and you would still be covering all bases by blocking one supposed sock puppet. I just think it's a shame to lose an editor who, despite problems, contributes a lot to wikipedia. Gung adin  01:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but if you scan KellyAna's talkpage, I think you'll also see that she was a hair's breadth away from an indef block for other things as well. If she were able to acknowledge her previous problems and promise that she was going to make a sincere effort to do better, I could see allowing her back, but instead she was pretty clear that she was incapable of controlling her temper, especially in the late evening. And this was compounded by her sending some extremely savage emails to multiple targets.  Those alone could have justified an indef block, but we kept giving her second chances. Whether IrishLass is a different person, or simply a different "Daytime" persona, I think that's the personality that we want to go with. --Elonka 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that there was/is plenty of concrete evidence that KellyAna was also IrishLass, even if not in every instance. I certainly know for a fact that KellyAna was/is Antigone28. Just check my talk page for that subject. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)