Kelly Martin
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Article titles and capitalisation 2 | 22 August 2025 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Venezuelan politics | none | (orig. case) | 6 August 2025 |
| Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 | none | (orig. case) | 25 August 2025 |
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| CTOP/AE page protection logging | 21 August 2025 |
- /Archive1 (December 2004 through April 2005)
- /Archive2 (May 2005)
- /Archive3 (June 2005)
- /Archive4 (July 2005)
- /Archive5 (August 2005)
Note: I may remove comments that are inserted without a section header. Please be nice and create a new section if you want to leave me a comment. I will reply on your user talk page (assuming you have one) unless you say otherwise. Kelly Martin 06:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Bureaucratship
Hi, Kelly Martin. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
I would also like to thank you for support and comment on a failed nomination, my RFA. In the end, there was no consensus whether I understand consensus. Rl 10:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
All-Star Comics merge
Hi - just curious why you think All Star Comics and All-American Comics should be merged? I see that you added the merge template, but you didn't give a reason. I get why you removed the paragraph you did from All Star Comics (although I think if it's rewritten to make its relevance clearer it could eventually go back), but All-American and All Star are two completely different comics. --Brian Olsen 20:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Re: Map Request
Could you possibly produce a map of the Interstates in Chicago and its immediate vicinity (I-80, I-90, I-94, I-55, I-57, I-290, I-355, and maybe I-88)? I'd like it for the Streets and highways of Chicago article. Thanks. Kelly Martin 06:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
How about this? I may redo it so that the numbers are bigger and more readable when shrunk to this size, so if you would like any other changes, ask now! - Marvin01 | talk 20:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, the map has been altered as you suggested. Anything else need fixed? - Marvin01 | talk 04:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The Lonely Duckprams
I guess the duckprams need a home..........--WikiFanatic
Image:Parkway1.jpg
I hope you're planning to take the pictures, I don't know any Wikipedians who get out there to take a picture themselves. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- How do you know it's reasonbly possible if you haven't been there yourself? And if you're willing to put that tag on, you should also be willing to take the picture, IMHO. Don't judge it without being willing to do it yourself. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Gift
For helping getting rid of many NSFW photos with me and others, here is this Barnstar. Zach (Sound Off) 17:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Protection of Bogdanov Affair
Seeing as the main problem the article faces is information removal from anonymous IPs belonging to the subject of the article, I don't think a dispute protection is reasonable. Nor do I think vandalism protection is sensible - it's not as though we can effectively block off a huge IP range, nor as though the arbcom is going to be effective in prying the Bogdanovs off the article. Our best bet is to ruthlessly revert the Bogdanovs on sight, and render their POV vandalism ineffective. Continually allowing the article to be protected does not give them a persuasive reason to stop editing it, since protection means their critics are silenced also. Snowspinner 21:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
WikiProject Illinois
Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois -- something you may be interested in. Cheers. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Drew Barrymore
Not to worry, the Wiki overlords are about to run a purge of all untagged images. My guess is that their main reason for doing that is to free up a bunch of disk space on the TRS-80 that they use as their website server. Wahkeenah 05:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
WikiOops
Did I say raul said he could get a room at UIC? I meant Rdsmith4. Whoops! — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo Proclamation
You've added another criteria for speedy deletion, noting that it was by proclamation from Jimbo. I'm not doubting your honesty, but where exactly did he say this? I'd like to see it for myself. Was it on the mailing list? If so, can you provide a link? I don't subscribe. Superm401 | Talk 03:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keetoowah Arbitration case
Hello,
The Arbitration case against Keetoowah that you contributed to has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah/Evidence.
Yours,
omphalology
What makes you think the material in omphalology was nonsense? Michael Hardy 20:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- ... and since you haven't replied to what I wrote above, I've restored the page. If you still want to delete it, you should list it on votes for deletion so people can discuss it. Michael Hardy 22:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar
Here it is, as promised. Enjoy! - Mgm|(talk) 21:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
w00t 1337 ness. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Rollback
I haven't seen the message that you mentioned to User:BGC (where did you leave it?), so if I'm not addressing your worry, or am missing your point, I apologise.
If you look at the history of this dispute (long and dreary), you'll see that I began trying to bring a set of articles into line with Wikipedia style (MoS, naming conventions, etc.). BGC jumped in to "defend" what he seem to think of as his articles. He refused to listen to explanations, simply reverting my edits wholesale (even when other editors joined in, explaining the position to him). The issue isn't content, but style — he is reverting a large number of articles, in every case going against the Manual of Style. I take that to be (as I've argued in a few places) low-level vandalism; in any case, without using rollback I'd have been hard-pressed to keep up with his reverts and those of all the other vandals (low- and high-level) with whom I have to deal. Besides, I take it that the only problems with rollback are, first, that it marks edits as minor, and secondly, that it provides an automated edit summary. My edits were minor, as they involved no change to content, only to style (links, dashes, etc.), and the edit summaries were detailed enough, in the circumstances.
As I said at the beginning, if I discover that I've wrongly anticipated your points, I apologise, and I'll come back to respond to them properly. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've asked about this issue at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism; you might want to contribute to the discussion (when, or if, it starts). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia Meetup
- The 15th sounds okay for me, but I have to talk with my parents first ;). Also, have you talked to Jimbo? I think his page says he's busy until the 8th of Nov. Oh well... BTW, isn't LaSalle Dr. downtown? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I might be in Chicago that weekend visiting friends anyways, if so I'll be there. --Arcadian 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'll be there. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Typo in quote
Hi Kelly. In the quote you added at U.S. v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, did the judge write "prevent contraception" or "prevent conception"? dbenbenn | talk 05:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Vote on Deryck Chan's RFA
You had voted oppose, based on his signature being transcluded and him campaigning in his sig. Now that he's stopped doing both, I ask you to perhaps reconsider, or at least note that you oppose for other reasons (I changed mine to neutral). Ral315 WS 13:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Contacting you as requested
Um, I'm not sure what to say... I have a good guess as to what this is about, but I didn't think I did anything so horrible...
Awaiting your reply, Alynna 21:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
2PL
Heya Karynn, as discussed on IRC, could you look at Two phase commit? Thanks mate! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Kelly, thanks for your question. I've put a response up on the nomination page, and should probably add a link from Maoririder's Arbitration case onto that RfC if i'm able before others get the wrong idea. Millions of people suffer from mental retardation across the world, but many mentally retarded individuals I've known are able to coexist to some extent within society(Wikipedia is basically a micro-society), largely because they respect others. Maoririder hasn't shown that respect through his actions so far and should be treated just like any other Wikipedian who does so. Karmafist 01:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Just because...
...I like you. ;-) (Don't bite my shorts!) -- Essjay · Talk 05:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
RfC on Mel
You're invited to the party. Bring a friend. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Etitis
Reverting
I wonder how far back you've traced this affair? If you check its beginnings, you'll see that I spent a very long time trying to discuss the issues and reason with the editors concerned; for example:
- Winnermario (with interjections from OmegaWikipedia): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc.
- OmegaWikipedia (with interjections from DrippingInk, and with some warnings as well as explanations, as OmegaWikipedia has been by far the worst and most persistent offender, if not as hysterical as Anittas or even WinnerMario): [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc.
When all that explanation has no effect, and one sees one's careful attempts to bring grammatical correctness, encyclopædic language, and correct Wikipedia style to articles being reverted, usually with no explanation, and edit summaries that are either blank or insulting, one might be forgiven for giving up on the explanations simply reverting. I didn't do that, however; I kept trying to explain, I appealed for help at W:AN & W:AN/I, I placed articles at RfC, and I discussed with those editors willing to engage in rational discussiom how we might resolve the disagreements. Moreover, from the beginning I did my best only to revert those edits that went against the MoS, grammar, etc., replacing any additions of information; I probably sometimes missed something, but the editors reverted me had no such compunction, and reverted my edits wholesale.
Note also that I had stopped reverting before the RfC; the result has been that the three or four editors reverting me have gleefully jumped at the chance to continue unabated, and have completely ignored the attempts to discuss the matter.
One or two editors have seen fit to take me to task over this affair (though, oddly, none of them came to my aid when I was appealing for it against vandalism and persistent reverting), arguing that although it takes to to have a revert war, admins should be held to a higher standard of behaviour. I agree, and the record shows that I did behave considerably better.
Oh, as to my comments about those who brought the RfC, they stand, I'm afraid. The RfC, as a number of people have noticed, was badly formed and hasty, especially the crucial section "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm suggesting it on the basis of the evidence. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, you criticised me on certain clearly stated grounds ("reverting first and asking questions later if at all"), I demonstrated that those grounds were false, and now you're waving a vague hand at them and finding other grounds (whose falsity is a matter of public record, and is demonstrated by me in the RfC). Forgive me if I suspect that nothing that I say or do is going to persuade you. Your attitude to me ever since my first (polite and reasonable) question at Talk:Vandalism, which immediately attracted the hysterical aggression of those who have been reverting me, was somewhat hostile (involving a confusion between content and style that an avowed grammar fascist is unlikely to have made). I didn't know why, and I still don't. I do know that my attempts to improve Wikipedia have not only not been supported by you, but have been undermined and attacked, while the editors who have been in clear and persistent breach of the MoS, Wikipedia guidelines, the standards of decent English, and common courtesy, seem to have been beneath your Olympian notice. I don't expect sympathy, and I've ceased to expect fairness much less support, but perhaps you could at least stop distracting me from more useful pursuits. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
David Mertz article
I listed the David Mertz article for deletion once again, just wanted to see if you still had an issue with it or wanted to vote. --ScottyBoy900Q 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Kelly
Kelly, this is OmegaWikipedia. Concerning the RFC on Mel, I've left my outside views on the matter, and I'd appreciate your thought on it. I can't speak on behalf of other editors, but at least for me, I feel that he is painting me into an inaccurate light with some of his accusations. As you mentioned I was a newcomer when I first met Mel, and like you mentioned he "bit me" and displayed hostile behavior that made me uncomfortable. We have tried to resolve matters a few times with third parties, but when the outcome of that was not in his favor, he continued to revert anyway. OmegaWikipedia 19:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo
Well, I only deleted the article Robert Aumann and not Jimbo himself, and with the content "He won the Nobel Prize!" I would call it a valid speedy as "little or no context". No favors given, none expected. The next version is OK, although it's a short stub. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, what did Jimbo say on IRC? I have never been there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
On a related note, another interesting debate was Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Henrik Nordström. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the quotes, do you have the entire conversation? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Congrats!
Congratulations on being appointed to the Arbitration Committee! I have no doubt that you'll be a great addition to the committee, and I hope you plan to run for a seat in December! Ral315 WS 22:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations fnord from fnord fnord me too. I think fnord you will do a good fnord job. (TINC). ;-) --GraemeL (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear moo. Congratulations on your appointment! Pass some cake here too :) User:Nichalp/sg 08:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Congrats! --Anittas 09:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Congrats on your ARBitration appointment! Though some have bemoaned the appointment as ARBitrary, I'm sure you'll wield your ARBalest of power well. (Will you run for re-election, I wonder, or accept an ARBituary at the end of the year?) We all wish you ARBest. – Quadell (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Kelly Martin. Congrats on your recent appointment to the ArbCom! The Committee has just added another excellent member. Anyways, in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue (next Monday), we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Your appointment and Mindspillage's appoinment caught me off guard, I have to admit: I had already given all the current ArbCom members some time to answer some of my questions. In addition, I understand that you've just been appointed and haven't had much time to form an insider's opinion of the ArbCom. Nevertheless, I hope you are willing to tell us how you feel about the ArbCom. I've tried my best to give you the same questions as I gave the other Arbitrators, but I've modified some of them slightly. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!
1. Do you plan to run for re-election this year? Why or why not?
2. How do you feel about being appointed to serve on the ArbCom?
3. Right now, what do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
4. Weaknesses?
5. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
6. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
7. Do you think your job will be easy? Hard? Explain.
8. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
9. What do you think will be the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
10. Any other thoughts regarding your appoinment?
I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 14:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 19:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Kelly. Thanks a lot for supporting the proposal not to ban me. It's really nice :) -- Ze miguel 20:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Accusations?
Hello, I would like some information regarding the arbitration case against me. It says (quote): The case has beeen opened mainly to consider the behavior of REX. What does that mean? Which particular aspects of my behaviour are being considered? How do I defend myself against unknown accusations? I added a rather extensive statement with justifications for my every possible action which the arbitration committee could have been referring to; the problem is that it now exceeds the 500-word limit. If you tell me what I am being accused of, I can remove the redundant parts, because I suspect that no one will actually read it all. I do think that I have a right to know what I the arbitration committee will be looking at so that I can arrange an appropriate defence. When I asked User:Fred Bauder on his talk page Fred, I notice that the case I had filed has a different name now. Why is that? What am I being accused of specifically? The heading is very vague? he said The change of the title from the arbitration case reflects recognition that the focus of the matter is on the behavior of REX. What is that supposed to mean? What I would like to know is what am I being accused of. I am not being unreasonable. Every other arbitration case has specific accusations against the "defendant". Why not me? It seems very unfair. REX 19:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello again, thank you for your response, I will do what you suggested. However, I still don't know which aspects of my behaviour will be considered. You did accept the case, you must have some idea. I may start adding totally irrelevant evidence on the /Evidence page. I would really like to know what my transgression was, which will be considered. As I've said, in every other arbitration case, there are specific accusations against the "defendant". That is how they know what evidence to add. I, for some reason, am denied that knowledge. REX 10:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I can see that you have been active since I posted my second inquiry. Why aren't you responding? What am I being accused of? All other arbitration cases have specific accusations against someone, why not me? REX 20:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not nagging. I want to know what I am being accused of, it's not unreasonable. REX 20:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Peter
Hi Kelly, thanks for the note. I lifted the block -- looks like it was just a case of unfortunate timing. I was watching the newusers log during a nasty bit of sockpuppetry/improper account creations and when I saw that, my first thought was that it was someone trying to be funny. Totally my fault, but I'm glad I was wrong. I've lifted the block and will go apologize to Karmosin! · Katefan0(scribble) 15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)