User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2005 October

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Re: Mediation Committee

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)

[edit] Just because...

Just because...
Just because...

...I like you. ;-) (Don't bite my shorts!) -- Essjay · Talk 05:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Mel

You're invited to the party. Bring a friend. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Etitis

--Anittas 17:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] ArbCom elections

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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

It's no problem, thanks again for the message. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attention! Unwarned Unvandalizing IP Blocked indefinitely!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#71.112.0.134.27s_contribs 207.200.116.69 00:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lightbringer RfArb

Following a request on WP:RFPP, I have protected Freemasonry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). It was in the middle of a days-long edit war between Lightbringer (talk · contribs) (who was calling all the others' good faith edits vandalism) and several other editors. I looked at the history beforehand for a 3RR and it seems that a day after the 3RR block, Lightbringer made 3 reverts, which looks like gaming to me. Considering the current arb case and the protection is evil, I think a better solution is make a temporary injunction against Lightbringer (and possibly others?) editing that article, so it can be unprotected. I gather only arbitrators are allowed to propose that, but, as an uninvolved admin who'd never seen Lightbringer before this, I think it needs to be done. Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 07:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Replying to you

Thank you for the advice. I'll try not to be dominated by my legalism in my work in the case. Thanks again! --Neigel von Teighen 20:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost

Hello, Kelly Martin! I just wanted to deliver this week's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, which features the current ArbCom, directly to your front door. :-) Also, if you wish to read your fellow Arbitrators' full and unabridged responses, you can find them here. Thanks again for all your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maya calendar

I just did a spot-check on one of the alleged "inappropriate" changes (Maya calendar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)), and user:Jguk's edit was appropriate in that article (before his edit the article contained one instance of BC and one of BCE; the BCE instance was more recently inserted, making BC the "appropriate" style under the terms of the prior ArbCom ruling). Your revert actually returned the article to a state prohibited by the MoS, because you reverted only Jguk's change, and not the other instance of BC in the article.

I've not decided whether to recommend that we accept this case or not, but at this point if we do accept it be aware that your conduct in this matter will also be subject to our review. You appear to have have no history of editing Maya calendar prior to your ill-considered revert of Jguk; this certainly suggests that you're stalking him, a behavior which we have indicated is unacceptable. Kelly Martin 22:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a "truce" where by no editor would try to make "consistent" an article, because this led to edit wars whereby Jguk would demand consistency using BC/AD, and others (including me) would prefer consistency with BCE/CE. You seem to defend converting to BC/AD in that article based on which was used first, yet this metric has never been applied, and indeed if you look at Julius Caesar, the very first version uses BCE/CE [11], yet if you look at the current article, it uses BC/AD (which Jguk defends). The only way to prevent the edit wars was to leave the date styles as entered, pending some other resolution. Jguk was the only one to continue to insist on making articles "consistent" with his preferred style, which is why I reverted. As for the stalking claim, I have opposed Jguk's attempts to convert articles to BC/AD which I do not believe is "stalking". Just because he claims something on IRC does not make it true, which is why I would encourage you to accept the case. Sortan 22:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, when Jguk patrols articles to enforce his style (see [12] 6.1 and 7), I don't see you accusing him of stalking. He, in fact, continues patrolling Humus sapien's edits among others to enforce his style. Sortan 23:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: I am concerned about you

Actually, this is one of those rare times that I will actually disagree with your opinion. Allow me to explain...

  • Personal attack on AFD page; "...Ben D. you brainless fuck wit, at least read the content which was formely posted..."
  • Removes comments after being asked not to.
  • Blanks user page of Ben D.; as you recall, he just called Ben D. a "brainless fuck wit".
  • Vandalizes user page of Ben D. after I revert him.

Now, according to WP:BLOCK, I am allowed to block him. Quote: "Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion." Perhaps a warning might have been less "controversial", but I did no wrong by blocking someone who was attacking another Wikipedia user. Linuxbeak | Talk 16:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ==What is fair use?==

On Image:The-play.jpg, you have certified that its use in Scramble band is Fair use. It doesn't, however, contain:

  • Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible.
  • For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question.

as specified in Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I don't understand why it would be certified. Jim Apple 18:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC?

If people have a genuine complaint about a user, and wish to discuss it, why do you further escalate the matter by calling it "ridiculous"? Radiant_>|< 10:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I would actually appreciate an answer to the above. Radiant_>|< 16:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: RfArb

Ms. Martin:

Greetings! I hope you're well. As you may recall, I have submitted the above noted RfArb and accept your rejection of this issue.

Though I realise a reason must be provided, however, I am concerned by your (and Arb Fred Bauder’s) dismissive tone of the issue. One user has expressed concern about the conduct of another, and you diminish it with a "mother(ly)" comment.

In the very least, your comment is ill-worded. If all issues are arbitrated with such colourful/judicious commentary – as arbitrators are supposed to be ambivalent and not presumably condescending (particularly by a mother as you) – then it brings the arbitrators or Wp process(es) into disrepute, and makes one question their commitment to the project in the first place. Coincidentally, I also take note of the immediately previous comment by User Radiant!, which adds credence to this. In contrast, Arb Mindspillage provided a helpful (and ambivalent) comment about process, and I will take that under advisement.

In any event, thank you for your (non-)consideration. Take care!

Sincerely,

E Pluribus Anthony 20:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did not take this decision to RfArb at all lightly, and did so wholly aware of other means at a user's disposal. As well, this was done within the lens of another issue (in this case, a mediation) that I'm involved in, which is fine. I could've just as easily continued to debate the user ad nauseum (and did, to a point) regarding the issue or to fully withdraw, but his proposals (in my opinion) are flawed and behaviour even moreso. It is, in fact, out of respect for the ArbComm that I approached it in the first place with this.
Your comments, as well, are inflammatory (with prior examples apparent), but your own position as an arbitrator is wholly clear. While I accept the decision made, and neither request nor require a response from you, your crass comment should give pause both ways. To paraphrase your own statement: get found.
E Pluribus Anthony 21:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi; to clarify: the mediation I noted I'm involved is a totally different issue (which is unfolding well) than the current RfArb. I mentioned that to you because I know of and am well-versed in the dispute resolution processes involved and, in moving forward, that the mediation process would not compel a change in the user's behaviour in this instance (which the user has stated).
Moreover, I would not make such statements falsely nor in bad faith but (of course) I have as a unique an opinion as anyone. Perhaps the 'appeal to authority' (which I did because of the ArbComm's apparent impartiality) is a fallacy; if so or if I've conducted myself improperly (or with verbosity; perhaps I should just let it die?), I apologise. But conciliation is a two-way street ... both regarding my request and in subsequent commentary.
In any event, thanks for your consideration. E Pluribus Anthony 21:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stevertigo's RfA

Stevertigo is listed on RFA per order of the ArbCom. This RFA must be allowed to run to completion; do not delist it for any reason whatsoever before the end of its appointed time without the approval of the ArbCom. Kelly Martin 00:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Awesome. I was thinking about that actually after I removed it, since that one was a special case and mandated by the ArbCom and all that. Cheers, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Meaning, I was asking myself if I hadn't just erred in removing the page, which was confirmed when I saw you had reverted me. Just to clarify.Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advice?

Hi, I was hoping you could help me out. This whole "gentlemans agreement" stuff wasn't my idea, and I'm opposed to it. I haven't asked for Tony to step down. The reason I endorsed it was that Tony came out guns a'blazing against myself and several other admins and editors over the Maoririder incident, and I felt he was being incivil. Now it seems, he's actually questioning my good faith. How can I function as an admin when my peers think I'm acting against the encyclopedia? I didn't realize that confirmation RfA's were against policy, and I regret the sideshow it's become. I want to be an admin, and I think I'm a good admin, but apparently I'm the only one who feels that way. What are my options? Thanks for your time.--Scimitar parley 15:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I understand. Thanks again for your time.--Scimitar parley 15:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Please explain to me why I should be ashamed of stating that Tony might benefit from opening himself up to some real community input? Clearly there is precedent.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk:
Your proposal involved a breach of Wikipedia policy (admins are not permitted to stand for confirmation except in the rare case of being ordered to by the ArbCom, something which has only happened twice), and furthermore (if followed) would have extended conflict rather than reduced it. Wikipedia is not a dueling ground, and we do not need people exacerbating disputes through grandstanding. Fortunately, Scimitar and Tony, both being adults, were able to resolve their dispute and reach a position that was mutually acceptable to the both of them without having to go at it with swords and sticks in the middle of the public square -- something which you clearly would have desired. Your bloodthirstiness for Tony's sysop flag has been noted, and is that that of which you should be ashamed. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Kelly,
You and I have had, to my memory, exactly zero interaction prior to this. Thus I'm puzzled by the, well, vehemence of your response. "Breach", "dueling ground", and even "bloodthirstiness" are the words you've chosen. I'll try to adress the points you've raised as I understand them:
  • Policy - I suppose I could start with WP:IAR as a defence, however I actually do not have to do so. I've looked over the previous dead-minnings and confirmations, and the area is pretty grey. I proposed a straw poll with an explicit lack of binding condistions. If you're suggesting that an admin would not be allowed to apply themselves for confirmation, what would you do with one who did?
  • Extension of conflict - I'm going to attempt to tread carefully here with you, ok? You've characterised my actions quite strongly here as not only attempting to stir up conflict, but to do so with the aim of impressing or winning approval. I'd first ask that you re-read my submissions to Tony's RfC. Then I'd ask how your submissions served to lower the level of conflict?
  • Scimitar - Again, I'd ask that you review this section of the RfC. These two adults were nowhere near resolving their fairly one-sided dispute prior to this exchange. Are you immune to the implication that perhaps Tony will stop needling Scimitar now because of this so-called duel?
  • Ashamed - I've done precisely one thing that I'm not proud of, the details of which are enumerated on both my user and my talk pages. Again, treading as lightly as possible, can you review your input into this as an editor and an ArbCom member and say that you've conducted yourself in a manner in which you can be proud?
Clearly you're quite passionate about this. I'd simply ask that you marry that passion to a bit more restraint in the manner in which you express yourself. While I'm not a perfect example of such restraint, I'd ask you to point to a section of this RfC where I have been intemperant. I'd then ask that you compare my words with the high drama of your response above.
Regardless of whatever personal feelings you may have about this issue, it should be clear that more heat than light is generated by Tony's activities. It should also be clear that the dismissiveness of Tony's response is inversely proportional to the politeness of the comment. If you can find flaw with the view that I submitted or the commentary on the talk page around it, please let me know.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You've now commented twice on my ill-fated RfA, once directly referencing this talk page entry. I'm not sure how I'm going wrong with you by speaking plainly and honestly, but I seem to be doing so. I'm really am a compulsive soother, and have made genuine attempts to communicate with you. If there is some reason that you'd rather comment on me than talk to me perhaps this could be conveyed through some intermediary, such SlimVirgin or Dmcdevit perhaps? - brenneman(t)(c) 22:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony's RFC

If people have a genuine complaint about a user, and wish to discuss it, why do you further escalate the matter by calling it "ridiculous"? Radiant_>|< 10:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What I felt was ridiculous is how quickly y'all chose to discard good faith and accuse Tony of vile crimes against Wikipedia when all he was doing was telling you that he did not approve of your actions. The RFC comes across, to me, at least, as "You have no business complaining about what we're doing, go away or we'll make trouble for you". I remain unconvinced that at least a majority of the complaintants in that RFC seek to "discuss" a genuine "complaint"; rather, it seems rather obvious that the intent was to nail Tony to a tree. The use of RfC as a punitive measure is ridiculous. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You seem to have read a number of hidden meanings, accusations and even threats in the RFC that I, at least, haven't written in there. RfC is not, and cannot be, a punitive measure since it has no actual power other than discussion. I have stated that Tony is incivil; I have not accused him of disruption, nor have I requested any measures. It strikes me that the ArbCom cases on Everyking and Stevertigo are mostly about their incivility, and therefore it seems biased that the ArbCom would so flippantly dismiss an attempt to discuss another user's incivility (and before you ask, no, the RFC was certainly not intended as a prelude to RFAr). Radiant_>|< 16:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's fair enough, but might I suggest that in future cases you write a paragraph about the issue such as you just did on my userpage, rather than simply say "it's ridiculous"? I think that the dispute resolution process as a whole could use some serious reforming, but I'm not sure where to begin. Radiant_>|< 17:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advogato templates

This is the template set I mentioned on IRC. It's a no-frills copy of the Babel project templates (those "I speak good Spanish" templates you see everywhere).

To use it, you'd type this into your user page:

{{User advogato-3|kelly}}

There is a network of categories behind this all linked eventually to Category: Wikipedian programmers. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment transposed from other talk page

Hi,

I randomly happened by the Aaron's talk page, and saw your recent chastisement of him regarding Tony Sidaway. I don't wish to condone everything said against Mr. Sidaway (and certainly not the vandalism against him), but I see nothing wrong per se with a request that Mr. Sidaway stand for reconfirmation. Only the Arbcom could compel him to do so, of course, but asking him (in light of the recent controversy), seems perfectly reasonable to me. Of course, such request should be made politely. If there is a policy prohibiting voluntary reconfirmations, I'd like to know where it is, and I'd like to object to it. Anyone should be free to voluntarily re-stand.

Writing you now, I'll take a moment to reemphasize something I said at Tony's RfC. Especially as an Arbcom member, I was very disappointed that you endorsed the phrase "This is ridiculous" at that page. Objections to the merits and the form of a complaint are fine, but short unqualified statements like that are only flippant, don't belong in any serious debate, and shouldn't be encouraged. If a jurist at law issued such an opinion, he would be disciplined.

Having said those things, and despite disagreeing strongly regarding Mr. Sidaway's conduct, I must add that your user-page has THE CUTEST BABY PICTURE ON EARTH. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 18:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reaffirmations of admins

Having read the indicated discussion, I see no real concensus on the issue (estimable as Crecropia's opinion may be.) Further, the discussion there seems to concern primarily whether RfA is the proper forum for such revalidations, given WP:POINT concerns. I see no real indication that other fora would be similarly disfavored for this, and no consensus that RfA is. Clearly, revalidations should be rare, but an admin is not a slave to his office, and ought to be free to seek such a measure himself without needed to go through the quasi-"process fiction" of resigning to reapply.

In sum, I believe it proper to say that policy in this area is uncertain. I don't think a polite, good-faith request to consider such revaldation can truly be called "against policy" in fairness. Whether Aaron's particular request was or wasn't polite, I won't say, but I should think any chatisement for impoliteness would arise under WP:CIV, not on the basis of a policy that I cannot discern in the record. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your comments about my handling of Anittas

Excuse me? Appalled? It is clear from the evidence at hand that he was potentially in violation of 3RR. I specifically did not take action because I wanted to give him the chance to improve, and appropriately directed him to the proper resources to resolve his dispute. If you find something in particular about my manner of handling his query with respect to what I said on his talk pages, then by all means state it clearly. I do not take this accusation that my behavior was 'appalling' lightly. --Durin 02:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Kelly, you're operating from presumptions that are (with no insult intended), frankly speaking, false (I am not saying in bad faith, just false). I assert again that you and Nicholas failed to observe WP:AGF. You say you were personally approached. Yet, I had no means of ascertaining that this had happened since it was out of process, off Wikipedia, and beyond my ability to see. You can not hold me accountable for acting without consideration of his personal approach to you. Yet, you are. In no respect did I assume his mediation request was made in bad faith; in fact vigorously the opposite. Please read my response to Nicholas Turnbull's statements to me. Based on what I could see here on Wikipedia, nobody was responding to Anittas and offering him any means of resolving the dispute. I stepped in to aid him, and to help prevent him from violating WP:3RR. I had no prior history with this editor; you are incorrect. I was acting in my role as an admin to help avert a 3RR violation and to give advice on how the user could proceed according to policy.
  • It states in the very introduction on WP:MEDCAB "This page will never be Wikipedia policy. It is, by design, entirely unofficial and out of process." MedCab has no special authority under which it operates. Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, under which I was operating, is official policy. I stand by my actions, which were made in good faith, to aid an editor who was in need of assistance. As I noted to Nicholas, posting on WP:MEDCAB violated the process there and I have apologized for it. That said, my posting there was not in any violation of wiki-spirit, was done in good faith and was entirely inline with Wikipedia policy. Despite this, both you and Nicholas did not follow WP:AGF and instead took to insulting my behavior. Nicholas apologized for his actions in a very abject apology. I have to admit that when reading his apology I was expecting the other shoe to drop as it were; I was expecting there to be a "but,". There wasn't. His apology was well articulated, and heartfelt. From you, I have received nothing of the sort. Instead, I have received a continued assault on my behavior. I find this unacceptable, distasteful, and wholly undermining of my trust in WP:MEDCAB and indeed in ArbCom if your behavior is standard. You are attacking me without grounds in policy, doing so on the basis of not assuming good faith, and have been insulting in the process. I find no grounds for validity of your complaint except in so far as my previously apologized for breaking of process at WP:MEDCAB.
  • Referring to WP:MEDCAB, it says "we don't ... judge anyone's actions". Clearly, you and Nicholas both did, violating the spirit of WP:MEDCAB. Further, it says "we are just here to ... be nice to people". Calling my behavior appalling, and Nicholas calling my behavior "Officious" is not being nice to people. I would also like to point out that in the very template for new requests at WP:MEDCAB there is a section for comments by others. I admit, as I did before, that I did not read all of WP:MEDCAB prior to making my posting. However, on seeing this template, I have seen that my comments would be acceptable under that section (and indeed it has now been placed under such a section after the template was applied to the case). So, my posting was not all that out of line with the process at WP:MEDCAB, else it would have been summarily deleted.
  • Earlier, I asked you "If you find something in particular about my manner of handling his query with respect to what I said on his talk pages, then by all means state it clearly." You have done so here. As noted, I find the basis of your complaint as being false (I'm not saying it was in bad faith, just false). I find no basis in which your complaints have validity. Extending this further, I am asking you now to indicate what specific Wikipedia policies I have violated, and how I violated them. From my chair, I did not violate any Wikipedia policies. But, I am not perfect; certainly others may see something I have not. If you can find it, I will apologize for it and correct my behavior with respect to future actions. If you can not, I stand by what I have repeatedly said before; I will gladly do as I have done before except in so far as posting on WP:MEDCAB is concerned, where it is obvious that I am not welcome...which is odd since it is a place of welcome. Therefore, on my part, I have taken corrective action as appropriate to prevent this dispute between myself and you and Nicholas from happening again; if I remain off WP:MEDCAB, I won't affect your process. Since, failing any findings of violation of policy on my part, there are no grounds for your complaint against me in any other respect, there is no need for corrective action on my part in so far as my conduct on Anitta's talk page and that of the other involved parties.
  • In closing, I would like to say that I find this entire episode entirely avoidable and extremely distasteful. I am by nature a pacifist person, and do not like to be the subject of extended arguments. My behavior here on Wikipedia is an extension of that; I do not violate WP:CIVIL because I know it will only serve to make matters worse. In this dispute, I find myself the subject of negative scrutiny of the head of WP:MEDCAB and a member of ArbCom. You will forgive me, I hope, if I find it necessary to vigorously defend myself when faced with two people of such positions on Wikipedia. Were this to become an RfC or worse, I would be just an admin vs. two admins both with significant positions in addition to their admin status. I feel the two of you have placed me on a slippery slope from which recovery is difficult. This could ultimately lead to sanctions against me. With the words of two such prestigous people as yourselves, my words carry less weight. Yet, I feel that the actions of both you and Nicholas were terribly in the wrong. Certainly Nicholas, with his abject apology, is in agreement. It is disheartening and threatening from the slippery slope perspective that you do not find your own actions regrettably flawed. Yet, I can't find it within myself to prostrate myself before you to ask for forgiveness from you. I have reviewed my actions and apologized for anything I felt even marginally flawed. I will not ask for forgiveness for any other act because what I did was entirely proper; asking for forgiveness would essentially be me saying that Wikipedia policy is invalid. I won't do that. Still, if I don't prostrate myself before you, I fear the outcome will be you taking further action against me. This is all horribly, horribly wrong. Nicholas has exited from the dispute as he has abjectly apologized and his words here are a matter of record. I want to exit this dispute because I have taken what I find to be the appropriate corrective action. You have not exited the dispute, and instead insist on continuing your assault against my behavior. The power to end this is in your hands. Use it wisely. Good day, --Durin 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] yo from advogato

saw yer post and decided to say hi - 71.103.117.99 22:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration proceedure

Ultramarine has been adding talking points to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Workshop, unsigned, in the same style as the Arbiter's proposed resolution. This is not the proceedure suggested (at least as I read it) by the heading of the page. Please fix this, or explain. Septentrionalis 22:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article question

Hello. I recently worked on an article that achieved featured article status (Cool (song); Talk:Cool (song)), and was informed that you are aware of the dates that articles will appear on the Wikipedia front page. I was just curious to know if you know when "Cool" will be the featured article of the day? Thank you for your time. --Winnermario 21:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger question

The content of Second Canadian Division was given to us by a web site owner. After verifying the copyright status, I edited the article for style and wikified it. However, during this process, I discovered that there was already a (much shorter) article at 2nd Canadian Infantry Division. Now that I've finished the copyedit, I would like to merge the articles, leaving Second Canadian Division as a redirect and incorporating most of 2nd Canadian Infantry Division into the introduction.

What's the best way to go about this? Should I just do a copy and paste merge, or should I have an admin do a history merge? --GraemeL (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: BD777 modifying other users' comments

Hey KM, I just saw you change your vote, thought I'd point to a couple instances. After arbitration was begun, BD777 started essentially modifying other users' comments on his talk page by deleting the text of what they had written, replacing it with his own text, but leaving their original date/time/sig stamp intact, so it looked like they had written something they in fact had not. He did this quite a number of times, but you have to go through quite a bit of chaff to see the wheat. Here's one such instance [13] · Katefan0(scribble) 17:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem a'tall. I can see your point, but of course, he modified comments (along these same lines, although some ran closer to personal comments) in more than this one instance. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] question about pics

Hi, I just added a pic (Richie Ryan ). I got the pic from my file, and I had it for years, and I really don't remember where I got it. So what kind of tag I should put? I am making articles about Highlander:The Series and its characters. Pretty much confused here, and I don't want to be blocked or something... Thanks. HoneyBee Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Essjay"

[edit] Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision

Would you please answer my questions on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page. Thank you.

Sorry for bothering you again. As there is, apart from a new "Motion to close" section, no further comment on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page, I still do not understand the decisions by the arbitration committee. On the Wikipedia:Probation page is stated that "A user placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee is entitled to continue to edit in the subject areas in which they are on probation." Does this mean, for instance, that I am allowed to add the following, accurately sourced paragraph to the James Dean article:
Decades after Dean's death, author Boze Hadleigh, an expert on Hollywood gays, published a 1972 interview with Sal Mineo in which the actor said, "Nick (Adams) told me they had a big affair." [14] Further sources support the view that Dean had homosexual leanings. [15] [16] Bit actor and writer John Gilmore, a member of Dean's "Night Watch" motorcyle riders, wrote a book on James Dean claiming they had a homosexual encounter. In his Natalie Wood biography, the reputed Hollywood chronicler Gavin Lambert, himself homosexual and part of the Hollywood gay circles of the 50s and 60s, describes Dean as being bisexual. In her memoir of her brief affair with Dean, actress Dizzy Sheridan states Dean had an affair with Rogers Brackett, a radio director for an advertising agency whom Dean met in the summer of 1951 while working as a parking attendant at CBS. In Val Holley's James Dean: the Biography (1997) gay studies scholars will also find rich factual evidence of Dean's homosexual social life, and of the crucial role gay patrons like Rogers Brackett played in Dean's rise to stardom. Last not least, Live Fast, Die Young – The Wild Ride of Making Rebel Without a Cause, a recent book by Lawrence Frascella and Al Weisel, says that Rebel director Nicholas Ray knew Dean to be bisexual.
These are eight independent sources - six books and two articles - which all say that Dean had homosexual leanings. I think this should be enough evidence to include the said paragraph in the article. What do you think? 80.141.198.213 18:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Ted Wilkes is still removing my contributions to the Elvis Presley article, though they are well supported by credible sources. See [17] and [18]. He also aggressively continues to make personal attacks against me (and some other users) on the Talk:Elvis Presley and the User talk:Onefortyone pages and repeatedly violated the 3RR rule. I think the arbitration committee should place a note about this behavior on his talk page. Thank you.