Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Kelly Martin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is a statement I wish to make with respect to the "userbox incident":

I have had basically no opportunity to actually discuss the situation with anyone other than a few friends. Discussion on an RfC is expressly prohibited (although people violate this rule all the time); by adhering to this rule I have apparently offended a number of people who think I should have instead "discussed" the matter on the RfC. In addition, very few people have contacted me via my talk page, email, or IRC in an attempt to discuss the situation.
I expected some upset feelings, but not the uproar that resulted. I believe that policy supported my actions in the same way policy supported my actions when I started deleting orphaned unlicensed images back in September. That bold move on my part got some complaints, but not many, and led in some small part to my original appointment to the ArbCom. I believed that bold action was required in this situation and that policy was clear. In particular the decision to delete inappropriate userboxes was spurred in large part by recidivists in the userbox community who insist that they have the right to disregard Wikipedia policy (and, incidentially, the law) regarding the use of unlicensed images, a battle I have been fighting for months with some people. (Ironically, some of these people were the ones leading the mob against me on the RfC.) Having a discussion on whether to enforce existing policy seems ridiculous to me. What happened here, as opposed to what happened in September, is that enough people went "OMIGOD MY USERBOX IS GONE" and wanted blood so badly that they were unwilling to listen to reason to form a mob. I failed to anticipate the mob, as I did not realize the extent to which the userbox addiction had spread through the community. (They are not particularily popular with the editors I spend most of my time around.)
I have refrained from posting an "open apology" in large part because I have no desire to appear to be conceding on the underlying issue regarding userboxes, especially those which are used to attack either other editors or to attack specific points of view, and of course those which infringe copyrights, and there were so many people in that feeding frenzy on my RfC that were rabidly defending their rights to say whatever they want however they want that I was that I feared a capitulation would be taken as justification for their clearly inappropriate point of view. Enough time has passed that an apology for not involving more of the community in a discussion beforehand would not be out of line; enough community support for a more moderate position exists to keep the radicals on this point under control. I still believe that the userboxes I deleted should have been deleted and should again be deleted, but I am not going to press the issue at this point as there is a robust and relatively civil debate on the topic now that will, hopefully sometime in our lives, lead to a conclusion. I had also misjudged the degree to which the community has become committed to process, probably because I don't have much to do with deletion anymore (an area where process has become arguably too important). For those two misjudgments, I am willing to apologize.
In any case, I don't think this really pertains at all to my capabilities as an Arbitrator, especially when I have a history as an Arbitrator to look at. I would encourage voters to look at my history as an Arbitrator and judge my competency on that basis, instead of relying on what is really an unrelated incident to form an opinion of the merits of my candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Question from Radiant

On your request for bureaucratship, you stated that everybody who opposed you did so because 1) the opinion that we don't need more bureaucrats, 2) the opinion that an arbiter shouldn't be a bureaucrat, or 3) personal dislike. Are you willing to accept that there may be criticism of you that is not based on personal dislike? Radiant_>|< 16:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted my original statement. Since your question is based on a misinterpretation of what I said, I will not address your question further. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Since your original statement was "The editors opposing me on my RfB are doing so for one of three reasons: they don't believe that we need more bureaucrats; they do not think that an arbitrator should also be a bureaucrat; or they do not like me personally", please then explain how it should be interpreted? Radiant_>|< 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
It should be interpreted as my observation on the nature of the votes in opposition to my candidacy at the time I made the statement. At the time I made that statement, I believed it to fairly represent the people who were then opposing my candidacy. It does not (as you seem to be claiming) indicate that I believe that no possible other reason to oppose might exist. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another question from Radiant

Could you please briefly give your vision on what happened in the recent debacle with Durin? If a similar situation turned up in the future, would you handle it differently, and if so, how? Radiant_>|< 16:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Out of respect for Durin's wishes to put this incident behind us, I will not discuss the incident further. I suggest you do the same. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, but I have. The important part of my question is if you would handle such situations differently in the future. I'm sure you can talk about that without referencing Durin or any particulars. Radiant_>|< 00:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The next time a situation like that occurs, I will file the RfC immediately instead of assuming that an issue is settled without one. You see, I enjoy bloodbaths, and I generally assume that my fellow editors enjoy them too. I also will not make the mistake of assuming that other editors will assume good faith and treat everyone as if they will breach good faith at a moment's notice. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
That response seems incredibly sarcastic. Is sarcasm an appropriate attitude for an arbitrator or candidate to adopt in an election forum? Xoloz 17:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Xoloz and second the question. —James S. 03:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that was overly sarcastic. I have been working in the past months to control my use of sarcasm on the wiki itself, and apologize for being overly sarcastic in my original response. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Form question by Snowspinner

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did a family law clinic when I was in law school that consisted mainly of having people lie to me. And I've been on ArbCom for the last couple of months, during which I've also had plenty of experience dealing with people lying to me -- most of them far more creatively than the liars I had to deal with in law school. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Specific question from Silverback

Given your extreme and apparently retributive reaction to criticism as demonstrated in response to criticism during your beaurocrat vote and its aftermath, can you be trusted to recuse yourself when parties have previously criticised you, in order to maintain the appearance of fairness and avoid the appearance of seeking retribution?--Silverback 13:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I will not recuse myself merely because a party to that case has previously criticized me. That would be absurd: people criticize jurists all the time. I have never acted in retribution to being criticized, although certainly some people have misinterpreted my actions as such. I will recuse myself when I have a conflict of interest (as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration policy). During my service so far as an arbitrator, I recall two cases from which I have recused myself (one where I had mediated the underlying dispute, and one case frivilously filed against me), and one additional case where I considered recusal but did not. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brenneman's question

As an arbitrator, you'd be making decisions that it is possible that you'd get wrong. In that event, it would be important to have the ability to listen to critisicm, re-examine your judgments, and attempt to understand that the other party might be the correct one. Based upon your reactions to the questions here, including use of rollback for non-vandalism, what assurances do we have that you'd be able to do this? Can you provide an example of when you were shown to be wrong that you've handled gracefully?
brenneman(t)(c) 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I made the wrong decision in recommending that Stevertigo stand for affirmation. I (and several of my colleagues) clearly misjudged the community response to that decision. My response to that is a matter of public record.
Frankly, attempting to appease the small but vocal crowd of editors who think that I've got some sort of superiority complex and who will probably not be appeased by anything I might say anyway is a waste of time. I won't be entertaining any more questions that have, as an underlying assumption, that I am either incapable or unwilling to accept criticism. Y'all have had your shot, you're not going to see anything different than you've seen already, so stop being irritating about asking the same question over and over again in different ways hoping that I'll slip up and give you the zinger you want. (Either that, or I'm about to give it to you.)
I do not suffer stupidity well, and people who act stupid will feel my ire. I especially don't accept it well when people badmouth me for things I did not do, or blame me for things that are not my fault. Neither of these things qualifies as "criticism". I do not lightly suffer fools; if you don't want me to treat you like a fool, do not act like one. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, that answered my question fully. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Form Question from karmafist

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Use common sense. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions from User:-Ril-

Does your unwillingness to accept questions about whether or not you can accept criticism itself indicate that you are unwilling to accept criticism?

No.

You recently justified your current unelected appointment to the committee by stating that you would not stand in this election. Does your refusal to keep to this statement indicate that you cannot be trusted?

I have never justified my appointment to the committee.
Do you therefore feel your appointment is unjustified? What about the question of trust? Does your going back on your own statement indicate that you cannot be trusted? --Victim of signature fascism 08:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I have always felt that I am qualified to serve as an Arbitrator and that my service as such serves the interests of the encyclopedia; if I felt otherwise I would not have accepted Jimbo's offer of appointment. If by "going back on my statement" you are referring to my change of heart about standing for election, that's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of changing my mind about a personal decision after receiving advice from people I trust; if anything, it shows that I am capable of contemplation and of accepting input from the community.
Does it therefore mean that (a) you are easily swayed, and thus do not constitute an independant voice
(b) Your stances change one day to the next, and so any decision you make on a case cannot ever be regarded as final, and so cannot ever be regarded as having value.
? --Victim of signature fascism 19:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
(a) No. (b) No.
The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?

I have opinions. I would recuse myself from any case where my opinions would interfere with my ability to hear the case fairly. If I am in doubt, I will discuss the issue with my fellow Arbitrators.
Are you willing to be open about what those opinions are, or do you have something to hide? --Victim of signature fascism 08:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I prefer not to discuss my personal opinions on non-Wikipedia matters within Wikipedia, since to do so would tend to invite attack from people whose participation in Wikipedia is for the purpose of pushing a point of view. I feel that I am capable in separating my personal beliefs from my obligation to conduct myself with impartiality as a Arbitrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I am specifically asking about Wikipedia matters. Your non-Wikipedia personal opinions (e.g. if the guy next door is attractive etc.) are not in question. Your major political and religious opinions are. Do you have any that are strongly held, and if so what are they? Several other candidates have been quite open on this question, and failure to respond adequately to it will lead electors to consider that you have something to hide. --Victim of signature fascism 19:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
My political and religious positions are, frankly, none of your concern, and I will not discuss them, veiled threats notwithstanding.

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

I come to my own conclusions as to the appropriateness of all elements of any proposed decision. If I appear to agree frequently with my fellow Arbitrators, it is because they are intelligent people who have made good arguments for why their decisions are appropriate and correct.

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

No category of case is without merit (except, of course, the category of cases which are without merit, but that is a tautology).

In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?

I feel that the Arbitration Committee is entitled to investigate any aspect of any matter which is brought before it. It's up to you to decide if my behavior on recent cases reflects this.
The question is not about entitlement, but about acting on that. Whether entitled or not, should the arbitration commitee investigate all parties involved, and their behaviour, rather than just one? --Victim of signature fascism 08:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. To do otherwise would be to shirk our obligation to the project.

--Victim of signature fascism 16:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You refuse to indicate your biases, despite admitting to having them, and so, despite your prior going back on your word (as discussed above), do you still expect us to trust you to recuse yourself from issues on which you have strong bias when we can't see what these are? --Victim of signature fascism 15:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly so, yes. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question from Marsden

Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not see that drawing analogs between Wikipedia (a voluntary organization) and temporal governments is useful. Voluntary organizations cannot survive on fascist lines because they have no means to compel continued participation. People will leave, in droves, under such regimes. I personally feel that discarding Wikipedia's communitarianism would be a grave error, and I do not see any reason why we cannot continue to operate in a communitarian fashion. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: I am old enough to vote and buy alcohol, and young enough not to qualify for senior citizen discounts.

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: I tend to commit about one hour a day to Arbitration tasks, with three to five hours over each weekend, subject to other restrictions on my time (for example, the holiday season is cutting into my time available for Arbitration tasks). (I do not count time I spend on CheckUser as part of this time.) I believe this to be sufficient for the task at hand.

Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.

A: I disagree with the premise of this question, and decline to answer it on that basis. I instead stand on my history as an Arbitrator, which you may research over on the Arbitration pages.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: This is the only account I use for editing Wikipedia.


Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Question

I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:

What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In your case, this is asked to clarify the record. Xoloz 17:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I am a strong supporter of IAR. That said, IAR never justifies any action; it merely recognizes that actions can be justified by any rational argument, whether or not supported by policy. Basically, IAR means that one can ignore the rules if one has a damn good reason for doing so, but when one does so one had better be prepared to explain the damn good reason.

[edit] Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

  1. How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
    Civility is very important to retaining editors. Editors who cannot interact with one another in a civil manner may need to be asked to leave the project regardless of the value of their contributions, if in their actions they tend to push away other qualified editors. Wikipedia is an collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia, and people who cannot collaborate effectively with others, or at least not interfere with the attempts of others to collaborate, need to find another hobby.
  2. Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
    I have not been a student in several years; I was once a law student. My personality has changed too much since law school to meaningfully comment on this question.
  3. What are your views on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)
    I think the proposed Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct, as originally proposed, is a load of useless instruction creep designed by a rulelawyer to try to give vexatious defendants a slew of procedural mechanisms to avoid having complaints against them heard in substance. Fred's proposed alternative is very reasonable, since it basically restates what is already in the Arbitration Policy anyway. The Arbitration Committee is not a court of law.

In your specific case I would like to add a fourth question. Would it be possible to see the statement you refer to on the Candidate Stements page, about being "trustworthy and respected", in the context in which it was originally presented to you? To be frank, it strikes me as likely that it might be more understandable, or turn out to actually say something slightly different from that, in its original context.

The original statement was made to me on IRC. Apparently there is a substantial faction who believes that I have gained the trust of too many people too quickly, and therefore must be engaged in some sort of confidence game with the goal of taking over Wikipedia entirely. It is imperative, apparently, that I be stopped from gaining additional power. I find this allegation ludicrous.

PurplePlatypus 09:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

No, I don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "virtual community", and any document such as this will be used by wikilawyers to annoy other editors and impede our goal, which is to write an encyclopedia.

[edit] Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

  1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
    Probably about half of it. I spend the other half on CheckUser work and other activities intended to deal with vandalism. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
    I've not been active in Wikipedia in any area other than dispute resolution for several months; the impact would be minimal.
  3. To what extent would those projects be affected?
    See above.

Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions from Zordrac

  1. What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
    Could you perhaps ask a more focused question? I feel that the current level of transparency of ArbCom decisions is satisfactory.
  2. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
    Administrators are not "special" or "privileged" and are required to follow the same policies as everyone else.
  3. Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
    Simply being critical of the ArbCom does not exhibit bad faith. Statements alleging that the ArbCom reached its decision in bad faith, with malicious intent, or out of prejudice at least border on violating Wikipedia's assume good faith policy.
  4. How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
    I would recuse myself from any matter in which I was personally involved. However, I would not consider myself "personally involved" merely because one of the parties had contacted me in some manner, as I receive many requests every day to do some thing or another, most of which I refuse to act on. I make a point of minimizing my use of administrative functions to clear-cut matters in order to avoid creating the appearance of bias. Furthermore, the mere fact that I reviewed CheckUser evidence in some matter would not amount to "personal involvement"; as all people with CheckUser rights on en are Arbitrators (except for Tim Starling), forcing Arbitrators to recuse from cases in which CheckUser evidence is at issue would be impractical.
  5. Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?
    ArbCom decisions are already subject to review by Jimbo Wales personally or by the Wikimedia Board, and the Arbitration Committee has, on several occasions, reconsidered its own decisions and, when appropriate, adjusted them. I see no need for additional review options.

Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further questions from -Ril-

Regarding the very large number of people who have co-signed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin (over 60, perhaps a new record), do you regard rules as something that don't apply to you? --Victim of signature fascism 17:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the large number of signatures on that RfC illustrates the effectiveness with which the Wikipedia community can raise a lynch mob.
Don't you think that constitutes a double standard when you never came to even remotely the same conclusion on my RFAR ? --Victim of signature fascism 18:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
No.

[edit] A few questions from Miborovsky

A follow-up from the last question by -Ril-:

  1. Ms Martin, do you acknowledge that there are some legitimate concerns raised by Wikipedians who are upset by your recent conduct regarding the deletion of userboxes?
    • I acknowledge that the fact that many people are upset about my recent deletion of inappropriate userboxes indicates that a reasonable person would have legitimate concerns about the health of the Wikipedia community.
      • Please answer my question. Or maybe I should rephrase: Do you think at least some of the concerns raised by the users upset by your recent conduct regarding the deletion of userboxes are legitimate? If so, which ones, if not, which ones?
        • My statement above is the only answer I wish to provide at this time.

And my own questions:

  1. Ms Martin, in your opinion, is Wikipedia a community? Does Wikipedia have a community? Does Wikipedia need a community?
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There is a community of people, known as Wikipedians, who are striving to write that encyclopedia. Apparently, not everyone who has an editor's account on Wikipedia is a Wikipedian.
      • As before, please answer the questions, in particular the last one.
        • I feel that my prior statement sufficiently answers your question.

That will be all. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. I have no further questions or comments. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One question from Zscout370

How would you describe the state of Wikipedia now? Zach (Smack Back) 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Troubled. Very troubled. The community has been overrun by a large number of relatively clueless people whom we have failed to effectively indoctrinate with the spirit of Wikipedia. They have become large in proportion, almost a majority if not in fact one, and are causing all sorts of trouble. These new people do not appreciate our core values (which is entirely our fault, for failing to teach them to them effectively) and are running amok in their efforts to create the "Wikipedia Club", in which social interactions are more important than actually writing the encyclopedia. I don't have any quick answers for this problem, but I think it's important for those of us chosen to lead this community to take decisive action to restore the focus of all Wikipedians to our goal of writing an encyclopedia, and to purge from our midst those people whose prime purpose for being here is something other than that goal.

[edit] A question from Seancdaug

Ms. Martin, you've plainly and admirably professed an adherence to our policies of civility. However, in your communications with other editors, you've often expressed yourself in with a degree of bluntness that could be mistaken for rudeness, including the use of terms (like wikilawyering) that are frequently viewed as perjorative. What would you say to those who feel that the strength with which you frequently voice your convictions is more confrontational than should be expected from an arbitrator? – Seancdaug 06:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that their expectations are unreasonable. I am not a politician, and prefer blunt frankness to coy evasiveness. At least with me you know where you stand.
Thank you for your prompt response, Ms. Martin. – Seancdaug 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question from Peripatetic

Is it absolutely necessary to sound so persistently rude all the time?

See above.

[edit] And another from BorgHunter

In follow up to Seancdaug's question above, if blunt frankness happens to run astray of WP:CIVIL, how would you temper your response? Similarly, do you believe it strictly necessary to follow the civility policy if it interferes with the way you wish to express yourself, as it relates to writing on and about arbitration cases? —BorgHunter (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Civility does not require not calling a spade a spade. I generally prefer to say nothing in situations where there does not appear to be a civil way to make a statement. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-

(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

Arbitrators serve at Jimbo's pleasure. It is good that we have an independent judiciary, so that they will not shirk from making the right decision under fear of a recall vote from the mobbing hordes.

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

It is important that our leadership be able to make and enforce the right decisions without fear of "mob justice". It should also be noted that 150 is a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community (which numbers well into the thousands), and certainly cannot be considered a "mandate from the masses".

wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?

I refrain from editing articles upon which I have strong opinions, so as to avoid the risk of inadvertently introducing my own viewpoint.

--Victim of signature fascism 01:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?

No. Those guidelines are instruction creep. The guidelines in the current Arbitration policy are sufficient.

2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

The entire proposal was written by people who do not understand the purpose and nature of the Arbitration Committee; specifically, by people who do not understand that the Arbitration Committee is not a court of law. Rather, the intent of the "code of conduct" proposal is to create a straitjacket that vexatious members of the community may use to interfere with attempts by the rest of the community to get them to stop being vexatious (or, alternatively, to exclude them). Since one of the primary purposes of the Arbitration Committee is to deal with vexatious members of the community, interfering with that purpose is contrary to the interests of the encyclopedia. I therefore disagree with the entire Code of Conduct, again feeling that the existing policy is sufficient.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

I do not believe that expanding the number of seats on the committee will do anything to assist with backlog.

4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

I have been told repeatedly that it is inappropriate for me, as a candidate for Arbitrator, to involve myself in the debate regarding the rules of the Arbitrator election. While I feel that this position is ludicrous, I have nonetheless decided not to involve myself further in that debate. I view the election process with considerable disdain and feel that Arbitrators should simply be appointed by Jimbo with the advice (but not necessarily consent) of the community.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question from Rob Church

If you could fix one of the problems Wikipedia faced tomorrow, which would you consider to be the most important to fix? Rob Church Talk 13:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a toughie; there are so many and very few of them have simple solutions. I really think we need to work on teaching newcomers what this project is really all about, because we're not doing a very good job of that right now. Fixing this problem will at least make some headway on the other big ones.

[edit] Question from Aecis

In response to James S.'s question about the present arbitration backlog, you answered that you "do not believe that expanding the number of seats on the committee will do anything to assist with backlog." In your view, how could the backlog be alleviated, if expanding the number of seats on the committee wouldn't help? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the largest reason for the backlog at the ArbCom is that people are relying on the ArbCom too much to resolve their disputes instead of resolving them themselves. The "ArbCom is not your mother"; the community should do a better job of self-policing. If the community refuses to do that, I think a two-tiered system similar to that proposed by Ryan Delaney is probably the best approach.

[edit] Questions by Bggoldie

I've already asked these questions few months ago and would be interested in your answers to almost the same set.

  • Q1: Do you have experience in resolving disputes outside the virtual reality? Can you describe it. -- Goldie (tell me) 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Q2: Please describe your level of knowledge in multi-cultural environments, level of involvement in such environments, and experience of resolving dusputes on highly controversial topics (religious, political, racial). -- Goldie (tell me) 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Q3: Which is the most important qualification to be arbitrator (according to you), and how can it be measured? What is your score in this metric? -- Goldie (tell me) 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I frankly don't see how these questions will help in a reasoned evaluation of my qualifications, and on that basis decline to answer them. I don't want to discuss my private life in that much detail, and the third question forces me to reduce a complex issue into a single bullet point, which is plainly silly.

  • Q4: Do you think current controversy around userboxes will have any impact on your ArbComm membership (if selected)? -- Goldie (tell me) 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it will have an effect on my ability to get reelected, but it has no bearing on my competency as an Arbitrator or my ability to act as an Arbitrator. I am not a politician; I tend to be frank (to the point of being brutally so) and direct, and that often offends people who don't like hearing that what they're doing is a bad idea.

[edit] Questions by Dschor

  • Why do you want to be a member of ArbComm?
Here's what I wrote to Jimbo back in September when he offered the position to me:
I make no pretense about wanting to serve on ArbCom; my original career goal when I went to law school was eventually to become a judge. Other matters in my life conspired to make that infeasible, but the underlying desire is still there. ArbCom serves much the same role, and I think I'd be good at it. It's probably the single area in the entire community where my particular skills and talents can be used best.
  • Do you feel that you have ever made a serious error in judgement as an administrator on Wikipedia? Please describe.
I've made errors in judgment, sure. The most significant one was in failing to recognize how important something as seemingly insignificant as userboxes are to some people, and even more so failing to recognize the degree to which the love of bureaucracy has spread through the community. I rarely exercise my administrative authority, however, so it's hard for me to use it in error all that often.

[edit] Questions by Mistress Selina Kyle

"I've made errors in judgment, sure. The most significant one was in failing to recognize how important something as seemingly insignificant as userboxes are to some people"

So you still don't think it was actually wrong of you to unilaterally delete so many templates without discussion nor consensus? "If I were given the chance, I'd do it all over again"? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 08:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that what I did was right for Wikipedia, but I would not do it again; I don't care for being immersed in that much negativity.
Thank you for that comment. It goes very much further towards addressing my own concerns with this issue than the entire statement at the top of this page. In fact, taken overall, the statement at the top reinforces my own concerns with this matter more than it resolves them. It continues to express contempt for those attached to user boxes. How do you reconcile this with your own answer above to platypus, "Civility is very important to retaining editors. Editors who cannot interact with one another in a civil manner may need to be asked to leave the project"? Sandpiper 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that I don't understand your question. It seems that you're alleging that my statement above is incivil, a proposition I would disagree with. I believe that the virtual equivalent of a mob did form as a result of my actions; to state so is not incivil, merely frank. Civility does not necessitate not calling a spade a spade. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I have restored my formatting of my question which you altered. The line, Civility is very important to retaining editors. Editors who cannot interact with one another in a civil manner may need to be asked to leave the project, is a quotation of your own words, which is why I placed it in italics. I am asking how you react to your own expressed incivility in the statement at the top of the page, in light of your own statement as to what should happen to those being uncivil. You used the words 'feeding frenzy', 'wanted blood', 'mob', 'userbox addiction', 'rabidly', and I would judge thereby expressed contempt for all those opposed to your view. This seems to be precisely an instance of an editor behaving uncivily to an entire group of users all in one go. Sandpiper 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted your really quite ugly formatting. Italics should not be used when quoting a single sentence, as any competent copyeditor can tell you. Please don't continue to force ugly and inappropriate formatting on the rest of us. My response to your question, if what precedes is in fact a question, is that you put too broad a brush in my hand. That a mob existed is quite clear. It's quite clear that Mistress Selina Kyle, who has since been identified as a person engaged in major vandalism, was quite probably on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of deliberately stirring up shit and quite likely was successful in egging on others into the formation of what is little different that a "virtual mob". The conduct of many of those I "offended" by the deletion of selected userboxes was not rational, and was in fact outrageous. However, because there are many of them, and only one of me, it is far easier to hold me responsible for their actions. However, I recognize that not all of the objectors to my actions were part of that mob. It is your own desire to find offense that leads you to conclude that I am accusing you of having been a part of that mob, not my statement itself. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Kaldari wrote that you lacked humility in any shape or form, a trait that rendered you unsuitable for a position of such trust and responsibility. Having read your statement on userboxes, I am persuaded that he, and 170-odd other voters, have had generally the right idea. -- Peripatetic 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Kelly, can't you assume good faith? MSK has been banned inappropriately, and now you are taking the opportunity to make personal attacks against her. You also overstate the case when you claim that the response to your actions was 'in fact outrageous'. It was no such thing. You continue to fail to learn from your mis-steps, and continue to try to shift blame for your own actions on to those who dare to hold you accountable. The massive opposition to your candidacy is a reflection of the lack of decency and humility that have become your hallmark. --Dschor 22:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to your reformatting as it appears in this version. However, your original reformat totally removed any indication which words were in fact your own, rather than just words written as criticism by myself. In the general case, inserting someones words into an article and passing them off as those of a different person is extremely bad editing. In this particular case it entirely altered the sense of the question asked, which is in itself an interesting way of answering questions. Sandpiper 14:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Given that Kelly has decided to withdraw from the elections now, much of this seems to be irrelevant to this page and subject. That said, following recent exchanges between myself and Kelly, as well as Kelly's reaction to the uproar as quoted by MSK above, and Kelly's consequent behavior to MSK, I think my oppose vote was well placed. I sensed that the "admission" of ill judgment was little more than a thinly veiled attack on what she perceives to be users who don't have a clue. I don't have a grudge of any kind against Kelly - in fact I have no feeling one way or the other, because I don't know her personally. I tried to approach her in a civil and friendly manner to explain why I voted oppose and the response gave me the feeling that she viewed me in a similar manner to anyone who decided to contradict her - in short, I felt like she was treating me as though I didn't have a clue. I've found many of her comments on here also quite uncivil, especially her rather vitrolic comments against Sandpiper's formatting. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punishment (a question from AndriyK)

James F. have written in his statement the following:

"I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they "deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project."

Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain you view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.--AndriyK 13:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with James F., who is without a doubt the most qualified of all the candidates in this election. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] General statement vs particular case (one more question from AndriyK)

After you agreed with James' statement, could you please ask one more question? You voted for banning me for one month "for creating irreversible page moves". Putting aside the question whether and how much the "irreversible page moves" disrupt Wikipedia, I promiced do not do it anymore. How and in which way the one-month-ban would "prevent further damage to the project"? Would not just saying "Do not do it any more!" do the same job? Is there no contradiction between the statement you agree with and your vote?--AndriyK 13:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There must be consequences for clearly inappropriate behavior. If we let people off with a "I promise I won't be bad again" every time, people will know that they can behave incivilly at will without real consequence. The one month ban is a real consequence, both for you and for others who might otherwise think they can get away with the same sort of incivility that you engaged in when you tried to unilaterally force your opinion of the proper naming of Ukranian topics against the wishes of the community, a disruptive and incivil act. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your answer.
I would like, however, to point out that
  • I just tried to make the names conforming to the active WP Policy.
  • It is vary sad, that a group of users ignoring the WP Policy, disrupting the links and pushing Russian POV is considered as "community" by the Arbitration Committee.
  • Your decision that "pages ... may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves" opens the way to further ignore the WP Policy by Russian admins.
Nonetheless I am very greatfull for your answer. You are the only arbitrator, who really answerd my question, in contrast to ignoring it by others and scoffing cynicism of Fred Bauder.
This is the reason, why I'll support you.--AndriyK 11:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I wanted to support you, but you have withdrawn.--AndriyK 11:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Candidate_statements_Kelly_Martin_72fd.html"