User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2006 December

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 ArbCom questions 2 Portfolio for ArbCom 3 missing section header added by editorial monkey 4 Hello 5 RfC 6 My RfC Comments 7 RfC 3 8 RFC 9 RFC again 10 RFC spamming 11 Excessive moves 12 RFC comment request 13 Well, I tried 14 Withdrawal 15 Your input sought 16 Your run for ArbCom and return to en.wiki, etc. 17 ArbCom questions 18 Portfolio for ArbCom 19 missing section header added by editorial monkey 20 Hello 21 RfC 22 My RfC Comments 23 RfC 3 24 RFC 25 RFC again 26 RFC spamming 27 Excessive moves 28 RFC comment request 29 Well, I tried 30 Withdrawal 31 Your input sought 32 Your run for ArbCom and return to en.wiki, etc. 33 Reward Board 34 203.166.99.229 unblocked 35 accidental rollback 36 Hi Kelly 37 Bridges

[edit] ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. Your responses would be added immediately, and you and other late-entering users would be noted in Monday's issue as well. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

As a former Arbitrator the record is replete with details of my arbitration talent. Since it is quite evident that my candidacy is not very likely to succeed, I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me for not taking the time right now to dig up any of the thousands of edits that I must have made while serving as an Arbitrator or as a member of the Mediation Cabal before that. Thank you for your interest and your thoroughness in gathering the information you need to make an informed decision. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I wrote more, but I deleted it because I don't want to bother you with unasked for advice. — Sebastian (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] missing section header added by editorial monkey

I will respond (later, after dinner) with the appropriate diffs and decisions you have made that I disagree with. But in short, the mess here, here, and pretty much everything here make me feel three things.

1. You do not exhibit the proper decorum, sense of unity, calmness, and judgment necessary for ArbCom.
2. You have issues with members of this community that you have not resolved, as shown by your posts on George's page. This, based on your previous actions, makes me less than hopeful you will act with moderation in arbitrations.
3. You are critical of both Wikipedia's process and it's community, preferring to trust your own sense of what's right and good for Wikipedia. This isn't your job as an admin, much less as a arbitrator, and disqualifies you utterly.

As I said, I'll respond in further detail later. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will make some comments now, which you may respond to at your convenience, or not.

• Your statement regarding my decorum, sense of unity, calmness, and judgment is conclusory and unsupported. I do look forward to discussing the specific incidents that you believe justify your conclusions in this regard, or, if you cannot produce such evidence, your retraction of the same.
• I do indeed have issues with certain members of this community, foremost of which is probably Geogre. I am quite thoroughly convinced that Geogre is a liar; I have caught him on several occasions repeating falsehoods about myself and others, and continuing to do so after being challenged for doing so, with evidence to support the claim that his statements were false. A person who persists in telling untrue things after being fairly informed that they are false is a liar, and I believe Geogre meets that definition. I do not suffer liars well. Geogre has consistently used Wikipedia's "no personal attacks" policy as a shield against allegations that he is engaged in the practice of spreading falsehood (and it is likely that he will accuse me of personal attacks for making this statement). However, Geogre has placed his character into dispute by choosing to run for the Arbitration Committee; therefore, a careful and critical examination of his character is most certainly in order. If he cannot take the heat of such an examination, he should withdraw his bid. As to evidence of Geogre's lies, these have been amply demonstrated in the past, but I can certainly produce them again given a reasonable time.
• I am utterly astounded at your attitude regarding criticism of Wikipedia. I believe, and have always believed, that all Wikipedians must always be ready to criticize any aspect of Wikipedia that they believe is harming the project, openly and frankly. Your suggestion that neither arbitrators nor admins may engage in criticism of Wikipedia is therefore absolutely baffling to me. I would very much like for you to explain why you hold this startling belief.

I look forward to your amplification on the above points. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My reply is , by needs probably going to only use one or two diffs to illustrate each point. I could pull out more, but I find necrosadistic animal training to be distasteful. Thus:

• By decorum, I mean the manner in which you deal with other members of the community. This is simply not acceptible 1. Nor is this: 2. Perhaps you feel that "screwing process" is valid. I don't. I don't feel as if anyone who feels that way should be deciding arbitration.
• By sense of unity, I mean a feeling that the consensus of many should carry the day. Your post at the mailing list 3 talks about parlamentarism as a solution. That's not something I needed to see, either, and again, I worry that if this is the way you look at the situation of how things should be handled, you may not be suited for ArbCom. Another way of looking at it would be this 4 where you basically say anyone who disagrees is misguided.
• Judgement is also self-evident. The entire discussion here 5 strikes me as arrogantly highhandeded. And your post on your blog shows you merely see everyone else as misguided. 6 The userbox war makes me question your judgement, and by extension, your calmness and coolness of thought before action.

• Geogre has admirably demonstrated through POV pushing, edit warring, and lying that he should be banned from the Wikimedia Foundation. That doesn't mean you should allow yourself to sink to his level ,now does it?

• My statement on criticism is this: criticism should be constructive and not vindicitve, helpful and not hypothetical, and should always reflect what's best for the Wikipedia that everyone can edit as opposed to the Wikipedia you happen to think is best. I am an outspoken person. I piss people off. I delight in pissing people off, because people either think and reconsider, or open their mouth to pour out their own self destruction. I don't doubt you feel you're doing the best that you can do. But I don't SEE it as what would be best for ArbCom.

Finally, you say in many places you regret getting involved in the userbox mess, which people find laudable. Does that mean you regret doing what you did since it cost you the ability to make the "small changes" and the like you had before everything you did was subject to public scrutiny, or do you mean you regret angering the community by unilateral action? If there is anything I disagree with on Wikipedia, it is this idea of reckless boldness being somehow good, because it most often leads to pissing people off so badly that whatever improvements might be had are instead turned into a mess of epic proportion.

If you need to continue this conversation, feel free to make use of my email or talk page. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Respond at leisure. I only mentioned other venues in case you did not want your talk page cluttered. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello Kelly, I am flattered that you asked for my input.

However, the fact is that I know almost nothing about you; I joined Wikipedia after the userbox wars and didn't pay attention to the Giano case until Kylu got involved.

I voted against you in the ArbCom elections based on the simple observation that your presence was divisive, without passing judgement on the merits of the positions supporting or opposing you.

So in fact I am not capable of making any meaningful input on your RFC. However, I do think it is a very positive step that you filed it, as it indicates a desire for critical feedback.

I do believe the statements of others that you have given a great deal to Wikipedia in the past. Whaterver your present difficulties, I hope that you can work through them and continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future.

Thanks, --Ideogram 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

You left a message on my talk page to comment on the RfC, however its a bit messy for me to make out where I am suppose to be commenting. I also noticed sections refuting person X etc, which also seems unorthodox. Anyway I will just post here and am willing to repost there if need be.

I voted against your step up to Arbcom after witnessing an incident regarding "lists" that you were keeping. Apparently you had some issue with people wondering what they were, or an admin wanting them deleted, and so you created another. Then basically let people argue in AN/I over what the list was about, the point of it etc. I found this to be childish and a complete violation of WP:POINT. Instead of manipulating the situation, you simply could have argued a point. I later read your admission that it was to provoke another admin, I believe into deleting it? Do not fully remember your admission honestly, its been so long. The whole situation kind of disturbed me as you basically made a large group of admins, in my opinion, look like fools for defending your list, which apparently was all a game and WP:POINT violation. As an admin I would have expected the list to be taken down willfully after seeing how much drama it caused and disturbance, at least on AN/I. If you have reformed or not is not something I am fully aware of as I have not seen you participate much since then other then arguing over your right to stay on the ArbCom mailing list, though you were no longer a clerk or ArbCom member, whichever it was that got you on the list. It seemed like when editors came with an issue or asked you to resolve a simple issue by itself you simply refused, which troubled me, as avoiding drama didnt seem high on your agenda at that time at least. In the issue of fairness I believe I did chime in that you should not have had permission to the list if you were no longer a member who would normally have it. Again if you need this reposted to the RfC just let me know, if you need me to attempt to clarify, it may take a while as I would have to dig up some very old difs. --NuclearZer0 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfC Comments

I did respond to your request for additional information here. If you have further questions, you can let me know on my talk page. Have a good day. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC 3

The request for input is appreciated. I've had no interaction with you prior to this - my vote was based mainly on extensive digging through page histories, and my discomfort at voting support for someone who calls ArbCom work "mind-wrenching, gruelling... why anyone would do this is a mystery to me". Your presence on the list of candidates seems confusing at best, disruptive at worst. But I thank you for your request, and I think it's really mature of you to file an RfC. And wow, there's no way of saying that without sounding patronising, is there? Hmph. riana_dzasta 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Hi Kelly, good to see you back. Thanks for the notification of the RFC, but I really have nothing to add to it. While I was very pissed off with certain people for what may have been said, that isn't between me and you, and it certainly isn't a Wikipedia issue.

I think we differ in our assessment of people and who might be best positioned to advance the project. You may be wrong, I may be wrong, we both may be wrong. Differences of opinion are far healthier than the alternative. Sure, I have been upset by things you have said about friends of mine...but that isn't something for an RFC, that isn't even something for me to confront you on. There's lots of meat for the RFC, but nothing to which I was more than a spectator, to the best of my memory. All the best - Guettarda 19:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC again

We have a question for you here about how you would like the statements to be formatted. Please let us know. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have commented there already. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the quick reply. I do plan to contribute something, but I need to spend some time contemplating what to say. Best, Johntex\^talk 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC spamming

While I think a RFC might be appropriate, I don't think spamming everyone who voted at your ArbCom election page was the way to get our attention. Next time, I would only address the people you had an issue/dispute/etc. with and limit it to a few because spamming 150+ editors wasn't nessecary. I think everyone would have eventually found out about the RFC. I will however comment there since you requested that I did. Cheers! semper fi — Moe 20:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to admit that I've lost track of all the people I've had disputes/issues with. I made the assumption that everyone who voted against my candidacy had some sort of issue with me. Perhaps I was mistaken in so assuming, but I do not believe that there has been any significant harm or disruption to Wikipedia by my actions. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive moves

If you are an admin, can you pleaase block User talk:Yaksha ? it has come to my attention that that user has made excessive moving of pages without consensus, WP:ANI shows a member of the MedCom agreeing with this request, thank you,

See here as well [1]

WikieZach| talk 02:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin. If it's being discussed on WP:ANI, then I'm sure an admin will block if that is the appropriate thing to do. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC comment request

Hi Kelly, though I opposed your arbcom nomination it was based more on your User page which specifies that you intend limiting your contributions on wikipedia and concentrating on commons than any editing actions. I dont think we have crossed paths, as such I couldn't offer any contributions either way to your RFC. Gnangarra 06:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well, I tried

Kelly, I tried to remove comments I felt were subjective and assaulting upon you rather than topical. See [2]. 28 minutes later, it was reverted, with an accusation that I was being uncivil. I fear I'm stepping into a guaranteed slog of mud. I've no desire to raise objection to User:Ghirlandajo's accusation that I was being uncivil. It's unlikely to result in change, and a revert war is more likely than not. I appreciate your kind request to oversee that page, but I think I need to step out. Meta discussions on whether incivility is uncivil or not frequently lead nowhere, and taking action on such comments is usually contested. I'd thought this particular case was eminently clear, but apparently to at least one user it was not. --Durin 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. It is obvious that there are people who are deadset in their intentions; I will simply deal with them as best I can. Take care. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal

Thanks for your suggest to comment on your conduct - might I suggest a withdrawal from the Arbcom election for the sake of your own sanity? You judgement isn't exactly currying kudos and keeping your nomination there seems to serve no purpose other than to reinforce both the opinions that its a bizarre self-publicity stunt and a serious lapse of judgement and self awareness. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how withdrawing will have any effect on my sanity. The die is cast; withdrawing now won't change anything with respect to those who refuse to assume that I stated my intentions for running in good faith, and might even reinforce their mistaken beliefs. I appreciate the advice, but I decline to withdraw my candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the people seeing ulterior motives and grand schemes in something as non-effective as an RfC just not participate and leave it be? Pull an ostrich; if you can't see it, it's the same as it not existing. I have to wonder if people are just clamoring to be "the one" who deletes it. I think the RfC is a great idea and hope you don't lose enthusiasm for it. Milto LOL pia 10:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It shows courage not to withdraw in the face of a storm of slings and arrows, my commendations. However, if you are serious about remaining a candidate, could you please answer some the candidate questions, then? You have not edited Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Kelly Martin since December 3, leaving the questions there about half unanswered; instead, you have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 3, and responded there (to the first at great length). Given that you are maintaining your candidacy, would you be so good as to carry out its implied responsibilities, by responding to those questions? Most other candidates have been quite good about answering their questions; the few who have not, have at least not started new requests for comments about themselves in the meantime. Thank you, AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I will look at the page this weekend and see what I can do. I must admit that the rank incivility of some of the questions has discouraged me from wanting to return to that page, especially since it is obvious that my candidacy will not succeed and spending a great deal of time on the questions being asked there is of little demonstrable value. I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wikipedia just now, due to family circumstances, so you will need to excuse me for considering one week to respond to a detailed question not to be unreasonable. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Only answering the civil questions, and specifying which you consider to be otherwise, would be a perfectly legitimate response. But I must question your second point: if you do believe it is obvious that your candidacy will not succeed, don't you think maintaining it is a little cruel to the people taking the time and effort to evaluate it in good faith? Notice how many of the people writing in the vote or RfC had never heard of you before, so clearly based their opinion on spending time and effort on reading about your candidacy; I can assure you that many who have heard of you before are doing likewise. Please, either run in good faith, or don't run. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input sought

You witnessed a serious exchange between Ultramarine and Pmanderson before PMA's last RfA. He's now up again, and I've also been subjected to his rude attacks and wikilawyering, including his recent 3RR. I don't believe he's ready yet, or if he truly has the temperament. Your input requested. Skyemoor 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My experience with these editors mainly comes from having to arbitrate their longrunning dispute on the Democratic peace theory article. I have not paid attention to either one in nearly a year and cannot comment as to whether Pmanderson's recent behavior would lead one to conclude that he is a suitable candidate to be an admin. Quite frankly, I would be quite concerned about the possibility that he would use administrative privileges for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in a content dispute. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting neutral. Skyemoor has now been blocked for votespamming, and Doc Glasgow considers him a troll. Both of the other unbanned editors with whom I have quarrelled have endorsed me. I would hope and expect to be de-sysopped if I ever used adminship in an edit dispute. Septentrionalis 19:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your run for ArbCom and return to en.wiki, etc.

Kelly, you're a very dedicated Wikipedian who clearly has the best interests of the encyclopaedia at heart (at first I wrote "community" rather than "encyclopaedia" but I think for both you and me there is a distinction). You stepped out (voluntarily) in a blaze of fire a few weeks ago, and are now coming back in some way or form. I sense you as being genuinely puzzled as to some of the negative reaction to your ArbCom run. A few thoughts from my side:

• An arbitrator needs to be someone who is trusted and whose judgement is respected by a large cross-section of the community
• In some ways, ArbCom is an extension of Jimbo's authority (in a certain area). Notice how Jimbo largely stays in the background and stays away from messy issues, points and counterpoints, as much as possible. Some of that, by extension, is needed of an arbitrator. Someone who always comes out and says exactly what they think - which you do on-wiki and off-wiki in your blog - is not the profile that will work.
• You have very recently been part of a number of high-profile conflicts on en.wiki. You have left behind a lot of people with ill feeling -- whether deserved or not -- towards you. That has to be significantly in the past before the community will trust you in any way to "sit in judgement".
• In your absense and now during your return, you have been confrontational with several people, for instance with Geogre around his and your run for ArbCom, and in the opposing userboxes you and Giano have on your userpages. Regardless of merit or the behaviour of others, that makes the thought of you and/or Geogre on arbcom quite frightening. It's clear that the whole episode of a few weeks back is still far too fresh.

All of this combined by the not fully consistent statements of participatory intent on Wikipedia on your en.wiki user page, your commons user page, your blog, and your last-minute arbcom election entry currently makes you a far too unpredictable candidate.

Kelly, there are a huge number of ways in which you can participate productively in Wikipedia, from "gnome" work to your development expertise to policy work to writing articles or uploading images. I think you just need to try them out for a while and see what really makes you happy. If it is the arbcom role, you need to reshape your Wikipedia persona to be less blunt, and you need to live that persona for several months before people will believe in you with it.

Hope this helps and best wishes. Martinp 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (x-post to the RFD)

[edit] ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. Your responses would be added immediately, and you and other late-entering users would be noted in Monday's issue as well. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

As a former Arbitrator the record is replete with details of my arbitration talent. Since it is quite evident that my candidacy is not very likely to succeed, I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me for not taking the time right now to dig up any of the thousands of edits that I must have made while serving as an Arbitrator or as a member of the Mediation Cabal before that. Thank you for your interest and your thoroughness in gathering the information you need to make an informed decision. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I wrote more, but I deleted it because I don't want to bother you with unasked for advice. — Sebastian (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] missing section header added by editorial monkey

I will respond (later, after dinner) with the appropriate diffs and decisions you have made that I disagree with. But in short, the mess here, here, and pretty much everything here make me feel three things.

1. You do not exhibit the proper decorum, sense of unity, calmness, and judgment necessary for ArbCom.
2. You have issues with members of this community that you have not resolved, as shown by your posts on George's page. This, based on your previous actions, makes me less than hopeful you will act with moderation in arbitrations.
3. You are critical of both Wikipedia's process and it's community, preferring to trust your own sense of what's right and good for Wikipedia. This isn't your job as an admin, much less as a arbitrator, and disqualifies you utterly.

As I said, I'll respond in further detail later. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will make some comments now, which you may respond to at your convenience, or not.

• Your statement regarding my decorum, sense of unity, calmness, and judgment is conclusory and unsupported. I do look forward to discussing the specific incidents that you believe justify your conclusions in this regard, or, if you cannot produce such evidence, your retraction of the same.
• I do indeed have issues with certain members of this community, foremost of which is probably Geogre. I am quite thoroughly convinced that Geogre is a liar; I have caught him on several occasions repeating falsehoods about myself and others, and continuing to do so after being challenged for doing so, with evidence to support the claim that his statements were false. A person who persists in telling untrue things after being fairly informed that they are false is a liar, and I believe Geogre meets that definition. I do not suffer liars well. Geogre has consistently used Wikipedia's "no personal attacks" policy as a shield against allegations that he is engaged in the practice of spreading falsehood (and it is likely that he will accuse me of personal attacks for making this statement). However, Geogre has placed his character into dispute by choosing to run for the Arbitration Committee; therefore, a careful and critical examination of his character is most certainly in order. If he cannot take the heat of such an examination, he should withdraw his bid. As to evidence of Geogre's lies, these have been amply demonstrated in the past, but I can certainly produce them again given a reasonable time.
• I am utterly astounded at your attitude regarding criticism of Wikipedia. I believe, and have always believed, that all Wikipedians must always be ready to criticize any aspect of Wikipedia that they believe is harming the project, openly and frankly. Your suggestion that neither arbitrators nor admins may engage in criticism of Wikipedia is therefore absolutely baffling to me. I would very much like for you to explain why you hold this startling belief.

I look forward to your amplification on the above points. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My reply is , by needs probably going to only use one or two diffs to illustrate each point. I could pull out more, but I find necrosadistic animal training to be distasteful. Thus:

• By decorum, I mean the manner in which you deal with other members of the community. This is simply not acceptible 1. Nor is this: 2. Perhaps you feel that "screwing process" is valid. I don't. I don't feel as if anyone who feels that way should be deciding arbitration.
• By sense of unity, I mean a feeling that the consensus of many should carry the day. Your post at the mailing list 3 talks about parlamentarism as a solution. That's not something I needed to see, either, and again, I worry that if this is the way you look at the situation of how things should be handled, you may not be suited for ArbCom. Another way of looking at it would be this 4 where you basically say anyone who disagrees is misguided.
• Judgement is also self-evident. The entire discussion here 5 strikes me as arrogantly highhandeded. And your post on your blog shows you merely see everyone else as misguided. 6 The userbox war makes me question your judgement, and by extension, your calmness and coolness of thought before action.

• Geogre has admirably demonstrated through POV pushing, edit warring, and lying that he should be banned from the Wikimedia Foundation. That doesn't mean you should allow yourself to sink to his level ,now does it?

• My statement on criticism is this: criticism should be constructive and not vindicitve, helpful and not hypothetical, and should always reflect what's best for the Wikipedia that everyone can edit as opposed to the Wikipedia you happen to think is best. I am an outspoken person. I piss people off. I delight in pissing people off, because people either think and reconsider, or open their mouth to pour out their own self destruction. I don't doubt you feel you're doing the best that you can do. But I don't SEE it as what would be best for ArbCom.

Finally, you say in many places you regret getting involved in the userbox mess, which people find laudable. Does that mean you regret doing what you did since it cost you the ability to make the "small changes" and the like you had before everything you did was subject to public scrutiny, or do you mean you regret angering the community by unilateral action? If there is anything I disagree with on Wikipedia, it is this idea of reckless boldness being somehow good, because it most often leads to pissing people off so badly that whatever improvements might be had are instead turned into a mess of epic proportion.

If you need to continue this conversation, feel free to make use of my email or talk page. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Respond at leisure. I only mentioned other venues in case you did not want your talk page cluttered. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello Kelly, I am flattered that you asked for my input.

However, the fact is that I know almost nothing about you; I joined Wikipedia after the userbox wars and didn't pay attention to the Giano case until Kylu got involved.

I voted against you in the ArbCom elections based on the simple observation that your presence was divisive, without passing judgement on the merits of the positions supporting or opposing you.

So in fact I am not capable of making any meaningful input on your RFC. However, I do think it is a very positive step that you filed it, as it indicates a desire for critical feedback.

I do believe the statements of others that you have given a great deal to Wikipedia in the past. Whaterver your present difficulties, I hope that you can work through them and continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future.

Thanks, --Ideogram 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

You left a message on my talk page to comment on the RfC, however its a bit messy for me to make out where I am suppose to be commenting. I also noticed sections refuting person X etc, which also seems unorthodox. Anyway I will just post here and am willing to repost there if need be.

I voted against your step up to Arbcom after witnessing an incident regarding "lists" that you were keeping. Apparently you had some issue with people wondering what they were, or an admin wanting them deleted, and so you created another. Then basically let people argue in AN/I over what the list was about, the point of it etc. I found this to be childish and a complete violation of WP:POINT. Instead of manipulating the situation, you simply could have argued a point. I later read your admission that it was to provoke another admin, I believe into deleting it? Do not fully remember your admission honestly, its been so long. The whole situation kind of disturbed me as you basically made a large group of admins, in my opinion, look like fools for defending your list, which apparently was all a game and WP:POINT violation. As an admin I would have expected the list to be taken down willfully after seeing how much drama it caused and disturbance, at least on AN/I. If you have reformed or not is not something I am fully aware of as I have not seen you participate much since then other then arguing over your right to stay on the ArbCom mailing list, though you were no longer a clerk or ArbCom member, whichever it was that got you on the list. It seemed like when editors came with an issue or asked you to resolve a simple issue by itself you simply refused, which troubled me, as avoiding drama didnt seem high on your agenda at that time at least. In the issue of fairness I believe I did chime in that you should not have had permission to the list if you were no longer a member who would normally have it. Again if you need this reposted to the RfC just let me know, if you need me to attempt to clarify, it may take a while as I would have to dig up some very old difs. --NuclearZer0 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfC Comments

I did respond to your request for additional information here. If you have further questions, you can let me know on my talk page. Have a good day. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC 3

The request for input is appreciated. I've had no interaction with you prior to this - my vote was based mainly on extensive digging through page histories, and my discomfort at voting support for someone who calls ArbCom work "mind-wrenching, gruelling... why anyone would do this is a mystery to me". Your presence on the list of candidates seems confusing at best, disruptive at worst. But I thank you for your request, and I think it's really mature of you to file an RfC. And wow, there's no way of saying that without sounding patronising, is there? Hmph. riana_dzasta 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Hi Kelly, good to see you back. Thanks for the notification of the RFC, but I really have nothing to add to it. While I was very pissed off with certain people for what may have been said, that isn't between me and you, and it certainly isn't a Wikipedia issue.

I think we differ in our assessment of people and who might be best positioned to advance the project. You may be wrong, I may be wrong, we both may be wrong. Differences of opinion are far healthier than the alternative. Sure, I have been upset by things you have said about friends of mine...but that isn't something for an RFC, that isn't even something for me to confront you on. There's lots of meat for the RFC, but nothing to which I was more than a spectator, to the best of my memory. All the best - Guettarda 19:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC again

We have a question for you here about how you would like the statements to be formatted. Please let us know. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have commented there already. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the quick reply. I do plan to contribute something, but I need to spend some time contemplating what to say. Best, Johntex\^talk 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC spamming

While I think a RFC might be appropriate, I don't think spamming everyone who voted at your ArbCom election page was the way to get our attention. Next time, I would only address the people you had an issue/dispute/etc. with and limit it to a few because spamming 150+ editors wasn't nessecary. I think everyone would have eventually found out about the RFC. I will however comment there since you requested that I did. Cheers! semper fi — Moe 20:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to admit that I've lost track of all the people I've had disputes/issues with. I made the assumption that everyone who voted against my candidacy had some sort of issue with me. Perhaps I was mistaken in so assuming, but I do not believe that there has been any significant harm or disruption to Wikipedia by my actions. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive moves

If you are an admin, can you pleaase block User talk:Yaksha ? it has come to my attention that that user has made excessive moving of pages without consensus, WP:ANI shows a member of the MedCom agreeing with this request, thank you,

See here as well [3]

WikieZach| talk 02:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin. If it's being discussed on WP:ANI, then I'm sure an admin will block if that is the appropriate thing to do. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC comment request

Hi Kelly, though I opposed your arbcom nomination it was based more on your User page which specifies that you intend limiting your contributions on wikipedia and concentrating on commons than any editing actions. I dont think we have crossed paths, as such I couldn't offer any contributions either way to your RFC. Gnangarra 06:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well, I tried

Kelly, I tried to remove comments I felt were subjective and assaulting upon you rather than topical. See [4]. 28 minutes later, it was reverted, with an accusation that I was being uncivil. I fear I'm stepping into a guaranteed slog of mud. I've no desire to raise objection to User:Ghirlandajo's accusation that I was being uncivil. It's unlikely to result in change, and a revert war is more likely than not. I appreciate your kind request to oversee that page, but I think I need to step out. Meta discussions on whether incivility is uncivil or not frequently lead nowhere, and taking action on such comments is usually contested. I'd thought this particular case was eminently clear, but apparently to at least one user it was not. --Durin 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. It is obvious that there are people who are deadset in their intentions; I will simply deal with them as best I can. Take care. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal

Thanks for your suggest to comment on your conduct - might I suggest a withdrawal from the Arbcom election for the sake of your own sanity? You judgement isn't exactly currying kudos and keeping your nomination there seems to serve no purpose other than to reinforce both the opinions that its a bizarre self-publicity stunt and a serious lapse of judgement and self awareness. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how withdrawing will have any effect on my sanity. The die is cast; withdrawing now won't change anything with respect to those who refuse to assume that I stated my intentions for running in good faith, and might even reinforce their mistaken beliefs. I appreciate the advice, but I decline to withdraw my candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the people seeing ulterior motives and grand schemes in something as non-effective as an RfC just not participate and leave it be? Pull an ostrich; if you can't see it, it's the same as it not existing. I have to wonder if people are just clamoring to be "the one" who deletes it. I think the RfC is a great idea and hope you don't lose enthusiasm for it. Milto LOL pia 10:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It shows courage not to withdraw in the face of a storm of slings and arrows, my commendations. However, if you are serious about remaining a candidate, could you please answer some the candidate questions, then? You have not edited Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Kelly Martin since December 3, leaving the questions there about half unanswered; instead, you have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 3, and responded there (to the first at great length). Given that you are maintaining your candidacy, would you be so good as to carry out its implied responsibilities, by responding to those questions? Most other candidates have been quite good about answering their questions; the few who have not, have at least not started new requests for comments about themselves in the meantime. Thank you, AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I will look at the page this weekend and see what I can do. I must admit that the rank incivility of some of the questions has discouraged me from wanting to return to that page, especially since it is obvious that my candidacy will not succeed and spending a great deal of time on the questions being asked there is of little demonstrable value. I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wikipedia just now, due to family circumstances, so you will need to excuse me for considering one week to respond to a detailed question not to be unreasonable. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Only answering the civil questions, and specifying which you consider to be otherwise, would be a perfectly legitimate response. But I must question your second point: if you do believe it is obvious that your candidacy will not succeed, don't you think maintaining it is a little cruel to the people taking the time and effort to evaluate it in good faith? Notice how many of the people writing in the vote or RfC had never heard of you before, so clearly based their opinion on spending time and effort on reading about your candidacy; I can assure you that many who have heard of you before are doing likewise. Please, either run in good faith, or don't run. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input sought

You witnessed a serious exchange between Ultramarine and Pmanderson before PMA's last RfA. He's now up again, and I've also been subjected to his rude attacks and wikilawyering, including his recent 3RR. I don't believe he's ready yet, or if he truly has the temperament. Your input requested. Skyemoor 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My experience with these editors mainly comes from having to arbitrate their longrunning dispute on the Democratic peace theory article. I have not paid attention to either one in nearly a year and cannot comment as to whether Pmanderson's recent behavior would lead one to conclude that he is a suitable candidate to be an admin. Quite frankly, I would be quite concerned about the possibility that he would use administrative privileges for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in a content dispute. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting neutral. Skyemoor has now been blocked for votespamming, and Doc Glasgow considers him a troll. Both of the other unbanned editors with whom I have quarrelled have endorsed me. I would hope and expect to be de-sysopped if I ever used adminship in an edit dispute. Septentrionalis 19:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your run for ArbCom and return to en.wiki, etc.

Kelly, you're a very dedicated Wikipedian who clearly has the best interests of the encyclopaedia at heart (at first I wrote "community" rather than "encyclopaedia" but I think for both you and me there is a distinction). You stepped out (voluntarily) in a blaze of fire a few weeks ago, and are now coming back in some way or form. I sense you as being genuinely puzzled as to some of the negative reaction to your ArbCom run. A few thoughts from my side:

• An arbitrator needs to be someone who is trusted and whose judgement is respected by a large cross-section of the community
• In some ways, ArbCom is an extension of Jimbo's authority (in a certain area). Notice how Jimbo largely stays in the background and stays away from messy issues, points and counterpoints, as much as possible. Some of that, by extension, is needed of an arbitrator. Someone who always comes out and says exactly what they think - which you do on-wiki and off-wiki in your blog - is not the profile that will work.
• You have very recently been part of a number of high-profile conflicts on en.wiki. You have left behind a lot of people with ill feeling -- whether deserved or not -- towards you. That has to be significantly in the past before the community will trust you in any way to "sit in judgement".
• In your absense and now during your return, you have been confrontational with several people, for instance with Geogre around his and your run for ArbCom, and in the opposing userboxes you and Giano have on your userpages. Regardless of merit or the behaviour of others, that makes the thought of you and/or Geogre on arbcom quite frightening. It's clear that the whole episode of a few weeks back is still far too fresh.

All of this combined by the not fully consistent statements of participatory intent on Wikipedia on your en.wiki user page, your commons user page, your blog, and your last-minute arbcom election entry currently makes you a far too unpredictable candidate.

Kelly, there are a huge number of ways in which you can participate productively in Wikipedia, from "gnome" work to your development expertise to policy work to writing articles or uploading images. I think you just need to try them out for a while and see what really makes you happy. If it is the arbcom role, you need to reshape your Wikipedia persona to be less blunt, and you need to live that persona for several months before people will believe in you with it.

Hope this helps and best wishes. Martinp 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (x-post to the RFD)

[edit] Reward Board

Hi Kelly,

Are you serious here? I have raised (or help raised) six dinosaur articles to Featured status, and would definitely be interested in this proposal. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team works hard to improve Wikipedia's coverage on dinosaurs; there are well over 1,000 dinosaur articles on Wikipedia; combined with the small number of active members on the project, it is a huge task. I would love for the team to be able to share some small reward.

It was my understanding (judging from comments during the WikiMania event) that you are not wealthy. I am really surprised, then, that you would offer this. At the same time, it clearly demonstrates your desire to improve Wikipedia's coverage of living things. Can you truly afford this? Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm serious. As to being able to afford it, I got a bonus at work that is more than enough to cover the total maximum bounty/reward for both 2006 and 2007, so don't worry about that. You have competition, though; someone caught me on IRC to say that they were going to work on a tree article. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That is very generous of you, Kelly. For the record, I think the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team will, within a few weeks, enter Diplodocus for FAC. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 203.166.99.229 unblocked

Hi Kelly,
I have unblocked 203.166.99.229, as Casliber was collateral damage. I don't really understand how you determined that this IP was compromised; but I hope we can find a solution that doesn't lock Cas out. Hesperian 04:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This IP was formerly an open proxy. It appears to now be a nonopen proxy. It is likely that it will be blocked again because this sort of proxy often ends up getting implicated when vandals use zombies which are behind the proxy to vandalize Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've drawn Cas' attention to this discussion; perhaps he will be willing and able to poke the right people to secure the proxy for good. Hesperian 10:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Apologies for absent section break. Now fixed. Hesperian 10:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - the computer is one in a large community health centre, though one has to have a logon id and password to get on. I looked through the contribs and there was one edit from 2005 which wasn't mine (and way before I joined Wikipedia). The computer is networked. If it is now a nonopen proxy and open proxies are the problem then isn't that a good thing? I am new to all this. It is part of a large network and I don't think the powers that be would be interested.Cas Liber 11:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that your ISP interposes a transparent proxy between you and the Internet, and so the IP address that your edits appear to come from is not the same as the IP address of your machine. In any case, I shouldn't worry about it. It appears that your ISP has cured the defect in its proxy servers, and so there is no reason to maintain the block. However, you may find yourself collaterally blocked from time to time as vandals use compromised computers which also happen to be behind the same transparent proxy. If this happens, just contact an admin and they will unblock you. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally I saw your paypal reward - you can have a look at my userpage and see waht articles I have assisted getting to FA status (just about all biological ones) ....:) cheers Cas Liber 01:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The reward is payable if the article went to FA after I posted the rewards. No backdating. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, just have to do some more then (does it include fossils? I've been working on Diplodocus)....Cas Liber 04:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] accidental rollback

Sorry about this. I was scanning revision history and hit it accidentally. How embarrassing!--Kchase T 20:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Mistakes happen. I've done that at least twice or three times myself. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Kelly

You know, you were once a pretty decent editor. You made lots of excellent contributions. I'm hoping there's a sock somewhere still doing that. I've never really understood why you put that to one side and started caring so much about what other people do who are maybe not contributing but not actually defacing the mainspace either. It's all sort of "who gives a shit?" Except you did. Anyway, happy editing wherever you're doing it. Grace Note 04:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As my user page says, I've moved to Commons. I take pictures. That's what I enjoy doing. The weather being what it is, I'm a bit limited in my photographic opportunities, but I'm putting together a "hit list" of things that need pictures that can be found near where I live, and will be hitting that in more detail in the spring, and there are a few things I'm going to try to get in the next week or so if weather permits. I'm also slowly going through the 10,000 or so photographs I have saved up our computers and seeing if any of them are suitable to be uploaded to Commons. I just finished making a 21-image composite of Hannibal, Missouri and the Mississippi River, which will be uploaded to Commons later tonight. (Do you think Commons has any interest in a photograph of a ladder in the middle of a residential street? No, I suppose not.) I have a few more of the Mississippi River and a group from a little town in Iowa called Center Point that should make a decent composite as well.

I was never a very good editor. Wikipedia is teeming with people who are far better editors than I am. My strengths lie elsewhere. I appreciate the flattery, though, and the encouragement, but you must needs forgive me for choosing to take a different path than the one you suggest. Best wishes for the year to come. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmph. There is more than one way to improve the mainspace. Sometimes you need someone to beat the idea into the head of the populace that this is about the articles, not the politics, the jealousy or the drama - even when that idea persistently escapes people. I've never been much dedicated to Wikipedia, or anything more than a "find source for very small articles and tinker with articles that interest me" person, but I've seen your work, and admire you as being one of few willing to be that someone. You've helped the mainspace much more than you or anyone else gives you credit for, I think. Milto LOL pia 07:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bridges

I see you have some pictures on commons, List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River#Missouri - Illinois has some bridges lacking photos, so before I waste my time trying to find pictures I thought I'd better ask you. If you have time / have an image, the rail bridge in Hannibal needs an image, so do some other bridges, Quincy Memorial Bridge, Quincy Rail Bridge, a daytime Great River Bridge, Keithsburg Rail Bridge and the Old Mark Twain Memorial Bridge. Thanks. --Dual Freq 18:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not yet have pictures of any of those. I do visit Quincy from time to time, and the next time I'm there I will make an effort to get pictures of the bridges there as well as any others that I happen to come across in the course of my perambulations, but it may be some time before I make it over to the west side of the state again. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)