Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:41, 8 August 2006

User:Kelly Martin/Vacation

Note: Please do not make requests for the use of CheckUser rights or administrative assistance here unless it's related to a matter I've already engaged in. Requests for checkuser go to WP:RFCU; requests for administrative assistance go to WP:AN. Thank you for your cooperation.

Note: I may remove comments that are inserted without a section header. Please be nice and create a new section if you want to leave me a comment. If you add to an existing section, I may miss your comment.

Board candidate questions

Hi Kelly, I'm glad to see you're running for the current board elections. I have some questions that I think would be good to know - please answer (or ignore) them as you see fit. Thanks. Cormaggio 11:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1. What do you do in real life?
2. What personal/professional experience would you bring to the board, if elected?
3. What do you see as the role of a board member?
4. Do you have any personal aspirations you would like to pursue through a tenure on the board?

My "day job" is that of network administrator. Prior to my current position, I worked for a non-profit organization in a role that included significant exposure to its policymaking process. I have also run small businesses and volunteered in a soup kitchen, where I mainly had administrative roles and worked closely with the executive director. Several years ago I was a lead developer on a major open source software project. I think my combination of experience would represent a valuable asset to the Board.

The role of the Board member is to set broad direction for the Foundation as a whole. The position should not involve day to day leadership; ideally, matters like that will be handled by the Executive Director and the staff and volunteers who assist the ED. Rather, the Board sets broad policy for the organization, only getting personally involved in major decisions that will have broad impact across the entire organization. In my opinion, the past Board of the Foundation has done a poor job of delegating day to day responsibility, although this is starting to change; it would be one of my goals to continue to work in this direction.

Personally I am running because a couple of people whose opinions I value asked me to consider running, and because I did not feel as though any of who I believed would be likely candidates would have fully met with my approval. In addition, I have been a vocal advocate of "professionalizing" the Foundation and my candidacy is intended, at least in part, as a platform to forward my advocacy.

I hope this addresses your questions adequately; please feel free to ask for additional clarification. Regards, Kelly Martin (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I, like many other users, were concerned over the possible WP:POINT violations with your User:Kelly Martin/R subpage. First of all, was this WP:POINT, and if it was, do you believe it in any way shows unprofessionalism? Computerjoe's talk 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Collaborative consensus-based nature? Also, can you please put up a link to board questions archived before the election ends? -- Jeandré, 2006-08-06t07:56z

Any questions which get archived will be on the August archive page. As to Angela's statement: In a community the size of Wikimedia, it will be quite common to fail to have consensus on important, difficult issues. We have to learn that to disagree is not to dislike. We (I hope) are all committed to the same mission, even though we may disagree as to the best way to achieve that mission. A common failing in growing organizations (such as the Foundation) is in accepting disagreement amicably. We don't all have to be of one mind on everything to work together to create a 💕. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest fair use weirdness

Hi. I noticed that you left this comment. Relevant discussion is at WP:AN/3RR (Ed g2s section) WP:AN/I (Ed g2s section), Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists (a somewhat derailed centralised discussion), and Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific. I suggest that there is plenty of room for some blunt sanity to be applied. Jkelly 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have mentioned you in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton. I am unclear on whether or not you qualify as someone who can make the second endorsement. Jkelly 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Incivility does not mean "something I don't like"

If a question makes you uncomfortable, that doesn't make it uncivil. I believe you only reflect poorly on yourself by removing polite, but difficult questions as you did here. Calling it uncivil doesn't make it so. Friday (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I almost removed the question myself as incivil. This question, polite as it may be, has been asked again and again, and Kelly's response is for all to see in ANI archives. The whole situation regarding these lists only went on as long as it did because people ignored her responses, and kept badgering her with the same questions again and again. So, yes, I find it incivil to start the same thing over now, and putting the original poster's intentions aside, I think that's all posting such a question is going to accomplish. --InkSplotch 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The question was asked in a different context. Computerjoe's talk 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of the manner in which it was asked, questions about this do seem to be relevent and will probably come up again. The simplest (and most transparent) way to deal with it would be for Kelly to make a summary of all the "black-list" pages created with links to diffs where the reason for their existance was explained. This would be easier than having repetative discussions or deleting repeated questions, wouldn't it? - brenneman 09:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Foundation Candidacy

A reaction to reading your candidacy statement:

(1) persons being asked to vote for someone have a legitimate interest in having the facts. Your entry for "age" is non-responsive, and may be perceived by some as "cute" but by others as "smart ass."

(2) while a Cincinnatus-like reason for running may seem modest, in the real world it is often seen as phoney, and a variation on the silly "don't vote for yourself" piety often promoted by well-meaning but impractical grade school teachers. Seeking a job "because others urged me to" usually results in someone who does the job indifferently because he had no genuine interest himself in even having the job in the first place. If you really want to be elected, then tell us the real reasons why you want it. If you don't really want it ("others urged me to run"), then you should withdraw so voters spend their time evaluating the serious and committed candidates. --StanZegel (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am known to most everyone in the Foundation to be over 18 years of age. My exact age, while a matter of public record, does not need to be posted on the Internet. After all, one does not ask a lady her age.

If elected, I will serve, hopefully with distinction. I do not do things by half measures. I originally did not intend to run, but I was talked into it by certain persons (who I will not publicly name) combined with my general disdain for who I perceived to be likely candidates. If I am convinced that there are more candidates more qualified than I than there are open seats on the Board, and that no less-qualified candidate might win, I will step down. Until then, I am obliged to remain a candidate by my committment to ensure that Wikimedia gets the best leadership available to it. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: ConfirmationImageOTRS

Hello Kelly,

I was wondering if you could shed some light; I was looking through an editor's image contributions. This editor left Misplaced Pages under somewhat of a cloud and uploaded a large number of images from stock image or other online providers, and for many of them claimed to have obtained permission from the authors for cc-by-sa-2.5 licensing. I had doubts about this claim, and at any rate it doesn't follow the procedure at WP:COPYREQ, but then I saw this image, where apparently you tagged it as having confirmed permission from the author via OTRS. Also at Misplaced Pages:Successful requests for permission#Permission from Iranpix.com, Michael and Hushie Inc. etc., the editor claimed full permission for many of the others. Can you verify what permission was verified via permissions@wikimedia? I'm a bit surprised that all of these images were granted cc-by-sa, especially the Reuters image of Hamid Karzai, and the numerous photos from a commercial stock photo provider. Thanks, KWH 05:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I probably assumed good faith inappropriately on that image. You have my permission to delete it. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate statement

I was looking at candidate statments, and your statement was talking about "growth and economic stability". Do you have a sort of idea how? Just curious. Green caterpillar 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a financial expert. My financial aptitude is such that I can understand financial analysis presented by a finance person, but not develop a financial analysis myself. Nor am I a fundraising expert. However, it is not the duty of the Board necessarily to come up with detailed solutions to these problems; the Board should instead find experts to do that for them (be they volunteers or paid staff). Certainly the Board should work toward building increasingly larger operating reserves, and then eventually a sustaining endowment; however, I don't know the timescale in which this should take place, in part because I am not terribly familiar with the details of Wikimedia's current or past finances; nor do I claim to know the best way specifically to raise the funds required to accomplish this. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

About meaning of a sentence in your platform

Hello Kelly, and thanks for being a candidate in the election for the Board of Trustees. I'm the Finnish translation coordinator of elections, and I just translated your statement in Finnish. I'd like to ask, what did you exactly mean with the sentence "and to leverage this public interest to the benefit of the other projects" in your platform. I didn't get it and that's why can't translate this one sentence so could you explain it a little please. Good luck in elections! -- Mzlla 23:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What I am seeking to say there is that I think we should take advantage of the attention that the English Misplaced Pages gets from the media and others to draw more attention to other Wikimedia projects, by mentioning them whenever we can. There are hundreds of projects within Wikimedia that are in desparate need of volunteers; broader public knowledge of the existence and missions of these projects can only help with recruiting badly needed volunteers. I hope this helps you round out the translation, and thanks for all your assistance to the Wikimedia community in doing them for us! Kelly Martin (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

'Nother Board question

"Ensure the Foundation remains accountable to its supporters and users"

What do you see this as meaning? Simple transparency in decision making and expenditures, or what? For example, would you have done anything differently than the Board did do when Answers.com and Jimbo wanted to add some advertising?

I don't want to second-guess that particular question; I don't have access to all of the information that the Board had access to at that time. The Board is obliged to consider any proposal that reasonably appears to bring benefit toward our fundamental goal of creating a free repository of human knowledge; rejecting proposals out of hand after a superficial analysis would be irresponsible. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You may not want to, but that's exactly what I'm asking, and indeed, the essence of running for Board member. But the Answers.com thing was not a case of the board merely considering it and rejecting it "out of hand", and I am not asking whether you would automatically reject any proposals involving advertising. My question is simply:

With the publicly available information both you and I have, do you think the Answers.com deal was a good one, and was it reached in a proper fashion? --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Build the infrastructure we need to respond to the massive increase in public attention Misplaced Pages gets, and to leverage this public interest to the benefit of the other projects"

Why do you think this is necessary to such a degree it is one of your planks? Availability has improved dramatically in the past two years, and there doesn't seem to be a huge upwards trend in traffic like there used to be: , for example shows only a small trend.

You misunderstand what I mean by "infrastructure". Our technical infrastructure at this point appears reasonably sound, although there is certainly room for improvement and I would certainly want to work with our technical people to find ways to improve value in that arena. The area where we need dramatic improvement in infrastructure is human infrastructure. Organizationally, the Foundation is practically in a continual crisis, with too few people trying to do too many things all at once. This is unsustainable; we need to get enough of the right people into the right jobs so that everyone can work on what they are best at so that we can insure that what needs to be done gets done in time. In short, we need to recruit more volunteers and especially more specialized volunteers, and we probably also have to hire more staff. Critically, we desparately need a volunteer coordinator. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Cultivate partnerships with others who will respect our core principles and benefit our mission"

And who would these others be?

The first one that comes to mind is archive.org. The main thing is that we ensure that we're not wasting resources duplicating something someone else is doing better than we are. We should work to complement others who are also committed to making human knowledge freely available to all, rather than to compete with them. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Work toward reasonable growth and economic sustainability in a manageable timeframe."

'Whenever I hear "reasonable", I reach for my pistol.' Is our present rate of growth unreasonable? Do you intend to advocate measures that would restrict growth, perhaps even more things in the vein of disabling page creations by anonymouses or semi-protection. Semi-protection of living persons' biographies has been proposed. Would such a measure work towards "reasonable growth"? Similarly for "economic sustainability"; what worries me here are slippery slopes. Would you support advertising on en to acheive economic sustainability? If so, why? If not, why not? --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 03:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Our present rate of growth is dangerously close to being so fast that we can't manage it. I don't think that local project policies such as disabling anonymous creations (or even anonymous edits) are matters the Board should be involved in (as was said during the Board panel, the Board is not the place to decide whether to change the three revert rule). Rather, by "reasonable growth" I believe that the Board should think very carefully before embarking on any new projects that would further dilute our very limited human resources, and the Board might even want to consider closing or spinning off some projects (although I don't think this is currently necessary).

I wasn't at the Board panel, so I didn't know that. I'd have to disagree with you about closing not being currently necessary, though - Simple en is a schizophrenic failure, and the 9/11 wiki should never have been begun. But basicly you are advocating focussing on currently successful projects so they stay successful? --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that advertising on enwiki, despite being a ridiculous lucrative potential revenue source (at least 50 million dollars a year and potentially as much as 500 million), is likely to be a good idea. Rather, I think we need to work on seeking more and more reliable donation income from other charitable organizations, with special attention given to corporate charitable foundations, given the tremendous value Misplaced Pages represents to any corporation. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP's Board of Trustees

I notice that trustees are expected to pick up all expenses related to their positions on the Board -- including international travel costs and all accomodation/ meal expenses.

In my view, such a policy prevents individuals of limited financial means from seeking a position on the Board. I think that reimbursement for these receipted expenses would be in order and also believe that the Foundation could handle this reasonable expense (what would it be annually? $25,000?").

In this regard, I have a left messages on User:Jimbo Wales and User:Essjay's talk page.

While I have no desire to sit on the WP Board, I do believe that a more egalitarian method to select Board members should be put in place, otherwise the selection method promotes a form of elitism. Barry Wells 22:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

During the course of the Wikimania conference, I was present for several discussions regarding the issues of reimbursement and compensation of trustees. Rest assured that that statement you refer to in your question is not accurate. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Board Question

Hello! I am just looking over statements and asking any questions I would like addressed, if possible:

• You state in your presentation "I had not intended to do so". Do you feel this statement and view undermines your ability to operate effectively as a board member? Do you feel that your initial personal lack of motivation (based on you not intending to stand) will affect your ability to motivate yourself to be as productive as possible in your role to the Foundation?

Thank you for you time. Ian¹³/t 20:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am running for the Board because I was asked to. That doesn't mean that I'm not interested. If I hadn't been interested, I would have declined to run. Nor do I believe it would undermine my ability to act. I am on good terms with most of the existing Board members, have met all of them at least briefly (Tim being the one I've spent the least time with) and do not believe that any of them would view the fact that I had to be talked into running as any sort of disability. I think all of them are aware of my commitment to the goals of the Foundation and would have no doubt of my willingness to serve to the limits of my capabilities. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP Board of Trustees election

Kelly, I notice that Article IV of Misplaced Pages Foundation Inc.'s by-laws contains the following section:

"Section 3. DELEGATION AND EXPENSES.

Any action required or permitted to be taken by the Board of Trustees under these Bylaws or any provision of law may be delegated by the Board to the Chair or any committee of the Board. Trustees may not be compensated for their roles as Trustees. They may be allowed expenses, by resolution of the Board, for attending meetings, if necessary. No Trustee shall be employed or otherwise receive compensation from the Foundation for their duties as Trustees."

So expenses can be given to trustees "by resolution of the Board, for attending meetings, if necessary." Interesting. Barry Wells 00:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought...

"I am running for the Board because I've been encouraged to do so by people whose opinions I trust. I had not intended to do so, but when people I trust approach me to ask me to do something, I tend to take their requests seriously."

This statement implies that your just not interested in this project and the only reason your running is because your friends tell you to. Are you really interested in being a board member?

-- P.R.

I've answered this question above and ask you to refer to the above discussion. I find the idea of being a Trustee somewhat frightening, which is why I originally chose not to run. However, it was a close decision, and I was basically talked into changing my mind by someone whose opinion I place some significant stock in. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you look at

.. Big 12 Conference. I'm not sure what step to take next. ed g2s • talk 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We talked about this extensively at Wikimania. The logo galleries are not acceptable. You are hereby informed that you may block any editor who reverts an edit removing a gallery of team logos from a sports league, provided that the edit removing the gallery indicates in its edit summary that the use of logo galleries in sports league is prohibited by Misplaced Pages policy. I will personally back you up in any dispute that arises as a result of this, as will any number of other admins. This has gone on too long. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In all due respect, I think that this is a misguided desicion. To end the debate now is robbing Misplaced Pages's chance to improve through concensus. I firmly believe that Misplaced Pages is NOT an oligarchy. If several users have an idea about a change in policy, then they MUST be heard out, and I'm not talking about sports logos here anymore. I'm talking about Misplaced Pages and where I fear it is going. I do not believe that Misplaced Pages is run by one, or a few administrators. Misplaced Pages is a group project where EVERYBODY works together, especially if a problem arises. You can cite all the guidelines you want, but the bottom line is that if editors aren't given the chance to present there case for changes, and Misplaced Pages remains static with its guidelines, than Misplaced Pages's sense of community will be greatly damaged, which in my mind is more importnat than all the wikiguidelines put together. Dknights411 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright laws are non-negotiable. No group of Wikipedians, no matter how large, can come together and override copyright law, because we will then simply be sued into oblivion. Copyright policy on Misplaced Pages is hewn out with the assistance of Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers, and to the everyday Wikipedian editors, it is set in stone. --Cyde Weys 14:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We let the debate run for some time, and I've been monitoring it. We reviewed the debate during several different meetings and came to a conclusion that the proposed use offends our core principles too much to be allowed. Our core principles are not up for negotiation; adherence to them is a requirement for participation in Misplaced Pages, and if you are not willing to follow them, you should find another hobby. This is not so much an issue of copyright policy (since the risk we will be sued by one of the holders of one of these logos is rather low) but rather one of our core principle of "creating a freely redistributable encyclopedia". Unnecessary fair use of unlicensed media is in direct opposition to this principle. The logo galleries are not necessary; therefore they are unacceptable. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's trying to negotiate copyright laws? This is a strawman argument. I'm trying to argue for a looser interpretation of what's allowable under fair use, not trying to overturn the fair use policy. Powers 18:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What else what discussed at this meeting? Are there minutes somewhere? ed g2s • talk 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There may actually be a video floating about, if this was one of the conference talks, anyway. I wasn't in attendance, I was probably at something else ... Cyde Weys 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I take it applies to cases such as this? ed g2s • talk 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. That usage is qualitatively different from the league logo gallery issue and needs to be discussed separately. I'm not yet convinced that those usages do not add encyclopedic value, especially given the relatively small size they're rendered in. I'd like to have more discussion amongst reasonable people before declaring a concluded policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hello Kelly Martin, please explain what basis you have for believing you have greater authority to decide this question than anyone else involved in the discussion. Last I checked, you are not an arbitrator and you don't have a seat on the Foundation Board or any other special qualifications to determine this issue. Also, scanning the conference schedule for Wikimania, I see no talks on logos, fair use, or anything else that appears relevant to this discussion. Did you have some hallway or late-night-bar chat session about this, and if so, what would make that more relevant than any similar discussion held by any other gathering of Wikipedians? Johntex\ 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no basis for beliving I have greater authority to decide the question. I've simply decided to make the decision, because someone had to. You are free to ignore the policy I've decided on; however, doing so may be problematic for you. As to the schedule for Wikimania, there were several sessions on copyright and I believe the issue came up in at least two that I attended. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. However, this only leaves me more confused. If you have no special basis to make the decision, then why wouldn't the decision be made by the people involved in discussing the issue? Why do you use the phrase "policy I've decided on" if you have no special basis to step in and unilaterally decide policy?

What do you mean by "You are free to ignore the policy I've decided on; however, doing so may be problematic for you."? Problematic in what way?

Also, the Wikimania schedule does not include any session with the word "copyright" or "logo" or "fair use" or "policy" in the title. Can you please point me to the correct place? Thanks, Johntex\ 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody on Misplaced Pages can attempt to set policy. I just happen to be good at actually doing so, especially in the copyright arena, and so I have decided to do so in this case. If you choose to ignore the policy that I have decided is best for Misplaced Pages, you may find yourself blocked, a state which many Wikipedians find problematic. Finally, the list of sessions you refer to is merely the list of sessions for which audio or video content is available. Soufron's copyright session was not recorded, and I believe Brad also talked about copyright in his legal issues discussion, which was also not recorded. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I saw and agreed with your comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Rmrfstar (second nomination). I almost felt like messaging most of the oppose voters to ask if they wanted to reconsider. I didn't do it, except in one case where I felt I knew the editor concerned well enough. I suppose in a way that the candidate is at fault for putting such brief answers up in the first place, but come on. The process needs to be stringent at weeding out those who would be bad admins, but at the moment it seems like a kind of Spanish Inquisition, and must put a lot of people off applying, when we need more admins if anything. It certainly intimidates me. Oh well. --Guinnog 15:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)