User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2007 April

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] RfA req. for clarification

Two Three editors have requested that you clarify/explain your Oppose !vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fuhghettaboutit, as the rationale given appears to have mistaken the facts of the case in point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Updated: 07:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joebengo RFA

Hello Kelly Martin! I noticed you voted oppose and gave a comment in User:Joebengo's RFA. I asked you a question there. Please reply there if you would like to. Thank you! WooyiTalk, Editor review 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers and explanations. I've replyed on the RFA page. WooyiTalk, Editor review 17:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed you have. I hope you will refrain from such inappropriate comments in the future. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello!, thank you for your vote on my RfA, I understand what you are saying about the Userboxes but I just want to let you know that I always assume good faith and encourage you to do the same. While my Userboxes may seem offensive to you in one way or another they in no way would be a deciding factor for me during any admin activities. What I'm trying to say is that my decisions on wikipedia would not be affected by my point of view on the subject, I don't show favoritism towards one subject that I wouldn't to another and I keep all my decisions neutral. Also in regards to my "annoying" orange boxes, I just put those up there the other day just to try it out and I didn't really see the RfA link as much as an advertisement as more of a way to let people who may happen to cross my user page (through viewing edit histories and such) that I am up for RfA and they could speak their mind about how they feel about my editing. If you have any questions I can answer them on your talk page, or on mine. Thanks--Joebengo 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA comments

Hey Kelly, any chance you can go back to the RfA's you've commented on and clarify exactly what you mean when you talk about the candidate being endorsed by a wiki-project. Everyones a little confused. Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've decided not to support any candidate for admin who doesn't obtain an endorsement from a WikiProject or similiarly organized subject working group. WikiProjects dedicated primarily to community affairs, to vandalism management, or other non-content-related activities (including stub-sorting) do not count; the purpose of the project must primarily be to create, improve, maintain, or manage encyclopedic content. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah I see, so basically to show article writing skills? Sounds fair. My only concern with that is that there are numerous editors who edit articles that are not part of a wikiproject and simply edit articles which they see fit. Also, I'm not sure if there is a way that a whole wikiproject could come and support a candidate, many users from the wikiproject could, but thats not an endorsement from the project. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen endorsement from a project at RfA. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProjects don't offer "endorsement" to RFAs, Wikipedia is not U.S. Congress. WooyiTalk, Editor review 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It is my opinion that WikiProjects should endorse candidates; until they do I will likely not support any candidate. Since I will also not oppose any candidate merely for the lack of an endorsement, my position does not harm anyone's candidacy, while at the same time drawing attention to the importance that administrators have at least some demonstrated experience both with editing content and with being engaged in the collaborative process. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's actually a really good idea IMO. Milto LOL pia 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Whether it's a good idea or not, the fact that this isn't how things work at the minute should discourage you from using this rationale when commenting on a candidate. Wikiprojects don't endorse candidates, and it seams a silly reason not to support one when there is no mechanism in place for what you'd like to see Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
(not sure if I'm indenting this properly) I think it's silly to say that because it isn't standard practice, she shouldn't do it. If everyone used the same standard RFA criteria, there'd be no reason for RFAs... Milto LOL pia 18:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I believe that I am merely being bold. If enough people agree with me, eventually it will be necessary for candidates to have such endorsements in order to be successful in their candidacies, and at that point WikiProjects will start endorsing candidates. In short, I hope to cause the mechanism to come into existence. If you agree with me, join my campaign and withhold your support from candidates until they obtain an endorsement. If you do not agree, then support whomever you want. It's entirely your choice, just as it is entirely my choice. Do you believe that my actions are harmful to Wikipedia? Kelly Martin (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't think it's harmful to wikipedia at all. In principal, I also feel it would be a good idea to gain endorsement from a wikiproject. I just think you may have gone about your idea the wrong way, it's possibly a little unfair to the candidates. My major concern is that if the candidate asks to be endorsed by the wikiproject it could be seen as canvassing. That said, best of look with it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC
I would be disappointed if it were considered canvassing for the members of a WikiProject to discuss amongst themselves whether any particular person is worthy of their endorsement for adminship. Surely it is not considered canvassing for one editor to ask another if they would be a suitable candidate for adminship? As to fairness to the candidates: again, I am merely failing to support candidates, not opposing them. Neutral positions do not generally affect the outcome of a candidacy, so I am not harming any candidate's chances through my decision to withhold support. And, as to going about it the wrong way, how would you suggest I go about it? Do you think perhaps I should pursue this strategy some other way? Is my method not in keeping with the "WikiWay"? Kelly Martin (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you would have been better off discussing it with a number of wiki projects and WT:RFA before jumping in like you have. Admitidely you have been bold which is obviously the wiki-way. I really suspect though if a candidate goes asking for support off a whole project is would be considered canvassing, I wouldn't oppose for it, but many people would. My major issue is that you shouldn't hold back support for a candidate on a hope that doesn't exist yet, if it was a regular thing for candidates to get project support I could understand, but it isn't. Good users aren't always part of wikiprojects, oppose or go neutral because of lack of article editing, but not for lack of endorsement by a project. What if wiki-projects refuse to endorse candidates? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The way I look at it, the WikiProjects have no reason to take the time to support a candidate unless they know it will matter. I'm trying to make it matter, so they will have a reason to take the time to decide whether to support candidates or not. I'm not going to oppose anyone for the lack of an endorsement (if I oppose, it will be because I have an actual problem with the candidate in question, which an endorsement will not likely rectify). In the unlikely even that every WikiProject refuses to consider endorsing candidates, then no candidate will be able obtain my support. I'm not bothered by this. It seems that you are, and I fear I do not understand why. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
But how do you propose this happens? Realistically, how would a whole project endorse a candidate? Would it be worth 10 times what an ordinary user says? I'm not bothered by this, I've had my RfA, I'm just concerned for others who may have had your support but now aren't going to get it. It seams sad that the only comments you're going to give are oppose or neutrals because at present, no project is going to endorse a candidate. Without discussing it with them first, you're not going to pull any thing off Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[EC] With regard to the canvassing. I think the point is that the wikiproject goes to the candidate, not the other way around. Candaidates would be members of the projects and get the nod when their peers thought they were ready. With respect to good users are not part of projects, I think this is part of the goal here. Why not, if more good users join the wikiprojects then wikipedia will be improved significantly. With regard to witholding support, she is not, she is neutral. When i browse through the RfA i may well vote for one or two candidates of those available at anyone time. For what ever reason the other candidates do not appeal to me but i do not bother to oppose or comments neutrally. If i now comment neutrally rather than abstain, how does that affect the candidates nomination? David D. (Talk) 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me, I know she isn't opposing candidates, but if they were going to get her support otherwise it don't seam a reason to withold it, as I said, shes witholding support because of a mechanism that doesn't exist yet. With regards to wikiprokects nominating for adminship, that isn't going to happen. Admins are not always the best article editors, but the ones that understand policies the best and who are able to use them in the right way, many members of wikiprojects don't understand what makes a good admin candidate, therefore will; 1)Not make very good noms and 2)Make noms for people who are unlikely to pass Rfa i.e. the great article editors but without sysoop skills.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanpostlethwaite (talk • contribs)
(another outdent) David is basically on the spot here. In the past I have simply not offered an opinion on candidates; now I am offering a neutral opinion, which is basically the same thing. While I certainly have no intention of requiring WikiProjects to only endorse their own members, I imagine that most WikiProjects will be loath to endorse someone with whom they have little or no involvement. This isn't intended to be like a racecar driver shopping for sponsors; I would object to that and would likely not accept an endorsement garnered in such a manner. Instead, my hopes here are manifest, but amongst them are that such a practice will encourage WikiProjects to identify editors, either in or outside their formal membership, who are suitable for adminship, and put forth such editors as candidates, and also to encourage more editors to participate in WikiProjects. I think the former will help us to ensure that more of our administrator candidates have a real appreciation for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (as opposed to as a social experience) as well as more of an appreciation for the collaborative editing process and the realities of content creation and management (all of which are not things which the typical vandalfighter gets much exposure to). I think the latter will help to improve the encyclopedia by getting more people with the ability to improve articles pushed in the directions of articles that need improving. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(break introduced for sanity)

Do you mind if I ask what WikiProject you are part of, Kelly Martin? I see from your logs that you are a sysop, yet I don't see any obvious indication of you being part of any WikiProject; and you're !voting neutral on several RfA's because the candidate is not part of a WikiProject. This isn't meant to be an attack against you, it's just a question because I don't know what WikiProject you're part of. Acalamari 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not an administrator; I resigned that role last year and do not plan to seek it again at this time. I am a member of the Illinois, Indiana, and Chicago WikiProjects, although of late I have not had time to contribute substantially to them. See above discussion for an explanation of my intent. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I was unaware you had resigned. As for your WikiProjects, sorry about that too. I just couldn't find any indication you were in one and has curious. I myself am not in any WikiProject, as I do a lot of work in the mainspace anyway; though if I do join one, it will most likely be music, as a lot of my mainspace edits take place in music-related articles. My apologies if I sounded rude; no bad faith was meant to be intended. Acalamari 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(refactored outdent)

I have a question. If Wikiprojects are brought into the RfA process, what if a WikiProject were to oppose the nomination of a candidate? I would hate to see a sectarian/ideological factor becoming part of the process. Does this concern you? --killing sparrows 07:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am only looking for endorsements. There is no mechanism for a WikiProject to "oppose" a candidate, or to support one; only to endorse one. I am certainly not proposing, suggesting, or advising that WikiProjects be given any authority to "vote" on RfAs. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know there was a mechanism for a WikiProject to endorse candidates. I was just concerned because cans of worms, once opened, are notoriously difficult to close. --killing sparrows 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I can see the benefits of something like that, although I'm still not sure exactly how it would work. I do have a concern, however, depending on what you mean by a WikiProject. For example, I am a member of the WP:LDS Wikiproject, but I assume Catholics and Protestants would be concerned if a project such as that were to endorse any candidate, and quite frankly, I wouldn't want an endorsement by them because they represent only a portion of my interests and their endorsement might seem POV pushing. While I can see the concern about stacking votes, there should be a way to notify people who might have experience with the candidate and can vouch for or raise objections about the person.
What if, when a RFA starts, that a template notice was attached to the articles they have been working on recently. The notice would tell people that user XXX has been nominated for adminship and that if they wanted to support or oppose the nomination they should click on a link. That way, those who have worked with the candidate the most recently would have the opportunity to provide feedback on the candidate's behavior, skills, etc. I didn't even know about the RFA pages before I was nominated, and I'm guessing there are a lot of others who are in the same boat. This is different than canvassing for votes, since anyone who had worked on that page is likely to notice the announcement and voice their opinion. In fact, I would guess you would tend to get more negative comments than positive. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikiproject endorsement

I presume you have something in the works? I believe this is an excellent idea and will draw people away from resume building for adminship and actually working on articles instead. There is no doubt in my mind that through working on articles the skills required for adminship are honed to a higher degree than hanging out in AfD or RfA etc. All those places will be experienced in the normal process of editing and interacting with other editors. What is the status of this idea? David D. (Talk) 17:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The status of this idea is that I plan to withhold my support from any candidate who does not have an endorsement from a WikiProject (as I discuss above). I'm not going to tell WikiProjects how they should decide who to endorse. That's up to them to figure out.
I imagine that in most cases my withheld support will not matter; most candidates will pass or fail regardless of my lack of support. However, eventually someone will come along who feels that they need my support on their RFA, and will go through the process of convincing some WikiProject to endorse them. Of course, this process will probably go faster if more people join my campaign and also withhold their support from unendorsed candidates. But that'll be up to each individual participant in RFA to decide whether they want to do.
Does that answer your question? Kelly Martin (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does, I will follow your lead there (not that I vote that often in RfA's), this could be a very good thing for wikipedia. Let me know if something more formal is set up because i would happily speak up for some variant of your idea. David D. (Talk) 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an intersting idea. While i agree that article editing skills and experience are important in an RfA, I am concerned that if this idea becomes at all common it might work agaisnt editors who do good work on articels that aren't favored by any wikiproject (which perhaps need such work even more) or who have multiple intersts and haven't done enough work in any one area for a project to "endorse" a candidate. Of course none of this would matter unless enough people followed your lead that it became essential, or at least important, for a candidate to obtain an endorsement from a project. Also, I am somewhat conmcerned about the potential for cliqueishness that endorsements might cause -- not that there isn't plenty of that on RfA already. All of these are merely theoretical concerns, but oens that are IMO worth considering before this idea goes much farther. Just my view, of course. DES (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Clearly this is embryonic (less than one hour for me), but the potential upside for the encyclopedia is so large that this is a very worthy idea regardless of potential problems in the current climate. Obviously the main problem is that many project have few participants. But that is part of the problem that this idea is trying to address. Certianly it is not a reason to not think about this proposal. As far as cliqueishness is concerned, why would we worry about cliques of contructive editors who are writing content, especially given the social cliques that have dominated RfA for the past year (from what you wrote above you already seem to agree with this point). If some users really need to identify with a group then we should be giving them good reason to be part of an editing group rather than a chat group. David D. (Talk) 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What David said. We already have cliques. I'd rather have cliques that are at least working on creating an encyclopedia, rather than cliques that are mainly working on social functions. Plus, this way our cliques are openly declared, instead of operating covertly, which means it's easier to see them in operation. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't disagree with that. i was concerned with the idea, expressed in one of Kelly's posts on this, that eventually no RfA would pass without a project endorsement. It seems to me that having a project endorsement be a valuable aid to an RfA candidacy (just as having worked on an FA tends to be now) would be a good thing. I could also see that some evidence of significant and quality article editing ought perhaps to be demanded of a potential admin. I get a little nervous about the idea that any one particular credential would become required, at least de facto. But this is all trying to guess how such a system would work out in practice when at the moment it is simply an idea started by one editor in which some others are interested. I was mostly raising these concerns now so that solutions to them could perhaps be built in as the idea develops. i was not trying to say "this is a problem, therefore the idea is no good." Partly it is because I have never been an active member of any wiki-project, yet have (I think) done some good editing, and a lot of maintenance tasks here. Someone like me would not, i suspect, have been endorsed by any wiki-project (had such endorsements been in use then), and so i worry that this might exclude good editors like myself. perhaps I worry needlessly. DES (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea. It's to the point now that almost any article falls under the scope of at least one WikiProject; some articles so many that they've had to invent an expanding box to list them all on the Talk pages. It doesn't take a stretch to find the project page, add your name, and start getting involved. The other project members will notice you around and see first-hand how you behave in a community, the setting in which Wikipedia is supposed to function. They can also give you a solid base of support to start off with. It's definitely not nearly as stringent a criterion as 1FA was. --Mus Musculus 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, my dislike of 1FA (which is overly stringent, in my opinion) is one of the reasons why I came up with this. I think it does a better job of addressing the problem of ensuring that admins are at least knowledgeable of the editing process, without limiting it to those who are so good at it as to be able to create FAs. Being a great editor should not be a requirement to be an admin, but at the same time I think not being one should certainly militate against it. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you believe this is an appropriate standard and plan to advocate for it, but I would urge you to reconsider your current process of placing a "protest neutral" vote on every RfA (unless you are opposing) unless and until the reform you are seeking is achieved. At present, as you know, wikiprojects don't endorse candidates. If I were planning an RfA and I posted on the page of a wikiproject that "I have been active here and I would like to have this project's endorsement for adminship," the project members would be utterly befuddled and, if anything, the candidate would risk losing support for alleged "canvassing." At a time when there are wide views in the community that the RfA process itself may be deterring qualified editors from seeking adminship, I don't believe it will be helpful to give them one more thing to worry about. (I do, however, appreciate your making your comments under the rubric of neutral rather than opposed.) Newyorkbrad 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully decline to alter my practices; I still intend to withhold support from any candidate who is not endorsed by a WikiProject. I am, of course, aware that no WikiProject current endorses candidates; it is my hope that my actions will one day lead to this changing. Frankly, if discussing with one's editing peers whether or not one is a qualified candidate for administrator constitutes canvassing, then there is a problem with the definition of "canvassing"; that is not a problem with my proposal, but instead with a community that apparently thinks such discussions are inappropriate for no good reason. I will not stand down from my pledge simply because might be is a bizarre and ridiculous rule that prevents such discussions. If this purported rule against canvassing would prohibit "endorsement shopping", on the other hand, I am also not bothered by that. I am not concerned about the interests of random editors (not involved in a WikiProject) who are "planning an RfA". I freely admit that I am antithetical to those who are specifically seeking adminship for the sake of having it. Those who are "planning an RfA" do not deserve to be admins; adminship should be bestowed upon those who are not seeking it preferentially to those who are. It is my hope that WikiProjects will organically recognize those amongst themselves who are suitable for adminship and advance endorsements of such individuals in the course of their regular activities, after first convincing the individual that either their WikiProject or Wikipedia as a whole would benefit were they to be made an administrator. I do believe that the adminship process as it stands today does deter qualified editors from seeking adminship (by forcing candidates to jump through several arbitrary, mainly political hoops), but I believe that the evolutionary pressure that I hope to put upon it will alter this balance for the better, rather than the worse, specifically by making WikiProjects more important, and at the same time making the RFA Cabal less important. In short, I wish to replace the current arbitrary requirements of stroking the RFA Cabal's ego with the far less arbitrary requirement of demonstrating commitment to writing an encyclopedia through committed participation in a WikiProject. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with this comment: "Those who are "planning an RfA" do not deserve to be admins", although i would substitute 'deserve to' with 'should not'. This is half the problem, many users building edit history's with the specific goal of becoming admins, admin coaching is a perfect example. Why do these users need adminship? No one dedicated to writing an encyclopedia needs to be an admin. It is far better for the community to identify good candidates, say, from within active wikiprojects. New users should concentrate on writing not gaining badges. In short, no good candidate should ever need to canvas, so the issue is moot. David D. (Talk) 22:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No it's not moot at all, the thing is, candidates would need to go and ask the wikiproject to endorse them, no wikiproject is going to suggest nominating or supporting a candidate, they've got better things to be getting on with, like hmmmmmmmmmm writing articles in their scope? Anyway, since when was article writing the major quality of a good administrator? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As I've said several times before, ideally, candidates will not need to go to WikiProjects and ask for endorsements; instead, the WikiProject will go to the candidate and offer to endorse (or even nominate) the candidate. Recognition of merit from the WikiProject ideally precedes the request for adminship. If my voting practices make it harder for admin-seekers to obtain adminship, quite frankly, I consider that a good thing. And, again, article writing is not a major quality of an administrator, but it is a quality which should not be entirely absent, either. The endorsement requirement doesn't mandate that the editor be a top-class editor; it merely requires that the candidate has received the recognition as a suitable candidate for administrator from the editors who have worked with him or her most closely. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
And for the good editors that aren't in Wikiprojects? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You're framing the debate in terms of todays editors and todays wikiprojects. What about two years from now? We have to start somewhere. David D. (Talk) 01:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, I honestly don't think it's a bad idea, if it will encourage people to join content-based Wikiprojects. I suppose you would have to change the structure of the project somewhat, maybe have a separate committee or something which would select a prospective candidate and say 'Yep, this gal would do well, what say we nominate her and show our support?' I don't know that it's something to oppose candidates for, but Kelly hasn't opposed anybody on this basis. We all talk about RfA reform, maybe this could be something to consider? – Riana ऋ 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Endorsement

Note that I am replying without having read any of the previous discussion; I'm about to leave, so I thought I'd leave this message.

WikiProject involvement was never something we forced upon someone on Wikipedia. It was something we encouraged users to get involved in, so they could work together on articles. This WikiProject endorsement idea looks problematic. What if a WP doesn't know about a user's RfA? Would they have to go to the WikiProject talk page and show that they were up for RfA? I don't consider this a problem really, but I know many others consider this canvassing. People have gone to their WikiProjects to say they are undergoing an RfA, and as a result, the user received opposition for showcasing the RfA to other people. Also, I fear that this WikiProject endorsement idea might make some editors (those in the WikiProject who just want to lend a hand, and fail to look at the actual candidate) vote without examining the user's merits. It seems like it would just pile on support for the user whether or not it is truly justified.

It just seems like an idea that wouldn't be entirely helpful to the RfA system. For now, could you please look at Anthony Appleyard and assess the user's existing merits before making a decision to support or oppose the user. Nishkid64 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing WikiProject involvement on anyone. I'm simply going to use it as a requirement for obtaining my support in adminship discussions. On the canvassing issue, please see above comments. I remain unconvinced that my expectation of an endorsement from a WikiProject in order to support will lead to these evils, but then again it seems that everyone is assuming that the candidate will seek the endorsement, when what I prefer to see is the WikiProject reaching out to the candidate instead. As to Anthony Appleyard's RFA, I've already reviewed his qualifications; my conditioned neutral stands. If he had an endorsement from a WikiProject, I would support. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol...he's endorsed now. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements. Nishkid64 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't meet my requirements: "WikiProjects dedicated primarily to community affairs, to vandalism management, or other non-content-related activities (including stub-sorting) do not count; the purpose of the project must primarily be to create, improve, maintain, or manage encyclopedic content." This WikiProject was clearly created for the purpose of gaming my endorsement requirement, and I will therefore simply disregard it. You see, it's my pledge, and I decide what it requires of me. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Kelly Martin, you say that you're going to use this as a requirement for users to "obtain your support". Tell me, do you really think that RfA candidates are going to join a WikiProject simply for your support !vote, and in the meantime, lose supports from other users because it looks like the candidate is just trying to get your !vote? Acalamari 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That is my fervent wish, yes. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Then I am 100% opposed to it. I would rather have your neutral or oppose in an RfA than get 5-10 neutrals or opposes for joining a WikiProject just to get your support. Acalamari 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Kelly, our WikiProject is dedicated to community affairs! We've also got a userbox. C'mon! Nishkid64 23:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that Wikiprojects are vital to the production of good-quality articles and a great forum for coordinated article-writing. However, I'm worried that the approach you've taken is antagonising rather than motivating people. I would be more than happy to brainstorm on the wikipedia noticeboard. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Casliber, it's a truism that if one does practically anything on Wikipedia, someone will be antagonized by it. I'm not surprised that my pledge is antagonizing some people; I suspect quite a few of them stand to lose influence if this initiative moves forward significantly, and so they have a vested interest in seeing it fail. I'm neither surprised by nor particularly bothered by this. Their inability to manage their own emotional responses is their own problem. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion that much of the resistance to your suggested change originates because "quite a few people" have a "vested interest" in the RfA process, and are acting out of "emotional responses" is, to say the least, an unsupported assumption of bad faith. I would prefer that such assertions not be part of continuing discussion of your proposal or methodology. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I reject your assertion of bad faith and urge you to retract the accusation. What it is is a recognition that people often act out of self-interest ahead of (or in opposition to) group interest. Their actions are not bad faith, merely motivated by different goals than my own; we disagree (hopefully amicably, although apparently in some cases not) as to whose goals are more in line with the goals of the project. I am disappointed to see you so quick to swing the "bad faith" bat; it definitely causes me to rethink my sense that you would be a good candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(deindent for readability) Parsing your comment preceding the last one, I would say that your second sentence on its own could readily be understood as an assertion of bad faith ("antagonizing"; "vested interest"). However, but your third sentence to an extent clarified that you were referring to what you perceived as a reflexive set of reactions rather than deliberate ones. Thus, I will acknowledge that "bad faith" might have not been the perfect word choice, but perhaps you might wish to be a bit more attentive to unintended implications of your own words as well, knowing that this page has a significant readership. As for your reference to the Arbitration Committee, you may or may not recall that I was the editor who first proposed the motion in the so-called Giano case to thank you for your long and productive service to Wikipedia before your resignations from various positions at the time of that case. I know you have spent much time studying this community—or I should say the group of editors of Wikipedia since I know at times you've disdained the word "community"—and thinking about and even philosophizing how it operates and how it should operate. It is partly because I am concerned that by pursuing your new and unprecedented plan for reforming RfA through a campaign of casting protest !votes on each RfA, you risk being misperceived as a crank (and soon someone will make the inevitable comparison to Boothy4433 or Massiveeego), that I so strongly urged you to rethink your approach. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So, how does a Wikiproject endorse a candidate, anyways? Are they supposed to create an /endorsements subpage, or should 50% of the Wikiproject members leave their signatures on the RfA talk page? Or do they elect a secretary of endorsement that can go around and freely endorse people? --Conti|✉ 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I leave that up to the WikiProjects themselves to sort out. I, personally, would like to see some evidence of a deliberative discussion and of consensus within the WikiProject. I am, of course, willing to assume good faith; if a member of the project posts a comment on the RFA that the candidate has been endorsed, I will likely accept that (presumably, if such a statement is made falsely someone else in the WikiProject will object). The most logical place for such a statement to appear would be as part of the candidate's nomination. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that if this caught hold, it would lead to wikiprojects "nominating" candidates (that is, candidates would be co-nominated by a couple members of a wikiproject mentioning that the user is an active member of the project or something like that). Now that the minimum number of edits to be considered "expirienced" is around 2k, I don't see any reason why an editor wouldn't edit about certain topics enough that they would have no use for wikiprojects. But this isn't the whole story, I think. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You say you are only promoting the idea that prospective admins be 'endorsed' by a WikiProject and that being 'opposed' or 'supported' is a different issue. If a member of a WikiProject were to post to that project that he was requesting adminship and is then not endorsed by the group, how is that non-endorsement different from opposition? What if the !vote in the Project group reaches a consensus but individual members in opposition flood the RfA with oppose votes and bring the supposed endorsement into question? What happens if someone is endorsed, say as a part of the nominating process, and then another WikiProject votes to oppose, as and under the name of that project? You may intend that it only be part of nomination but others may be as bold as you and extend it to the actual !vote.

Another point, when I look at the admin role I see a need for people who are can be fair and unbiased in such things as edit wars, block and unblock requests, protection requests, and maintaining civility and the assumption of good faith. The collaborative nature of WP demands as much in the way of interpersonal skills as it does the ability to write a clear sentence, find references and organize an article, perhaps collaboration is even a more valuable skill, one not reflected exclusively in article creation or Project participation. I would rather have an admin who could chill an overheated AfD than one who could write a Featured Article on his/her lunch break.

I am not asking you to defend your position or even address any of these questions, I'm not even sure the idea is a bad one, but I think your proposal has wider ramifications than those you intend.--killing sparrows 02:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects have a little more scope than creating FA articles and members of wikiprojects can still be part of AfD discussions. I also think members of wikiprojects can still think for themselves. As far as all the retribution votes from other projects etc., we already see that happening, its just those groups are not called wikiprojects. David D. (Talk) 11:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it, and I'm on board. This plan essentially recognizes that RfA has become the most prominent page that newcomers look to when trying to figure out what behavior is regarded as helpful to the encyclopedia. This isn't ideal, but is somewhat inevitable given that RfA is the only widely accessible forum in which a single editor's contributions are recognized by the community; and while I would prefer to decouple newcomer-guiding from the dispensation of what should be maintenance tools, I don't see that happening without major structural alterations. Right now, the takeaway message for people looking at RfA for guidance is that we would like them to revert vandals and work on AfD. And so we have RC patrol oversubscribed (and overrepresented in centralized discussions). Kelly's idea would balance the current push into high-editcount, high-visibility maintenance work with a similar incentive to enter into and develop a reputation for good work in a subject editing community, thus restoring a balance that our current RfA system throws off. Thumbs up. --RobthTalk 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Endoresement re: Moralis

While I fully support your decision to go for candidates who have project endorsements, and can think of WikiProjects that would probably endorse me, I'm not sure how to ask for such an endorsement without looking like I'm canvassing, which is something I don't want to do. How would you judge whether a user has such support? --Moralis (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This question has been asked repeatedly, and is answered above. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA and WikiProject

Please see this ([1]) edit I just made. I think it's only courteous a) to tell you that I've mentioned your name and b) to invite you to help us make the idea work in practice. --Dweller 10:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Flaws.

Kelly Martin, don't you realize that getting users to join WikiProjects in order to get your support has two major flaws? One: it'll scare potential admins off, as some users don't want to join WikiProjects, and prefer to do work on various articles. Two: it'll make users join WikiProjects for the wrong reasons; instead of joining a WikiProject because they're interested in the WikiProject's subject, they'll join it simply as a way to become an admin. What would you rather have? Users joining WikiProjects because they care about the WikiProject, or users joining WikiProjects only as a way to become an administrator? Acalamari 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What about wikigonmes, who may participate in a category of articles but dont want to wear a "badge" announcing themselves. It seems to me to be against what much of wikipedia is about. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm afraid not all WikiProjects are alike. WP:P*, which is really the only one I'm active in, is fairly dysfunctional in terms of getting people to edit specific articles, or in a specific style. Probably fewer than half a dozen people actually participate; though it isn't dead, and has never been much more active than this. Per the 80%/20% rule, I strongly suspect most wikiprojects are closer to this than to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history or something similarly well organized. Here are a few I picked at random from Category:WikiProjects participating in Wikipedia 1.0 assessments: Wikipedia:WikiProject Blackadder hasn't been edited in a month; Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses- worse... How "active" would you require a wikiproject to be before you would accept a nomination from it? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why people would not want to be associated with wikiprojects? Wikipedia itself a just a huge project, if people are so against wikiprojects why would they be part of wikipedia? Wikiprojects are not about ordering people around and micromanaging. Its about collaboration and an exchange of ideas. If people view projects as anything else they are part of the wrong project and there needs to be a reform for project reform. One way to do that is get more people involved. One way to get more people involved is give wikiprojects a higher profile. i wonder how we could do that? David D. (Talk) 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is more that content creation has little to do with adminship, and this proposal is trying to link them (thus the exclusion of non-content wikiprojects). There is no reason why a good admin should also be required to be good at content creation, and someone involved mostly in content creation doesn't need to (and in most cases shouldn't) be an admin. To make matters worse, many WikiProjects have specific points of view, and requiring endorsements could worsen the battles between some projects, and create new factions pushing particular viewpoints. In fact, I would say that in a variety of cases, I would consider WikiProject involvement to be a negative point for admins. Would you expect that an admin candidate endorsed by WikiProject_Paranormal, WikiProject_Psionics, or even WikiProject_Pseudoscience for example, would be unbiased, and that the endorsements were not being given in order to gain admins to assist in edit warring? --Philosophus T 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What would be the probem of someone in the paranormal project? Why do you assume they are all biased? Clearly each admin candidate is judged based on their individual contributions. Why would you label someone based on their affiliations?
Also there are many good reason why an admin candidate should have experience in the main space other than vandal fighting and adding stub templates. Primarily since experience at that level allows one to since the whole picture. If the admin chooses to drift away from editing mainspace and focus on other tasks, fair enough, but it is reasonable to expect main space edits and contributions as a minimum requirement. In all my comments at RfA this has been my highest priority. In my experience that is the way you gain the background knowledge to do the job well. It also shifts the focus from the numbr of edits to the quality of edits. Obviously this is only one aspect of the qualifications to be a good admin but it's where I start.
What about the big picture here. Wikiprojects gain from such a focus. This is good for wikipedia. Others users are still free support admin candidates without a nomination from a wikiproject? Who loses here? Why is this idea so intimidating to so many? David D. (Talk) 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response.

I don't know if you are watchlisting my talk page at the moment, but to let you know, I have responded on my talk page here to keep our discussion centered. Acalamari 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My userpage

I have refactored my userpage and removed all the userboxes that you objected to. I've also fixed the grammatical error (which, as I explained, was the result of a standard template). I'm sorry that my userpage was inappropriate, and I don't expect you to change your vote in my RfA; I just want to ensure that my userpage complies with your requirements, for future reference. I wasn't aware that some users found those kind of userboxes inappropriate, and I will not add them in future. It isn't the RfA that's important to me here, I just don't want to offend anyone generally. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't want to answer my question, but I'd appreciate some kind of response, just to let me know that you've read my posting. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unhelpful falsehoods?

What, specifically, do you think is wrong with those edits? — Omegatron 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"As of May 2005, a major requirement of this policy is that use of non-free content on Wikipedia be considered fair use under US law." This statement says something different than you probably think it does. What this statement says is that "As of May 2005, Wikipedia chooses to interpret United States law such that any content complying with this policy will be considered, by Wikipedia, to be consistent with that law." Clearly this is false. Wikipedia is not empowered to make binding interpretations of United States law. What I think you meant to say, but failed to actually say, is "As of May 2005, in order to comply with this policy, any particular use of nonfree content must be used consistent with US fair use law", or something to that effect. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That's it? That requires a revert of all of my edits? Of course I meant the latter. You could have just reworded it. — Omegatron 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There were other problems as well. That was just the most serious objection. In any case, Greg has already reinserted the salvageable portions of your edits, so I think there's no need for further acrimony over this issue. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"Salvageable"? — Omegatron 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just so you know

The threadfuls and threadfuls of outrage on your talk page are making me, for one, just more convinced that this whole thing is a good idea. The instantaneous and piled on dissent just shows that many people are wikistalking you, and the repeatedly recreated threads (as opposed to posting int eh same thread as others have created) just show that people aren't paying attention to actual discussion and are just trying to "get their say in". Lol! I hope you march on with this idea. Maybe the focus on the encyclopedia is what is scaring people. Milto LOL pia 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Maybe the focus on the encyclopedia is what is scaring people"? I don't think so. More like the attempts to reverse WP:CREEP. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea if anything good will come off it but I think it's a reasonable idea being conducted in a reasonable manner. Haukur 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Stephens

No problem. I think that everything I added comes from the external links already on the page, in case there are any concerns with sourcing. Zagalejo 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD closures and admins

Kelly, I noticed that you recently opposed several RFA candidates for believing that closing deletion discussions is an admin only task. IIRC, that used to be true. Do you know when and where it changed? Also (and not intending to be confrontational when I ask), why is this a good reason to oppose someone? Because it indicates ignorance of a policy/guideline change or because it shows an inflated view of the responsibilities of sysops, or perhaps something else...? Thanks.--Chaser - T 10:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing deletion discussions has never been a role exclusive to admins. There is a common belief that only an admin can close a deletion discussion as "delete" because the closer is required to delete the page as part of closing, but that is false: a non-admin can close the discussion and tag the page for speedy deletion, and a subsequent admin will actually delete the page. This has always been the case.
I will oppose candidates who express positions or attitudes I disagree with because I don't want people who hold such positions to benefit from the added influence of being admins, lest they spread their mistaken ideas more broadly as a result. In this particular case, both of your suppositions are basically accurate. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions is pretty clear that non-admins should only close "keep" AfDs, actually, and has been that way since, June 13, 2005. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That is, in my opinion, incorrect, regardless as to how long it's been there. Stupid policies should not be followed, regardless of how long they've been stupid. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I humbly submit that an admin candidate that takes any one person's opinion above an official Wikipedia:guideline, marked such for 2 years, is not qualified to be chosen as an admin. Just think, for example, if that candidate were to take Badlydrawnjeff's opinion above the Notability guideline. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not only that, but any guideline or policy which happens to disagree with my opinion, should not be followed! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I would not expect you to feel any differently! Kelly Martin (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on my RfA

I noticed your comment on my RfA. The one problem in getting an endorsement from a WikiProject is that WikiProjects do not at present endorse candidates for adminship. I have in mind some time soon to start a WikiProject for biographies of Members of Parliament (Harry Hayfield has contacted me about something similar). I have also been active in fields covered by WikiProject Baronetcies and WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies; if I went to their talk pages and mentioned that you had made this request, would this be a violation of WP:CANVASS? And what if project members come back saying "I can't speak for the whole project"? Sam Blacketer 17:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It most probably would be a violation of WP:CANVASS at present, so I would be extremely hesitant to go down that road. Kelly hasn't opposed you, she simply remained neutral so overall it isn't going to hurt you. Please note, as yet, no wiki project has endorsed a candidate, and kelly's neutral is not going to bias anyone elses judgement in your RfA. All in all - I'd suggest leaving it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be considered canvassing to make a single post on the talk page of a WikiProject you are active in asking whether they would endorse you for adminship. And if that does count, then the canvassing guideline needs to be changed, because there clearly isn't anything wrong with this. --Cyde Weys 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, how I meant to put it was some people may see it as canvassing and oppose accordingly, I personally have no problem with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think there is something wrong with this, I would consider it canvassing, and quite sufficient grounds to oppose an RfA. When and if wikiprojects start endorsing RfA candidates, they should do so on their own, or on a suggestion from a project member other than the candidate. DES (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care much for the anti-canvassing rule. If that policy interferes with obtaining a WikiProject endorsement, then change the policy. (Note that this is a repeat discussion; refer to my talk page archives for several other people making exactly the same comment and the responses thereto.) I also draw your attention to my standing rule (mentioned above) that discussions related to Wikipedia policy on my talk page are to take place in English and without the use of "capitalized gibberish". Kelly Martin (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I am actually intending proposing a substantial rewrite of the anti-canvassing policy, which has a valid core intent but also a variety of unintended negative side-effects. So upon reflection, I agree that "canvassing" concerns perhaps should not be an objection to Kelly Martin's proposed change in RfA standards, though as a practical matter they are at the moment. More fundamental remains the simple fact that Wikiprojects don't endorse RfA candidates and there is no indication they are going to start doing so. So I fear that what we have here amounts, inadvertently, to not only a demand for a shrubbery, but for an unprocurable one. Newyorkbrad 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
... subject to the thread at the bottom of the page. Unexpected (by me, anyway). Newyorkbrad 14:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not at all by me, though. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for commenting on my RfA! I had read something bad about vandalism counters, but I had forgotten; thanks for reminding me. Also, do you mind pointing out the grammatical errors on my page? I can't seem to find them (and I hate them!). Also, you mentioned that I declared I was going to run for RfA on my page, but I've not done that. Maybe you're confused with someone else, or I misinterpreted you. I'd appreciate a response; thanks! · AndonicO Talk 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knowing who Greg is

I was reading this thread, and I hope you don't mind me saying that I was surprised to see you follow up your explanation of who Greg is (though the cryptic "CRO" still might have confused some people), with a request for kingboyk to assume good faith. The way I see it, it was perfectly acceptable for him to ask what authority Greg was acting under. I had to search my memory for a moment before I remembered (from previous lurking elsewhere) that Greg was a developer. For future reference, maybe there is a list of developers somewhere that could be referred to in situations like this? Carcharoth 21:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I found meta:Developers, but that seems out-of-date, as it says. Carcharoth 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
And Chief risk officer would be an amusing "not-all-capitals" alternative to Chief Research Officer, or as the WMF put it, Chief_Research_Coordinator... Carcharoth 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was perfectly okay to challenge Greg. I don't recall voting for him to have any powers over bots, or any discussion leading to his being given a position of power. I have seen him throw his weight around in various places on the wiki, so I can understand why someone would ask who he thinks he is. You should note that how many edits bots make is an editorial issue, not a technical one, so even if it's the case that the Foundation has appointed him to some role or other, he still should take some care not to claim a jurisdiction in editorial matters that will jeopardise the Foundation's position that it is not responsible for the encyclopaedia's content. Grace Note 01:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And I can't find Greg listed at current staff, though I realise that is a list of the full-time staff. The Board of Trustees is listed here, and the Advisory Board is llisted here. Former staff are here, but I'm still struggling to find Greg there. I realise that this may be because the WMF wiki is often out-of-date, but I can see why it would be difficult for someone to track down Greg's official position relative to the WMF. The resolution I linked above is the only thing I've found so far. Carcharoth 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone should probably also add this page to this category and set up a redirect from Chief Research Officer to the new title page. Anyway, sorry to have dragged on about this on your talk page. I'll drop a note off at Greg's talk page and stop here. Carcharoth 10:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Whereas I at least did go through some sort of open procedure to be in the Bot Approvals Group; whether or not that procedure is sufficient isn't really the issue here. The issue is that an elite group on IRC made a decision without bothering to inform us of it, and then made grossly offensive accusations of bad faith and personal attacks designed to portray us as villains when they were rumbled. Really not acceptable at all imho. --kingboyk 12:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please kindly put your annoying and ludicrous allegations of "IRC cabalism" back into the nether region from which you have extracted them. There's no "elite group on IRC", just several qualified and competent members of the community collaborating to achieve results. As opposed to a group of much less qualified and competent individuals conspiring to protect their own power base. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
On what basis do you claim "much less qualified and competent individuals"? I am getting sick and tired of these baseless insults. --kingboyk 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Kingboyk - there is a certain way to handle Kelly Martin. Getting upset is not one of them. And I would actually agree that the IRC accusations are not helpful. Concentrate, like I am, on improving the processes in future, so that it is clear what roles Greg has, and fine-tuning the bot guidelines on Wikipedia and working with developers to ensure you are not misunderstanding each other. Bot operators and developers need to work together. Unfortunately, developers can be a bit of a law unto themselves, but that is something for another day. Carcharoth 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The first ever WikiProject endorsement?

Kelly, I have glanced at my Request for adminship and it appears that Kittybrewster has endorsed me on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies. (Kittybrewster is not only an active member of the project; I understand he is himself a Baronet). I understand this may be a first. Sam Blacketer 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also you may wish to see Warofdreams' comments at WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies. Sam Blacketer 09:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to wait a few days to see if there are objections at WikiProject Baronetcies; if there are not I will consider the endorsement to have the consensus of the project and will, at that time, alter my vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)