User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2007 September

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Images 2 Your hopes to be an admin again 3 You're right 4 Jury Pool idea 5 Request for review

[edit] Images

Your images look very good. I added one to One Musuem Park and one to Chicago Police. You should add them to Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium and Sears Tower in your leisure. There are many useful pics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your hopes to be an admin again

New edit I see [1]. To be honest Kelly, I don't think you should be an administrator again. You had your chance and you blew it. You will do again. You link to your blog. well we have all read that where you comment about us all safe from the sanctions of the Arbcom. No I think it best for all if you stay where you are - in obscurity. Giano 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. May I make a suggestion? How about coming back from obscurity instead? It seems you have made under 100 edits in main space, and less than 1000 edits total in the past year, so if you are nominated, people won't really have much recent work to judge whether or not you'd be a good admin. No offense, but "made less than 100 main space edits in the past year" is a reasonable object reason, completely disregarding past history. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with AnonEMouse. Ease yourself back in and see if you really want to be part of the current community. See how many of the people you knew are still here and how many have gone. And do some more editing. I was very impressed with your 'rant' at the Mzoli's Meat AfD, and it got me thinking that one way to scope with scale is to decentralise the Wikipedia community. Instead of having one monolithic Wikipedia, split it into several that will work on the scale of the "2001-2003 Wikipedia", and periodically cream off the best articles into the main Wikipedia. Crap idea, and needs a lot of technical work, but could a model like this ever work? Oh, and thanks for drawing attention to the MfD of the Article Rescue Squadron - I nearly missed that! Carcharoth 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow this user to join the droves of cluelessly incompetent fools who administrate this site? Seems like an extraordinarily bad idea. Personal attacks on the user page? Genius.IvoShandor 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You certainly have the potential to be an administrator again. Unfortunately, if you were re-nominated now or in the next couple of months, I wouldn't see it passing, mainly for the reasons AnonEMouse mentioned. Four or five months of consistent good work (you do good work, it's just that a lot of people wouldn't consider it frequent enough) would ease other users' editing concerns. Acalamari 22:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have voted oppose based on fractious behaviour in the past but in recent months have become dismayed at the rampant deletions going on myself, and gotten in a few heated debates. Your comments on the AfD were spot on. I do feel if you can show people that your positives outweigh the negatives you might get through. The way to do that would be to work on some GAs or FAs I'd think. Given your stance on wikiprojects there's an opportunity to collaborate there.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're right

Your reply to my comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron was spot on. I like to "think aloud" sometimes, and the MfD was not the correct forum. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of deletion to remove WikiProjects that espouse goals or ideas that one does not share seems to me to be an especially offensive action, which is why I was especially upset about that MFD. Your comments about the Rescue template were certainly not without merit, but they didn't add much to the discussion at hand, and I took advantage of that to reframe the debate as well as to remind people of the purpose of the debate. My tone was likely a bit brusque, as I was annoyed at the MFD, and I apologize for that. I'm glad there are no hard feelings. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jury Pool idea

I was reading one of your blog posts, specifically this one, where you said: "I thought of a way to at least reduce canvassing effects: randomly selected juries". I also followed a link from there to a blog post by SwatJester, here, where he credits the idea to Gregory Maxwell (I think he gets this wrong, and that you mention Greg in the context of the pairwise voting system sugestion for Commons, but that you yourself mention the jury pool idea). Anyway, why am I bringing all this up? Well, maybe great minds think alike, but I suggested the idea for a jury pool at RfA back in April 2007. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Reform#Proposal by Carcharoth. The ensuing discussion is linked from the end of that section. The idea has probably been floated many other times as well, but do you think you could at least make clear on the blog that your idea wasn't original? Maybe as a comment at the end with the links I've provided? Carcharoth 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It also came amazing close to getting a trial run when someone enthusiastically started running with the idea. Ironically, it was me that eventually got cold feet. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 94#Reform proposal trial runs? for the details. Carcharoth 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim that my idea is original, and it's even possible that I saw your proposal and it influenced me somewhat. The distinctiveness of my idea, though, is that jury duty is assigned randomly and in a manner that only the jurors (and the MediaWiki software) know who the jurors are on any question. Feel free to leave a comment on the blog post. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave a comment on a blog post? Maybe one day. Here is enough for now. Anyway, do you have any ideas on how to actually get a proper trial running, ie. any advice on the technical side of getting the MediaWiki software to do this? Any small wikis it could be trialled on first? Carcharoth 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It would require writing a MediaWiki extension, something I only know a little bit about. I know a bit about MediaWiki because of my project to port it to Java, but not enough yet to write a MediaWiki extension, not to mention I dislike PHP too much to really want to do it. However, there are quite a number of PHP programmers meandering about and I'm sure there's one who can help with that. I'll probably end up writing something into Myrtle to provide this functionality, but I don't expect Myrtle to be ready for prime time for quite a while yet. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for review

Some time ago, you opposed my RfA. Now I've been an admin for 5 months, I've created a sysop review page for people to review my administrative actions. If you have the time, I'd be grateful for any comments you might have on my record as a sysop. (In particular, I hope I'm not one of the "cluelessly incompetent gameplayers" to whom you refer on your userpage.) Walton^One 19:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)