Jump to content

User talk:Kelly Martin

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Prairie Dad in topic country statistics
I am on an indefinite break. Messages will not likely be read in any timely manner. If you need to contact me, I strongly urge using email.

Candidate statement[edit]

Kelly, please present you age also. I met you and agreed on your opinion, but if you want to be in an official position, you need to expose something and in this case age is included, in my opinion. I hope you change your mind and fix it. --Aphaia 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Update; as I told you, we are in discussion by email, and now we are waiting for Datrio's opinion about the above; no decision by consensus of officers was made yet. Sorry for no reply for now. Just for your information. --Aphaia 08:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Board candidate questions[edit]

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)Reply

  1. What do you do in real lifeTM?
  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)Reply

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)Reply

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 free encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Failing to attain consensus wasn't the problem - failing to seek it was. If elected, would you make efforts to discuss Foundation issues with all members of the Board, and with other relevant parties, rather than continuing the recent trend of decisions being made behind closed doors? Angela 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
It does me no small pain to hear that an affirmative answer to that question is not taken as granted. I am committed to being as open as possible. Obviously there are circumstances where the Board must discuss matters amongst itself in confidence, for various reasons both legal and ethical. However, I think that the Board, and its members, should strive to be as transparent as possible. Kelly Martin 18:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Foundation Candidacy[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply

Candidate statement[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply

About meaning of a sentence in your platform[edit]

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)Reply

What I am seeking to say there is that I think we should take advantage of the attention that the English Wikipedia 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)Reply

'Nother Board question[edit]

"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)Reply
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)Reply
"Build the infrastructure we need to respond to the massive increase in public attention Wikipedia 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: [1], 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)Reply
"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)Reply
"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)Reply

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)Reply
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 Wikipedia represents to any corporation. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

WP's Board of Trustees[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply

Board Question[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply

WP Board of Trustees election[edit]

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


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)Reply

Just a thought...[edit]

"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)Reply


What do you think of the relationship ? Do you see the relation as a federation type or a branch type ? (without or with legal ties). Do you think that chapters should have an authorization to use brand name and logo for deals (such as a DVD publishing) or should the Foundation handle this from a legal perspective ? What is your position in term of membership (should the Foundation have members or not ?). Anthere

PS: would you mind discussing these topics on meta with all editors rather than on the english wikipedia only ?

I know that the issue of members is a contentious topic and there are good arguments for the Foundation not having members, the Foundation having individual persons as members, and for the Foundation having, as its members, each of the organized chapters. I have yet to see consensus for any particular form of organization, nor have I been convinced that any particular form of organization is clearly better for us. I think it would be premature for me to take a firm stand behind any one form of organization, especially as young and immature as the Foundation is today. I do believe that having members would tend to make the Foundation more accountable, which is one of my campaign platform planks, and to that end I am inclined to favor having members, but there may be good legal reasons why we shouldn't. The lack of a US chapter (note that 53% of edits to the English Wikipedia are by US-based contributors) also makes me reluctant to rely too heavily on the chapter concept as a means of contributor representation.
At the moment I think it is best that the relationship between chapters and the Foundation be in the nature of a federation, rather than as branch entities. This is mainly for legal reasons; as I understand it, it insulates the Foundation from each chapter and the chapters from one another legally. I think it is reasonable for the chapters to have some limited right to use the Foundation's marks, pursuant to policies which need to be developed by the Foundation in consultation with its attorneys and monitored by the Foundation; these policies would amount to a license from the Foundation to the chapters, and a contract between the Foundation and the chapters. The Foundation needs to be aware of the use of its marks by the chapters, and needs to set and enforce limits on that use, but I don't think in the long term, at least, the Foundation should be necessarily approving every such use in advance. (It may make sense to do so at first, until a solid policy becomes apparent over time.)
I never meant to exclude non-English editors from participating in the discussion; I used my English talk page because it's the project I am on most. I am not in the habit of checking my Meta watchlist on a regular basis (since I edit meta so infrequently), and felt that having the questions on enwiki would increase the chance that I would see and reply to them in a timely manner. However, I've moved all discussions to meta to remove any appearance that I am seeking to represent the interests of the English Wikipedia over that of other projects; I will simply need to get in the habit of checking Meta more often. I think the English Wikipedia doesn't need me or anyone else to argue on its behalf; it's done a sterling job, and while certainly the English Wikipedia needs ongoing leadership I don't think that leadership can or should come from the Board. I am most certainly not running for a seat on the Board with any intent to influence the English Wikipedia (I am already quite capable of doing that as it is; if anything being elected to the Board will reduce, not increase, my power to influence matters on enwiki). Rather, I think we need to do a better job of leveraging the broad interest that people have in Wikipedia because of the wild success of the English Wikipedia to the benefit of our many other projects, which are just as exciting as the English Wikipedia but which have not yet caught the fancy of the public the way enwiki has. However, if you ask me questions in languages other than English, I'm afraid I'll have to ask for translation. Kelly Martin 17:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

WP board of trustees vs WM board of trustees[edit]

Hi there. I note that many people on this page refer to the election as "Wikipedia board of trustees", a common mistake if any. Regarding this, I am interested in two things:

  1. The mix of wp and wm is blatant, and in my opinion, should be cleared. If you agree that it should, what would be, in your opinion, the best way to go about it?
    I don't have a good answer to this one. The names are very similar, and it is not surprising that people confuse the two brands. I've had to deal with this issue in interviews as well. Short of changing the name of the Foundation, I don't know of a good way to resolve it. This is really an issue in brand management, and it's not something I have much experience in. My reaction would therefore be to find someone (a volunteer if we can find one, paid staff or consultant if we can't) who does have experience in brand management and have that person (or persons) develop a strategy for distinguishing the brands so that people do not confuse them. Broader awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation, and both its distinction from Wikipedia and its role in supporting Wikipedia, would benefit the Foundation, so I think this is a reasonable and practical strategy.
  2. Related is the involvement of board members or paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation within the projects, in the form of them holding positions that allow them to influence the course of the projects. What is your take on board members or paid staff holding such responsibilities as stewardship, check user or adminship in any of the projects and intervening on articles (protection, delete history, block users etc.). How should this be addressed? Thank you! notafish }<';> 13:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Because Board members and paid Foundation staff are legally agents of the Foundation, they should not be engaged in activities that might tend to create liability for the Foundation. They should not, therefore, be involved in any project in any manner -- even as editor, and certainly not as administrator or any other role -- except when acting in the interest of and at the direction of the Foundation as the owner of the servers hosting the content. Board members should refrain entirely from such actions, at least on the public-facing projects (this would have lesser application to meta and little or no application the several private wikis that are used for internal purposes). It would not do for a Board member to inadvertently do something that created a copyright or libel situation, because, as an agent of the Foundation, such acts could be attributed to the Foundation itself, and not merely to the individual Board member. If elected, I would refrain from the use of my various elevated rights on the English Wikipedia for the duration of my service as a Board member, I would refrain from seeking any further elevated rights on any project, and I would further refrain from editing any public-facing project except in accordance with whatever guidelines may be established by the Foundation's counsel. (I would be loath to actually resign those rights because I suspect I would have a hard time getting them back after my term as a Board member had expired.) It is a given that being elected to the Board would dramatically reduce my participation in any project. I would want to discuss with Mr. Patrick specifically under what conditions I could continue to contribute my own photographs to Commons; I don't see how this could create liability for the Foundation, but I would want to discuss that with him first. Kelly Martin 14:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Both answers denote, according to me, a great understanding of these issues. notafish }<';> 14:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Managment style[edit]

w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2
Hi, do you intend on "intimidating" those who disagree with you, such as suggested in that rfc? Carmen Chamelion 14:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The management style I use on the English Wikipedia, which includes occasionally intimidating posturing, boldness, and a willingness to act "on the edge", is one I have adopted because it's effective there: it gets the results Wikipedia needs and I've got a strong enough stomach to put up with the flak that results. I adapt my management and interaction methods to the environment in which I am operating. I can't say yet what strategy would be appropriate and effective as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, but I can't imagine that it would be the same as the one I've found appropriate and effective as an administrator of the English Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 00:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
As a follow on from that question, The elections page states that the board "represent Wikimedia contributors from around the world." Given your statement here that it's "appropiate" to use "intimidating posturing," and on the English Wikipedia you've stated that you biated another adminstrator into performing what you saw as inappropiate actions, what assurances do fringe and/or possible marginalised members of the community have that you'll represent them equitably? To put that another way: Given the level of respect that you've given to your fellow english wikipedians with whom you've disagreed, how will the concerns of wikipedians as a whole be different? - brenneman 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
This question is basically asking me when I plan to stop beating my wife. I have never shown disrespect toward someone for simply disagreeing with me. It takes actually acting with wanton disregard for common sense to earn my disrespect. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of wanton disregard for common sense in the English Wikipedia. I take the concerns of sensible people quite seriously. I take the concerns of the English Wikipedia as a project even more so. My focus as an administrator of the English Wikipedia has always been to ensure that we are making progress toward our goal of creating a free and open encyclopedia. I am more than willing to take bold, even possibly harsh, action to deal with those who stand in the way of accomplishing our goals. I have the utmost of respect for those who are furthering the development of this wonderful resource for mankind -- and the deepest scorn not only for those who would interfere directly in it, but also those who would subvert the project for their own ends. The same would apply should I be elected to the Board of Trustees. If your participation in Wikimedia is toward our goal of creating a free and open repository of all human knowledge, then I will honor you and aid you any way I can. If your participation is for some other purpose, you will find me no friend at all. Kelly Martin 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply



I am Walter form Wikzine. I have a publicity offer for you.

Please see; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikizine/election_2006

Greetings, Walter

PS: your email function does not work

other questions[edit]

Composition of the board[edit]

What is your opinion on how the board should be constituted ? Do you think it should exclusively be composed of editors of our projects ? If so, rather elected or appointed ? Do you think we should have some people external to our community ? In those listed in the past two months on Foundation -l, can you list those you think would be great board members and those who might reveal dangerous for our dream ? Do you have names to suggest for board expansion ?


Do you think the Foundation should be a publisher ? If not, do you think it should control what is publish, through the authorization (or not) of use of our brands ? Do you know of one project currently trying to be edited and in conflict with the Foundation on that matter ?


What should be the business plan of the Foundation ? How would you suggest it earns money ?

Threat and forces[edit]

Can you cite 3 forces of the Foundation ? Can you cite the main 3 threats for our projects as of today ?


Can you cite the current three main projects/agreements/priorities of the board ?

If you had to decide which are the 5 most important tasks for the board to accomplish in the time of your term, which ones would they be ? (be practical)


Board of Trustees elections[edit]


The Wikipedia Signpost, a community-newspaper in the English Wikipedia, is covering the Board of Trustees elections and will be featuring each of the candidates in next week's issue. As such, we would appreciate it if you would take some time to answer a few interview questions. Each candidate will be asked the same questions; by no means, though, feel obligated to answer any (or even) all of them, though we would greatly appreciate it if you did.

Some of the questions may be a bit redundant to the candidate information you have filled out already. This is both for convenience and for giving you the opportunity to expand on some of them a bit. However, we ask that you keep all responses brief, limiting them to no more than one or two paragraphs each.

You may leave replies to my English Wikipedia talk page, my meta talk page, or email them to me. I would appreciate it if responses are in on or before this Saturday, August 26; please have them in at the latest on Sunday the 27th in order for them to be included in Monday's issue.

As always, the Signpost reserves the right to re-distribute the questions and replies, shorten any responses if necessary, and take any other editorial action deemed appropriate.

Thanks again for your time, and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

  1. Your name:
  2. Your username most commonly used:
  3. Your current geographic location, along with your age:
  4. Projects with significant contributions (please both name the language and project, and link to your contributions)
  5. Do you have any rights (i.e. admin, bureaucrat) or positions (i.e. dispute resolution, CheckUser, etc.) on any of those projects? If so, which ones? When did you get elected or promoted for each one?
  6. Do you hold any universal rights (i.e. steward, etc.) for Wikimedia Projects? If so, since when?
  7. When did you first start contributing to Wikimedia projects? Why and how did you initially join?
  8. Briefly describe your career ("real-life"). How do you think this will help you be a successful Board member?
  9. Of all the candidates right now, why do you stand out from the field? What makes you the best candidate?
  10. A knowledge of several languages has been cited as a key requirement for a Board member. Do you speak any other languages other than English? Why do you think language is or isn't critical to the Board?
  11. What do you expect to do while serving on the Board? What are your expectations?
  12. What can you bring to the Board? What can you contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation?
  13. Describe the one issue that you think is most pressing and pertinent to the Foundation right now, and how you would approach the situation.
  14. What is your vision of the Board in the Foundation heirarchy? How do you feel about the current leadership?
  15. As a Board member, you will be serving as a representative of the communities. Do you think you can represent the community and understand its concerns? Why?
  16. What do you think of the Wikimedia Foundation and its mission in general? If you could change one thing about the running of the Foundation, what would you change?
  17. If elected, can and will you devote the appropriate time and other resources needed to serve on the Board?
  18. Have you ever attended Wikimania or any other meetup? What role do you think these meetups play?
  19. Please list (and link) any other pages where you have gotten questions and comments pertaining to the Board elections; we are compiling all of the questions and would appreciate this.
  20. What would you say to a potential voter who is undecided right now?
  21. Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Thanks again.

Answers to all of these questions may be found at User:Kelly Martin/Flcelloguy. Kelly Martin 17:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Question to candidate: Ethics[edit]

Hello Kelly,

A question about your views on ethics as related to Wikipedia.

In a recent wikiEN-I en posting (8/19/2006), Jimmy Wales wrote:

"Most of us do care passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects people. Indeed, for most of us, it is part of the very fabric of the reasons we participate. We are human beings, trying to do something good, not automatons puking out soulless "content" [...] we are good, we are ethical, we are trying to produce something important in

the world that matters to the world, and we want to do it the right way."

  1. Are you in agreement with that statement?
  2. If you do, what would you do as a board member to bring that understanding to life in our project?

≈ jossi ≈ 01:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Board meeting[edit]

Hi! The new Board member is expected to attend a Board meeting in Frankfurt 20-23 October, so you are highly expected to aim to keep these dates free or book time off work in case you are successful in your bid to be on the Board. Jon Harald Søby 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have been aware of this for quite some time now, but I appreciate the reminder. Thank you. Kelly Martin 15:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yup, I thought so, but your name was on the list, so I copied it here as well. Better safe than sorry, you know. Jon Harald Søby 10:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Questions from Dijxtra[edit]

Hello, these are generic questions I decided to submit to every candidate. If you already answered the question in your application, skip it. If you consider any question to be to private for you to answer, feel free to state that and accept my apology for being to intrusive. I also ask you to pardon my English since spellcheckers don't check grammar :-) Here are the questions:

1. Privacy policy of Wikimedia Foundation projects states that: "It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations: 1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement" If such subpoena occurs, would you agree that Wikimedia Foundation complies ASAP or would you request Foundation to dispute that subpoena in court, like Google did in January this year? Let me remind you that the second option requires money to be spent.

There are situations in which we would want to cooperate with someone and release the information without resistance, and there are situations in which we would want to resist. I think that, in such cases, counsel should properly go to the Board (or to some subset of it), advise the Board as to its options and the benefits and risks of each option, and let the Board decide how to proceed. I think a categorical rule (either to always resist or to never resist) would be inappropriate.

2. What is your opinion of WP:OFFICE? Do you think that:

  • It is very good solution to bureaucratisation of Wikipedia, allowing a swift action in cases which need such action. We should widen the circle of people who have the power to use WP:OFFICE.
  • It is very good solution to bureaucratisation of Wikipedia, allowing a swift action in cases which need such action. (And only Danny should use WP:OFFICE privilege)
  • I don't like the thing, but we need it so we don't get sued.
  • Community is above any user and we should think of WP:OFFICE as temporary measure until we find a way for the whole community to act swiftly in cases of libel accusations.
  • We should move our servers to jurisdiction which makes it hard for people to sue us for libel.
I've been involved with WP:OFFICE actions in the past. As an OTRS responder, I occasionally find the need to take swift, decisive action based on a complaint/demand from an aggrieved party. The use of WP:OFFICE itself attracts trolls, however, and I think the policy itself is essentially deprecated in favor of the more general sense that the Foundation owns the servers and as owners have the authority to draw the line whenever they think it's necessary. That means Brad, Danny, Jimbo, and anyone else who is authorized to act on behalf of the Foundation has the authority -- whether or not they use the magic incantation "WP:OFFICE" -- to do whatever is necessary to protect either the Foundation or any other interests that the Foundation decides are worth protecting. I would hope that they would avoid doing so rashly or arbitrarily; given my experience working with Brad and Danny in the past, I feel comfortable in my expectation that they would, in fact, do so.

3. Have you ever been on a paylist of anybody/any organization/any firm connected to any current member of the board? Please understand this question in the broadest sense possible.

I've already declared my (lack of) conflicts on my candidacy page. To the best of my knowledge, there is no connection between myself and anyone related to the Foundation, aside from the single arms-length transaction mentioned on my candidate page.

Thank you for your time, Dijxtra 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're most welcome. If you have any further questions, please feel free to write. Kelly Martin 23:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia vandalism[edit]

Apologies for the vandalism on enwiki. Bloody kids playing about pretending to be Willy-on-Wheels and suchlike. Anyhow, they'll stop. You are a very good admin; don't let anyone believe you're not! -- 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

US chapter[edit]

Hi Kelly, what do you think of the function of a chapter? Do you think it would be good or bad to set up a US-chapter or part-of-the-US-chapter (like Illinois-chapter, or Eastcoast-chapter) ? Effeietsanders 13:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think there should be some sort of US chapter body. Due to the geographic size of the US this should actually either be a national chapter with subchapters, or multiple regional chapters; I am not yet convinced which makes more sense. I'd also like to start having a US-based wikigathering in the spring or early summer, to complement Wikimania, starting next year. Kelly Martin 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
But what is your view related to chapters? What should their function be? In other words, what would be the major difference in your opinion betwee the Wikimedia Foundation and the chapters? (as well a US/part-US one as for instance wikimedia germany) Effeietsanders 17:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since Wikimedia US would not need to act as a fundraising conduit (as Wikimedia Int'l is organized in the US), the US chapter would not be needed to act as legal entity within that country the way many of the other national chapters exist. However, it can still serve the other purposes of a national chapter, whatever those might be. From what I can tell, national chapters don't have a lot of well-defined purpose for existing as it is, so if there isn't a purpose for them to exist, there's no purpose in having a US chapter, either. Since chapter heads seem to have some role in governance, though, it makes sense that the US should have some representation at this level, since the United States is responsible for about 25% of all editing activity throughout Wikimedia. Kelly Martin 19:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply


Pienso que como muchas personas yo ingrese a participar en Wikipedia muy animadamente, sin embargo me tope con una gran traba, los wikipedistas que se creen dueños del saber y esta web, yo soy un novato en wikipedia y las veces que he entrado me dedico mas a procurar ver como arreglo la web de una artista joven latina, que viene sobresaliendo en el mundo del espectaculo.

Me parecio lindo poder colocar una biografia de ella, pero mi colaboracion primero llevo el irrelevante, no si el arte sea irrelevante o es irrelevante porque es una propuesta de un extraño... bueno en fin , luego de irrelevante paso a copy nose que? pero de alli le quitaron ese calñificativo y paso a votacion para borrado ???? whath??? y mas contrariado cuando dicen que pse puede editar bien para que no sea eliminado, porque no usan el tiempo en corregior los trabajos malos en vez de usarlo para crear foros y otros? porque no le dicen a uno como corregir los trabajos????

Luego veo quienes solicitan el borrado, al parecer gente que les gusta les llamen duquesa, excelencia, divinidad??? queeeee, esta es una pagina que pretende revolucionar la educacion??? hacer que persista el por siempre las cosas que deben de serlo??? no me parece que sea el criterio usado el mejor ç, usted como uno de los lideres por favor ayude para que existan estos cambios en la conducta de los administradores, bibliotecarios y en fin

Bueno sino nuevamente perdi el tiempo aca en este reino de brujas, condes, duquesas y reyes del saber :(

Ahhhhh mi contribucion fue sobre Mia Rauz

indignodewiki 20:21, 05 Septiembre 2006

Traducción. I think that as many wikipedists, I came in to participate on Wikipedia with enthusiasm, but I hit a big obstacle, Wikipedists think they own knowledge and this website. I'm a newbie and he times I've joined I try to see how can I fix the webpage of a latin young artists that's emerging on the showbusiness world.

I think it was cure to be able to post a biography of her, but my contribution was first called irrelevant, I don't know if art is irrelevant because it's proposed by a stranger... well, anyway, after irrelevant it became copy I don't know what? but from then they took that quality and then went for dleetion voting?? what??? and more upset when they say you can copyedit it so it won't get removed, why don't they use the time on fixing the bad work instead of creating forums and others? why don't they say how to fix the work?

Then I see those asking for the deletion, seemingly people who like to be called duchess, excelence, divinity, ???, so, is this a page trying to make a education revolution ?? make the things that should exist for ever do so? Idon'tt hin this is the best criteria?? You as one of the leaders please help to change the behavior of administrators , well...

If I lost again mu time in this kingdom of witches, counts, duchesses and kings of knowledge...

Ahhh my contribution was on Mia Rauz.

9/11 Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, Kelly. In light of the four discussions listed below, what course of action would you take with regard to the 9/11 Wikipedia if you were elected to the board?

Looking forward to your response. Thanks. Andreyi 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

leaving English WP?[edit]

Please don't go. Or if you do, please come back. I dont want to see En WP sustain such a great loss as your leaving would surely be. Gio64.121.40.153 07:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

country statistics[edit]

I've just found the country statistics page and would like to ask you, whether you could expand those statistics. I'd especially be interested in the 15.8% "others" of enwiki, statistics about trwiki, fawiki, arwiki and idwiki respectively the countries TR, ID, EG, PK, IR and SA. Thank you very much. 11:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • just wanted to add my two bits to this comment. Your work in this area is excellent and should not be dropped. I'd help if I knew how, or recruit someone else. _If_ you see this, please don't hesitate to visit my talk page and leave word on how I could contribute. Thanks,

Prairie Dad 04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply