Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Misza13 (talk | contribs) at 16:49, 1 October 2007 (→Kelly Martin: S). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kelly Martin

Voice your opinion (talk page) (27/94/9); Scheduled to end 14.35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin (talk · contribs) - Kelly Martin's record of top-class service to the English Wikipedia is without parallel. Joining in December 2004, Kelly was first nominated for adminship by Kat Walsh, and passed in June 2005: following this, and a long record of hard work, good judgment and clear thinking, Kelly was appointed the arbitration committee by Jimmy Wales. During this time, she also held checkuser and oversight privileges, and carried out her duties with great distinction and dedication. Few of us here can hope to do so well.

Kelly resigned her sysop, checkuser and oversight privileges during the Giano kerfuffle of yesteryear. I was otherwise engaged at the time and have never really learnt what this was all about, but it seems largely to consist of most of Wikipedia losing their collective rag after a particularly bitter and controversial RFA. Regardless, there seems to have been no suggestion from anyone that Kelly abused her powers or made any actions out malice. By the looks of things, she simply got tired of the ridiculous drama (please pardon me if I get anything wrong here: I seem to have been busy writing List of major opera composers and completely missed all the fun).

Anyway, I believe Kelly has a great deal more to contribute to the English Wikipedia, and for our sakes she should have sysop buttons while she does so. I do not think it to our advantage that Kelly's qualities of original thinking combined with superb analytical abilities should be confined to her blog. A Wikipedia with Kelly Martin as an ally and sysop is far more likely to be a better Wikipedia than one without. Enough time has passed. We can forget the divisive drama over petty matters that wasted so much time, and focus on reconciliation and healing ourselves as a community. I ask you to remember all the good that Kelly has done for us, and to welcome her back to the fold. She deserves no less. Moreschi Talk 09:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination - Danny CMoreschi has said it all, but I want to add a comment here in support of this nomination. Kelly is a person who is not afraid to speak her mind. Through thick and thin (and there was a lot of thick) she stood up for the core principles of Wikipedia and the Free Culture movement, always in a very well thought out and consistent manner. As an admin, she will not be afraid to take on the most daunting tasks. She has done it before, and after a long break, it seems like she is willing to do it again. She deserves our support. Danny 14:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination - Riana Kelly notes on her userpage that she is looking for three fools – I am delighted and honoured to join this group. Moreschi and Danny have already done a great job here – I’ll just tack my bit on the end. Few have given as much to Wikipedia as Kelly Martin has. At heart a copyeditor, over the past years she has held almost every access level given to users here, and has indicated through hard work and dedication that she can be trusted to perform these duties admirably and efficiently. Her actions are marked with the sort of sensibility, intelligence, humour, forthrightness and clear thinking that one would desire to see in all users, let alone our administrators.

The circumstances that led to Kelly’s voluntary desysopping last year are probably largely unclear to the average Wikipedian. Suffice to say there was plenty of bad behaviour on all sides, and Kelly’s decision to ask for desysopping was widely regarded as the right thing to do. Since then, she has been somewhat inactive over Wikimedia projects but has constantly kept up with our developments, our little disasters and our triumphs, via her blog. Even a cursory reading of this shows that her ability to analyse the trends in the community are unparalleled, and would only serve us well should she have the sysop bit to help her out.

Is Kelly perfect? No. We all know about the userbox extravaganza, the trials with Giano, the Zordrac controversies; even the contentious “WikiProject endorsements” at RfA earlier in the year. Do any of these incidents – isolated incidents spaced over thousands of actions – make her a bad user? Hell no. When Kelly’s good, she’s damn good.

In Kelly’s first RfA, Tony the Marine said “There is no reason what so ever to oppose a contributor who has shown that he or she is already an asset to Wiki and would make a great administrator.” I ask you all to consider that. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 20:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say that I would consent to allow the community to discuss the merits of a nomination if three fools could be found to make a joint nomination. It seems that we have three volunteer fools, and I certainly would not care to go back on my word. Therefore, I consent to the nomination. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

The candidate feels that answering the standard questions would serve no useful purpose and therefore declines to do so.
Additional question from Sam Blacketer
4. Not asked in an attempt to entrap you, and because I am asking and not voting you should take it that I have not decided whether to participate and if so whether to support or oppose. Editors have expressed concerns about your attitude to civility, which is an official policy. What do you feel about that policy and how it should be practised? Sam Blacketer 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I admit that, like all other Wikipedia policies, I am not familiar with the present contents of the civility policy; I haven't read it in a long time and have no real interest in doing so. My comments will, therefore, address the general concept of civility in voluntary organizations. Civility is important in any communal project and, of course, people should strive to be civil with one another. However, the expectation of civility does not mean that people should not be frank and earnest with one another. The problem I have observed with the application of the civility policy in Wikipedia is that people tend to use it as a bludgeon to attack those who say things that they do not want to hear, in order to marginalize the bearers of unwanted news. Doing so is, of course, grossly uncivil and totally reprehensible, but, alas, far too common in Wikipedia -- and, in my experience, never decried as uncivil. Furthermore, the mere fact that a person has been uncivil is no reason to disregard the substance of whatever complaint they might have, again a serious problem that Wikipedia has. The argument, "You have been uncivil, therefore I do not need to listen to you" is bankrupt and must never be made. Remember, the quality of the encyclopedia is paramount, and any meritorious suggestion for improvement must be heeded, no matter how shrilly presented.
5. Without going into the details of the events Riana mentions (most of which I wasn't here for), do you think if you are given the admin tools we will hear complaints of similar controversies? Sam Blacketer 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The only aspects of admin tools that I have any real interest in is the ability to edit through autoblocks (I am a user of Verizon's NationalAccess broadband service, and those IPs are occasionally autoblocked due to vandalism) and the ability to read deleted revisions. I have absolutely no interest in blocking other users for any reason whatsoever, nor any interest in deleting or undeleting content, applying or removing protection, or any of the other silly things. I've been an admin on Commons since February without any significant complaint or controversy, after all.
So, you're basically saying that you're barely going to use the admin tools at all? And I just love the way you refer to the activity of over 1000 hardworking, productive administrators as "silly things". WaltonOne 20:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from The Rambling Man
6. If, as you say, "...the quality of the encyclopedia is paramount...", then what would you do, as an admin, that you cannot do as a user to ensure that quality, particularly as you also indicate above you have "...no interest in ...other silly things..." admins do? The Rambling Man 13:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kelly Martin before commenting.

Discussion

What's this about disruption at RfA?
I was here during that time, and was aware of Kelly's activities here at RfA, but I have no recollection of disruption. Was there something that I missed? --Iamunknown 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's official: You're all idiots [2]. User:Veesicle 22:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. As nom. Moreschi Talk 13:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ditto. Danny
  4. Support — I view 3 nominations as prima-facie evidence of good judgement. —[[Animum | talk]] 13:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you could try looking at the diffs displaying her long record of condescension, hostility and aggression towards users who have done her no wrong. WaltonOne 18:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly herself does not regard those three nominations as a Good Thing™: on her blog she describes the noninators as "three fools". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. A very outspoken person who has ruffled a few feathers sometimes, and who I haven't always agreed with myself... but we need somebody willing to take on the untouchables. *Dan T.* 13:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, Kelly is a controversial person, but will she abuse the tools? No. That's one thing to be certain of. She's one of the few people who know what Wikipedia really is about. Melsaran (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really? [3] User:Veesicle 15:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. All-in. Jon Harald Søby 13:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - long time dedicated contributor to the project. Time to have your mop back. --After Midnight 0001 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support returning admin status to anybody who voluntarily gave it up without a pressing reason for me to do otherwise. Phil Sandifer 13:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Glad to give my support to a very experience user. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. What they said ^ Backsigns 14:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Titanium Support - well there has been many controversies regarding this brilliant editor/admin who has shown in the last couple of years that she has the ability to do more for this wiki than any other editor and even though she is not perfect, (who is apart from god) she will be again an asset to the wikipedia community and after 1 year after her de-sysopping, she deserves a second chance to shine....Good Luck..--Cometstyles 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Better than many of the current admins. Uncle uncle uncle 14:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Names and diffs, please? As a current admin, I am quite offended by this comment. WaltonOne 18:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to be offended, I was not referring to you, I do not recall ever reading a post by you. Uncle uncle uncle 23:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support This user is a great asset to the project. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to abstain. I thought you and the community were ready given the time off. Apparently not. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 14:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I chuckle at the memory of Kelly Martin asking for "WikiProject endorsements" at other people's RFAs. Certainly she was an original thinker, and such creativity can benefit aspects of our project which are resistant to change. Whatever happened last year was before my time, and that's a long time ago. I don't even know what I'd be forgiving her for. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look again at the evidence I and others have presented. Many of the examples of gross incivility from her are from this April, not last year; and at that time, she nearly drove one user away from the project. WaltonOne 18:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how anyone could chuckle at that. It was extremely disruptive given the simple fact that a wikiprojects did not endorse candidates for RfA at the time. the_undertow talk 18:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my policy never to cast an "oppose" vote after I have given support, but...where do I begin? I looked at Walton's evidence, and it's very troubling. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Don't always agree with her, like the example mentioned in vote above. That, however, gives me no reason to oppose. Garion96 (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - There's incivility and there's hearing what you rather wouldn't hear. Kelly's the one around here who tells it how she sees it, and she's pretty much spot on pretty much all the time. I'm confident her use of the tools will be in the best interests of the project, should this RfA be successful. Nick 15:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Asset -- Agathoclea 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. The number of bad things she has done - and oh yes, they exist in great number - are however outweighed by the good she has done. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 16:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw support. Won't say I'm willing to oppose, that would be pointless at this point, but I've reconsidered. Effectively, I now abstain. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, I supported Kelly the first time and I will continue to do so once again. Tony the Marine 17:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support without question per RyanGerbil10. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Deb 18:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I believe the good will outweigh the bad. -- John Reaves 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. CO2 19:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. A controversial and outspoken admin, but a damn good one. Support. DS 21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support. I see absolutely no reason to oppose Kelly from being an admin. Some of our best administrators are the controversial ones; the ones who are willing to do what's right, not necessarily what the community wants. ^demon[omg plz] 22:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I've had personal qualms with some of Kelly's behavior over the years, but at this point I have confidence in her that I think she can have another go. I didn't think I'd be voting this way, but there you go. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. —— Eagle101Need help? 00:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Kelly knows what it's all about, and should be more active. Milto LOL pia 12:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Why not? I'm all for giving people a second chance. ILovePlankton(L—n) 12:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, of course. Excellent candidate. — CharlotteWebb 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - gets the point of why we're all here, learns from her mistakes. If we only accepted admins who'd never made mistakes, we'd have to lower the minimum edit count for adminship to zero. WilyD 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. No reason to oppose. Миша13 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Will go sideways again. Matthew 13:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but what? —[[Animum | talk]] 13:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably a reference to Cyde Weys or Tony Sidaway? Melsaran (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? I actually copied it from Mailer Diablo... I'm basically saying: will make poor decisions again. Matthew 13:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Thanks for clearing that up. —[[Animum | talk]] 14:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Matthew, I'm astonished .. Do you have a crystal Ball because you clearly predicted that KM will make poor decisions again, How did you know ? , tell me my Future..--Cometstyles 15:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Friend, this is the 21st century! We don't use crystal balls anymore ;-)! But yes, I'm more than certain in my claim that Kelly will go sideways again. We have her tenure as an administrator to look upon, we have Kelly's present demeanor to view and also Kelly's article contributions.
    Looking at Kelly's tenure as an adinistrator leads me to believe Kelly is egotistical and always right. Kelly only cares for the rules if it serves Kelly's needs and her article edits are more than poor. This image edit and its acompanying edit summary are also more than enough to cause me worry. Matthew 16:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's a real good reason to oppose. What evidence is there that she'll do it in the future; none!--Phoenix 15 15:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is a good reason to oppose (that's me agreeing with your assertion :-)!) There's plenty of evidence in her /contributions and there's been some presented her (but please remember that this is not a court of law, no user has the burden of having to prove themselves.) Frankly I've only ever seen one contribution by this user, it's also a good edit, I'm guessing it's from before she succumbed. Matthew 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Her past (and I'd say, even recent) is a very good reference to project her actions of the future. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Switching to oppose) What was I thinking supporting? She admitted on her blog that she abused her status as a checkuser at the behest of someone else to get someone banned. Fuck that. She should be banned indefinitely, not given the admin tools. [4] User:Veesicle 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, come on. Point number 1: Kelly has apologised for her actions; Point number 2: how is that abuse of checkuser? There is no problem with admins asking checkusers to run checkuser privately, happens all the time. Kelly made a judgment call off the available data that she now thinks to be flawed. This is hardly earthshaking stuff. Moreschi Talk 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Abuse of checkuser status. People trust checkusers to give truthful results, not lie or intentionally mislead. Kelly said herself that she initially thought they weren't the same person, but she went ahead and reported them for sockpuppetry anyway because others told her to privately. Sorry, does the project really need admins who make secret offwiki arrangements against their better judgement? User:Veesicle 15:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship has got nothing to do with checkuser, point 1. Kelly said that she wasn't entirely sure, despite what would appear to be fairly convincing evidence. She accepted the word of other admins, whom one is supposed to trust (who were presumably basing their conclusions on editing patterns). No one is perfect and we all make mistakes. This appears to have been a singularly tricky case. Moreschi Talk 15:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that Kelly felt the need to apologise probably signifies how knotty this case was. The Zordrac/Poetlister incident was particularly complicated - some may feel a satisfactory conclusion has still not been reached. As for checkuser abuse - nothing seems to be against checkuser policy... and while I (obviously) don't have access to Kelly's CU logs, I feel it's safe to say this was an isolated incident out of many. Oh... and we are discussing a request for adminship, which is, despite what the fresh-faced hopefuls at RFA seem to believe, not really all that special. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreschi said it himself, admins are supposed to be trusted. I don't trust Kelly - it's as simple as that. "However, I was convinced (pressured, really) by others to set aside my doubts regarding the reliability of the conclusion and so reported the lot of them for sockpuppetry, in what was almost certainly a miscarriage of justice." It speaks for itself. CU isn't the same as sysop, no, but I think her abuse of CU was sufficiently bad enough that I wouldn't trust her to be an admin. And I don't believe Kelly's apology has anywhere near as much to do with remorse as it does with the intent of making certain people look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veesicle (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppoose per statement on User:Kelly Martin (just removed):
    I continue to hold out hope that Wikipedia will not succumb to the vast tides of cluelessly incompetent gameplayers that have largely taken over administration of the site. For the most part, their damage is mostly limited to pissing one another off, although their occasional forays into deleting perfectly good articles and chasing away perfectly good editors does definitely harm the encyclopedia. If you're an incompetent idiot, please consider helping to save Wikipedia from the death of a million papercuts by quitting the site until you have acquired clue.
    Regretfully, I believe we are dealing with the same Kelly Martin, who is consistently unable to keep discussion on a civil and constructive level, and too often succumbs to the belief that many Wikipedians are idiots and she's leading a glorified battle against them. Her habits of disrespect and contempt of people she does not agree with can't be a healthy thing for the Wikipedia community. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Kelly says on her use page that she is inactive on Wikipedia (her contributions confirm that, since May 1st she has around 100 edits with only 10 in the article namespace). While low activity per se is not so relevant for admins, it makes it hard to judge if she has learned anything about being civil. The above quote still makes me think she did not.
    Admins are experienced editors the people are looking up to. Rude admins are damaging to the community. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Appears to have a history of making abusive comments, such as this. To me, it seems that there exists a prima facie case to oppose adminship. Oh, and failing to bother with the questions also speaks to arrogance. Ronnotel 15:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the optional questions that mean nothing (see talk)? Melsaran (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the ones that are recommended for the candidate to answer to provide guidance to users who may not be familiar with the candidate, instead of arrogantly assuming that her reputation precedes her and making the questions moot. Those ones. ;) (BTW, I did see the talk page before I provided that comment) Ronnotel 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose If this passes then our behavioral guidelines mean nothing. Her behavior runs directly counter to how we should be treating each other and what being a "Wikipedian" means. Approval of this RFA would send the wrong message regarding how communicate with each other. Kelly is by turns a bully, arrogant, mean spirited and above the rules...none are acceptable qualities in an admin. She's also caused as much dissention and ill will as any banned user has. Just last week she's decided that she doesn't need to listen to ArbCom [5] ....say what you want about them, they do have some authority over the editors/admins here. I suspect that some of the supporters are new enough here that they haven't experienced the disruption and ill will she's created in the past. And she hasn't been active enough to provide any evidence that she'd act any different, and there is unmistakable evidence that nothing has changed and her attitude is just as poor as it ever was. RxS 16:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Kelly knows the policies here and how this website runs, and could, as a former admin, offer helpful advice on the noticeboards and on arbcom cases, but she hasn't done this routinely in a long time. That would be the only way for me to gauge her fitness to be resysopped, since we have so little else to base it on due to a lack of article writing and/or major article enhancement. Handing the tools back to someone who claims they are not active seems a waste of time. She didn't give up her tools on a whim...there was a firestorm afterall....and I see no evidence that any amends have been made on her part.--MONGO 16:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Further...is there a difference between this and this?--MONGO 16:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Kelly Martin hasn't changed. She's still condescending, and makes incivil (and unhelpful) comments. As Oleg stated, incivil admins do not help the community. Her whole string of RfA opposes earlier this year were frivolous, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone chooses to oppose her because of the way her userpage looks or the fact that she has no WikiProject endorsements. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Do not believe the user can be trusted with the tools nor remain civil. Must also oppose because candidate's user page does not tell me anything about the candidate. the_undertow talk 16:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - sorry but you're not endorsed by a wiki-project, further more, you linked to your blog from your userpage which is basically an attack site. You also haven't been active enough lately - I don't believe that at present you have the correct attitude to have to tools back. Ryan Postlethwaite
    Note to bureaucrats - "not endorsed by a WikiProject" is not a sane RFA criterion, and should be roundly rejected. The claim that Kelly's blog is an attack site is similarly ludicrous. I ask that this !vote be !counted. Phil Sandifer 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aww, perhaps you don't know that there came a time when Ms. KM performed massive RfA oppose and neutral for the exactly same reason given by RP and Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements was founded. @pple complain 17:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "not endorsed by a WikiProject" is exactly how she participated in RfAs. This comment uses sarcasm. --Agüeybaná 17:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not improve the quality of RP's comment. Phil Sandifer 17:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A better questions is: why are you supporting a candidate who makes "insane" proposals? 75.116.36.16 18:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, this is my particular point. This is the sort of trolling that Kelly did and now you're lambasting me for it? Speaks a thousand words............. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's ok for me to troll because she did it first". Milto LOL pia 12:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose I arrived just as the drama was ending, so I didn't really notice what was going on and am going purely by her edits since she came back - since May, I see two talk edits, eight user talk edits, eight Wikipedia talk edits (one of which was this - while I don't know the history here, it certainly looks uncivil) and only ten mainspace edits. Not knowing her past history, I can only go on her recent edits, and were this to be a name I didn't recognise it would be an instant oppose; there might be a reason to bend the "rules" in this case, but the nominations/candidate don't explain it if there is. — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to straightforward oppose in light of Walton's impressive collection of diffs. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I personally have my doubts with regards to potential admin tool abuse in the future, but that by itself wouldn't make me oppose. My main concern is I really do not believe Kelly has the support of the Wikipedia community to become an admin, and so I'm adding my bit here to show that. I'm actually quite surprised there is this many support comments considering the trickiness of the situation. Yes, I'm aware an apology has been forthcoming. But that doesn't qualify someone. I also am not sure why Kelly wants the admin tools. Apparently, she's not all that active now. Pursey Talk | Contribs 16:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to bureaucrats "Oppose because I think others will oppose" is not a valid reason for opposition. Phil Sandifer 17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to no-one in particular - Thanks for your personal interpretation of what is and isn't an acceptable as my own personal reason for opposition. I oppose the RfA. And you've picked one section of my paragraph of comments. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try and invalidate people's own opinions. Clearly, you're satisfied with the candidate. I am not. Pursey Talk | Contribs 17:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very Strong Oppose - I very rarely oppose RfAs, but I think that this candidate would do an astonishing amount of damage to the project. I'd like to bring up a number of incidents which were highlighted in the RfC against her back in April, which was (unjustifiably) deleted. First, one of the worst instances of incivility: Here, she characterised someone's mistaken remarks as "lying", and ended with the clearly uncivil comment "Please do not defile my talk page with your comments again". Enough said. Here she removed a post from a user who was raising a valid, and civilly explained, issue about her interaction with other users. Here, random incivility at an editor who had done absolutely nothing wrong. And I, too, have been on the receiving end of her high-handed and unpleasant behaviour. Here, she opposed my RfA. Again, not necessarily uncivil; however, here, I explained, civilly, that I had redesigned my userpage to comply with her requirements. I didn't expect her to change her vote, but I did expect some kind of reply. However, I received no reply even when I left a further prompt here, which made it clear that she was intentionally ignoring me. And another instance of incivility; on 23rd April, she instructed Chrislk02 not to use "capitalised gibberish" on her talk page, referring to the widely-used abbreviations such as WP:RFA. Chris then actually apologised for using the "capitalised gibberish"; rather than accepting his apology, Ms. Martin then attacked chris calling him rude. Not to mention, she has referred to other users as "liars" and "emily post wannabes". These are not, by any means, the only instances of her gross incivility to other editors. But they're enough to demonstrate that if she becomes an admin, I am 100% sure that she would drive away many valuable contributors through her contemptuous and arrogant attitude. WaltonOne 17:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are great diffs but it's actually this one that gives me that warm feeling. the_undertow talk 17:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, not suited for adminship. Too uncivil, aggressive, and unkind. Bishonen | talk 17:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  14. Way too much drama for this yooser -- Y not? 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong oppose. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Phil Sandifer 17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Her misuse of checkuser against other admins for one. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I was going to go neutral on this, but the diffs shown by iridescent (only 10 days old) and the_undertow compel me to oppose. Rlevse 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong oppose, It scared me as I saw the diff given by the undertow. OMG, poor Shirahadasha, only RfA thanks... @pple complain 17:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Hasn't been active enough in editing articles or creating content over the last year. Long periods of absence. Unusual level of behavioural problems and aggressiveness that don't benefit the project or befit an admin. --Duk 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong oppose - for a large number of reasons; BITEiness, lack of AGF, her treatment of Chris Kreider a few short months back, phenomenal incivility. Kudos to her, however, for apologising to User:Poetlister re. the checkuser debacle, but aggression and hostility are a major no-no for me - Alison ❤ 17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Kelly Martin had nothing to do with the Poetlister block. I asked her to do a checkuser at the time, but she didn't respond to the request, and later other members of the ArbCom got involved, not her. Her recent version of events is only meant to stir up trouble. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose — not endorsed by a WikiProject </sarcasm>. Seriously, though, I would never support such an uncivil editor. --Agüeybaná 17:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Oppose - per the undertow. If the candidate does not appear to be civil to compliments, how can I be assured to that she'll be civil in conflicts or serious issues? -WarthogDemon 17:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Read these: 1, 2 and 3. @pple complain 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there was far more pertinent information on her recent incivility in her fourth user conduct RfC, which was deleted because a small group of admins didn't believe that the certifications (given in good faith by respected members of the community) were "valid". WaltonOne 18:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken, however those aren't among the concerns I have, as pointed out by Walton. -WarthogDemon 20:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose: Totally ridiculous, just the normal attention seeking behaviour that we are all, sadly, so used to seeing from this editor. One of the Arbs or Crats should dismiss this application before it causes the discord and contention that the candidate is so clearly seeking. However let's not forget this would not be the first time that the crats promoted a "favoured one" to adminship against consensus - knowing full well the problems that would result. The last occasion lead to the above mentioned "Giano kerfuffle" - so let's not be too complacent about this. Giano 18:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose great user, but with an evident history of controversial behaviours; however I might reconsider this vote in case she would explicitly prove a sincere willingness in understanding her own previous mistakes in order not to repeat them again. --Angelo 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - I'm sorry but no, to uncivil. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Unfortunately, I believe giving Kelly adminship is an invitation to future trouble down the line (I am not necessarily restricting this to "trouble from Kelly", but them's the breaks). — Gavia immer (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Symbol - Per Kelly Martin's own answers to RfA questions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. Adminship is not for everyone, and Moreschi's nomination makes it clear that Kelly may be useful to the community even without the tools to delete and undelete, block and unblock, etc. --G-man (Half-Life) 18:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per NYB (in neutral) and many above: she seems uncivil, divisive, and erratic, not what I want in an admin. Sorry. Bucketsofg 18:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Kelly has a long history of uncivil/disruptive behavior and administrative misconduct, and I see no evidence that her attitude has improved. —David Levy 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - I don't think user can be trusted with the tools. ScarianTalk 18:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. Unacceptable answers to RfA questions; unacceptable pattern of incivility. Crum375 18:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong oppose - Per the_undertow. Shameful behavior. And is it just me or does this RfA encapsulate the discussions currently on-going on the RfA talk page? Lara❤Love 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite, amongst others. Very uncivil and far too willing to scale the Reichstag . A Traintalk 18:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong oppose - Sorry but the evidence of sysop misconduct presented is alarming, I have a feeling that tells me that giving this user the tools back is a bad idea. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose "... I haven't read [WP:CIV] in a long time and have no real interest in doing so." Well, you lost me right there—not for being somewhat out of the policy loop but for the attitude implied. Kelly has very few edits over the last six months—five hundred takes us back to March. I'm also struck by the tenor of the nominations: they seem to imply that she won't be able to contribute unless the tools are given back. She's a copyeditor at heart? She can still copyedit. Marskell 19:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - Her answer to number 4 worries me highly. I'm not sure about her getting the mop back. Regards, IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 19:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as a note, I'm sorta shocked to see she wants to be an admin again just because she misses the tools she would gain. Her userpage says: "I must admit that I do miss having the ability to view deleted revisions." Changing to strong oppose.
  37. I am seriously surprised that Kelly Martin is running for adminship now. She of all people would know that a nomination at this time would have no chance of passing. Not enough time has passed since the incivility and disruption of RfA that took place earlier this year. Acalamari 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also find it extremely hypocritical that you would advise Betacommand to abandon his account and create a new one so he could be an admin again, and yet here you are requesting adminship yourself. I also don't know why these two user subpages still exist. I am now very strongly opposed to this nomination. Acalamari 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. Answers to 4 and 5 are troublesome-issimo.--Mantanmoreland 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Has a history of uncivil and drama-generating behavior and there is currently no evidence this will change in the future. —Ruud 19:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Oppose A deeply uncivil user, who I wouldn't trust to even begin to understand the letter (let alone the spirit) of WP:AGF, WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL that this work is basically built on. It's a wiki and a wiki is collaboration with common aims not unilatteral ideas. RfA pointyness alone earlier in the year is enough to demonstrate this. Sorry to be rude Kelly, but no. Pedro :  Chat  19:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS picked up by Acalamari is disgusting, and hypocritical. WP:GAME coming from you!!! I can't honestly believe that your nominators (all deeply respected editors) will be impressed. You're frankly kicking them in the teeth with this, and disrespecting this whole process and the wider work. Sugest Withdrawl. Pedro :  Chat  20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. You gotta be kidding me. Pick any number of reasons. Primarily per Walton, who just like me is one of the more regular and vocal RfA supporters. But there's a limit to everything. — aldebaer⁠ 19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking more carefully and discovering e.g. the undertow's [6], Mongo's [7][8] and Acalamari's [9] diffs above, I cannot even change to strong oppose. Instead, I simply don't take this request for adminship seriously period. — aldebaer⁠ 20:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. I really want to be able to overlook the past and give Kelly a second chance, but unfortunately her comments on her user page just the other day announcing she was open to accepting another RfA nomination have a very strong tone of condescension and self-servingness, especially this comment about missing "having the ability to view deleted revisions." --krimpet⟲ 19:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose I'm sorry, I would normally love to see an older member restored, but I cannot support this in good faith. It's unquestionable that this user's friends have glowing recommendations, but it's interactions with other users that really shows an admin's character. The answers to the questions, especially the lack of will to update knowledge of current policy, as well as a ghastly history with users (even one who she supported to become an admin) really finalized my decision. Apologies, Kelly. GlassCobra 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose per above.  Mirandargh  20:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose: We don't need the drama, the narcissism, the self-delusion, the trampling on others' rights, the disregard of others' feelings, the self-entitlement, the boorishness, the vulgarity, or the sheer vainglory that this user thrives upon. (Crossing the picket line for this vote.) Geogre 20:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. oppose needlessly divisive and confrontational, prone to idiosyncratic campaigns over what ought to be trivial matters that generate much heat but no light: the wikiproject endorsements bruhaha, the pointlessly rude diff provided by the_undertow, the campaign against terse citations of policy [10] all suggest a greater interest in sparring over trivia than anything else. This just seems to be phishing for antagonism, a wilful waste of everyone's time. I agree with her positions in many instances, but she has this continuing pattern of glibly flaunting the letter and spirit of the community's policies and guidelines while spontaneously, and confrontationally, generating standards, rules and guidelines of her own. There's nothing wrong, per se, with with having one's own policies, if she were to take a less confrontational approach she might win more converts, but she would apparently rather instigate and castigate from afar than participate as a civil member of this community. I'd be totally willing to forgive and forget her past if she were putting in some sweat equity in the meantime, even if it were on Commons, but there's not a lot of activity there either. In the final analysis, I don't trust her to apply admin powers responsibly, she turns freedom into license. Pete.Hurd 20:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose (edit conflict x2) You are a good editor overall, but please be a lot more civil with your comments. If you are trying to explain someone something or engaging in dispute rsolution, say it with out hurting people's feelings. Plus, based on the fact that you have admin-misconduct over a year ago, I'm rather concerned with your judgement. Try again in 6 months or a year with a clean record of civility. PrestonH 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I've never seen nominating statements that so absurdly whitewash a history of grotesque incivility. --JayHenry 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True - and I find it painful to agree, since I deeply respect Riana and Moreschi as great admins. However, neither of them seems to have investigated this candidate's history properly before filing the nomination. WaltonOne 20:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hold Riana and Moreschi in high regard, too, and that won't change. But it's hard to imagine how they arrived at the conclusion that this RfA could pass and that it would be a good idea in the first place. — aldebaer⁠ 20:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The bitter irony ... Danny 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose - Deep concerns over her understanding of civility, WP:CIV or otherwise. Into The Fray T/C 20:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. (ec x2) I do not feel that I can trust this user with the tools, regardless of an otherwise generally good history. Don't get me wrong - Kelly Martin is often great, but ... the incivility issues brought up make me uncomfortable with the idea, the answer to question five that indicated that she wanted only the ipblock-exempt and Special:Undelete access further worry me, and the three RfC's lead me, regretfully, to believe that I cannot honestly support her as an admin. Nihiltres(t.l) 20:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose - I usually vote in favor of admin candidates yet believe that the user is not ready for adminship at this point of time. Nevertheless I would like to thank Kelly Martin for agreeing to take on the additional responsibility. gidonb 21:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I'm sorry. But this is just so blatantly obvious that I don't even know where to start explaining. Civility problems is an understatement, I'll leave it there. -Amarkov moo! 21:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose User cannot be trusted. T Rex | talk 21:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose --Shamir1 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a reason as to why you're opposing? IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose - I have seen no evidence that her behaviour or attitude has changed since she resigned her adminship "under a cloud". I see neither explanations for her actions, nor do I see contrition for her past actions...will this RFA result in more of her famous lists? Her rejection of the normal admin questions bodes poorly. In addition, based on her answer to Q. 5, I don't see her as showing any need to admin powers. Guettarda 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose you are inactive, do not show interest to do a good job as admin, has uncivil issues. Keep with your job on Commons and leave the other admins to do the "silly things" here. Carlosguitar 21:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oh, crumbs, no, per 55 (e/c) 56 other people. Who wants a shiny badge anyway? -- !! ?? 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose treats Wikipedia like some sort of joke. Possibly one of the worst editors on here. It would be of no benefit whatsoever to give her tools: using them for her own ends is just selfish, and the point of admins is to do some admin work. Uncivil, rude, and often immature, I don't think she should ever be an admin on here again, and if she wasn't a former arbitrator she'd have probably been banned now for her trolling. * Aillema 22:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. Far too uncivil to possibly make a useful admin, and in her responses at the top hadn't made it clear that she doesn't seem to want to do any admin work anyway. Even without those concerns, problems I would oppose any RFA candidate who boasted of not reading WP:CIVIL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong oppose All my interactions with her, although indirect, in the RfA forum, have been terrible. Maxim(talk) 22:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. Abused her powers as seen here and was the sole starter of the "userbox war". Also stated here that "people with admin rights are the only ones who actually matter." Dtm142 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Per obvious issues raised above. Jmlk17 22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose poor history Jbeach56 22:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose per this statement. I'd like to think that I'm not a "vastly incompetent gameplayer" who has largely taken over administration of Wikipedia. I'd also like to think that the vast majority of the articles I've deleted have been deserved, either because they're non-notable biographies (people writing about themselves, their friends, their enemies, or their own companies), attack pages, spam, or anything else covered in WP:CSD. I'm not sure what Ms. Martin thinks of my edits or admin actions, but I seem to remember that I was on some secret page (like this, which provoked a deletion debate.) Beyond what she thinks of me personally, she just has the appearance of being at odds with a lot of the Wikipedia community. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose to help it get to WP:100. (It's very clear where this is going. She'd probably be a good admin, but there's too much zOMGDRAMA going on here for that to happen.) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose I had hoped this time away from WP would have reduced some of the arrogance. Clearly it did not.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose way too controversial. —O (说 • 喝) 23:18, 30 September 2007 (GMT)
  68. Oppose, Ummm, No.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose From my limited interaction with her, I've found KM to be condescending and arrogant. Danny says she's "not afraid to speak her mind" but you can speak your mind without telling others to fuck off or dismissing them as clueless morons who don't understand what Wikipedia is all about. I'm all for admins with confidence in their own judgment but KM has shown time and again that she will refuse to listen to anyone having differences with her. She loves to use snarky retorts because, hey, they're quite fun. The better admins use other modes of communication, not because they lack the wit but because it's one of the principles we set out to make this whole project work. Pascal.Tesson 23:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose per issues with civility and gaming the system raised above. east.718 at 23:35, September 30, 2007
  71. Oppose I believe you need to spend more time working with the community (say 3 months or more) and sincerely work with people. Prove to those that remember your past that you have changed and are willing to work and compromise. I am impressed by your observations and proposals on your blog and I believe that you would be a valuable asset as an administrator, but only after you've proven that you can work with others. The road to redemption is a long and hard road, but if you're willing to take that road, it'll only help you in the end and the community will likely respect that. You mention on your blog about having a discussion. What do you mean? I'm not sure this is the place to do it. Perhaps another venue like RFC or your talk page to discuss your concerns? Take care. Ripberger 23:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Kelly's participation usually ignites any wikiconflict rather than solves it. For an admin it is unacceptable. I am sure any admin would be happy to clear the autoblocks for her. Anyway I understand when a resident of a remote Russian village cannot change his or her internet provider because there is only one available, I understand when a 10 year-old cannot change the provider because it is his or her parents who are in control, I simply do not understand why an adult American may want to go into a difficult adminship process rather than simply give a sack to the provider of a substandard Internet service. Alex Bakharev 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why only Americans? I'm sure Canadians, Brits, Russians, Chinese, etc. people apply in that situation too. Just wondering - Ανέκδοτο 00:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  73. Oppose this user seems to have a long history of unspurred aggression, incivility and hostility towards Wikipedia users in general. No, I can't support this based on what the other opposes have said. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Absolutely not. Too divisive, too rude, too aggressive, too arrogant, too much drama follows. Strongest possible oppose. Sarah 00:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. Past behavior leads me to believe there is a very high chance of both abuse and misuse of admin tools. The costs far outweight the benefits. Chaz Beckett 00:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Smite. Oh my gods, User:Kelly Martin sounds like a villain, once deposed as the Grand Vizier, coming back to claim their title and their throne, feigning change but staying exactly the same. Geez, some of these diffs could really be compiled into a villain song for Wikipedia: The Musical, possibly titled "You Seething Idiots"; her comments are so poetically uncivil they should be collated into a handbook on How to Be Dastardly: The Elegant Way.... great entertainment, but no. No tools for you. DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but your comment is highly hipocritical. Attacking the attacker helps no one. Regards, Ανέκδοτο 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    The harshness of your comment rivals any of the comments I've seen Kelly made. Perhaps you need to take a chill pill? -WarthogDemon 00:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope you don't mean me. I never meant to be harsh at all in my comment, or mad. Ανέκδοτο 00:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Nope I mean Deus Ex Machina. I always indent to past the exact post I'm replying to, so there's no confusion. -WarthogDemon 00:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, sorry for the confusion. Cheers - Ανέκδοτο 00:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Just merely being honest, didn't mean to sound uncivil. It was actually a compliment in some respects.. I think an opposer below me characterised her as Machiavellian and, you know, he may have hit the nail on the head. But if you want me to be cleaner and "more civil" then: No, I do not believe, based on the overwhelming evidence put before me by not just those whom she has slighted in the past but by other uninvolved Wikipedians of reasonable standing, I will do everything in my power (which begins and ends at Opposing this RFA, incidentally) to see that she not return to adminship. DEVS EX MACINA pray 13:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose based on many of the comments above and below, but just to pick out a couple that were particularly helpful in my thinking: Newyorkbrad (though neutral) makes many good points from the perspective of a user who had relatively contact with the nominee during her prior adminship but has been disturbed by some of what he has seen since. I am in the same position. The "evidence" that Walton, the undertow and a few others have compiled, also is compelling. To summarize my own feelings in a sentence, I think Wikipedia needs less drama, fewer "personalities" and fewer people pursuing some sort of "mission", and I don't see how re-endowing this nominee with the trust of the community would advance those goals. 6SJ7 00:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. No thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose I admire Kelly's contributions via her blog and feel she is of great value to our project. She is bright and insightful. Her history of drama and disruption as an admin leads me to conclude that handling the broom is not the best way for her to contribute. I wish her the best though. Edivorce 00:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Over my dead body. Will definitely go Sideways with mop, I can confirm that and add three years' warranty to my statement, or your money-back guaranteed. Candidate is one of the most Machiavellian editor I have ever seen in the whole of this encyclopedia. As the instigator of the Userbox Wars back in 2005, she is responsible for all the subsequent WikiDrama that followed, and the irreversible damage and brokenness of the Deletion and Requests for Adminship process and the trust in the Arbitration process being destroyed before my very eyes and being turned into a circus. Wonder why you have the political correctness of !vote and the mantra Adminship is not a vote!? This is the reason. Also has proven to have an extensive history of Cabalism in the admin IRC channel, still remains on such form of communications and very likely to continue. Giano's issue is only simply mere the tip of the iceberg. To hand the mop over and expect it not to be used like a RPG-29 within the fragile walls of the encyclopedia would surely be a joke. Not forgetting the continuous hostility, incivility and combativeness against other editors who are helping to write and build encyclopedia and seeking to drive them out. To promote her as adminship would not just allow her to just proverbially climb the Reichstag, it would be signing your way into the Dark Ages, which must be prevented at all costs! - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Hell No, per above and her commentary on IRC. Sean William @ 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong Oppose, never in a million. I'm coming out from the dead just to participate in this RFA. She has caused much trouble for this encyclopedia, and have to prevent her from causing further harm to this encyclopedia. This user has been uncivil to other editors, and has caused several disruptions e.g. Userbox war etc. She has caused lots of drama here and I just simply cannot trust her with the tools. Terence 13:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Confused oppose Don't know why Kelly is even bothering - if all she wants to do is view deleted pages and edit over autoblocks, it's not exactly likw giving her a mop is it? I'd like to know what benefit the Wikipedia will receive from her if she gets the mop back. All the "silly" things the rest of us get up to like stopping rampant vandals wrecking the place, blocking persistent copyvio editors who threaten the very existence of Wikipedia, and the like, I think they're pretty important. So, Kelly, hope you've enjoyed the debate, I expect this to make anti-WP:300 easily. The Rambling Man 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose per many of the reasons given above. -- Scorpion0422 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Strong Oppose. After she created in my opinion, a huge attack page against me, I see no possible way I could vote for her. Here constant incivility has scared off more then one valuable contributer from this project She is one of the least civil users I have ever come in contact with, and there are many banned users who I would sooner support. --Mschel 13:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. I have always been bad at history, so without bothering to look at the user's past, we would be able to determine that there are zero actual reasons for the user to have the sysop tools. Per their response to Q5, they assert that they do not intend to perform sysop actions. They have also mentioned that they need sysop access to avoid autoblocks, assuming in good faith and very much against common knowledge that a majority of administrators hard block IP addresses. Apart from that, they have a sum total of 73 edits in the past five months, which shows inactivity and sporadic editing limited to Wikipedia space. So I must oppose for the given reasons. In any case, the user frequents freenode and if they get the urge to edit some time in the next few months and find themselves blocked, they can always contact an administrator on IRC for assistance. As for the ability to view deleted edits, a non-admin would scarcely find a need for them, unless they are unrelated to admin-work. Cheers. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose per Nick and others who question the desired reason for adminship. Also, some of the civility issues brought up have me concerned. --Kbdank71 14:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. While Kelly's resignation of the tools may have been voluntary it was voluntary in the same way that an employee being fired is told "but if you voluntarily sign this paper giving up your rights the employer will agree not to say you were fired" and then that employee resigns "voluntarily". She lost the community's trust. She doesn't participate on Wikipedia and is doing nothing to regain our trust. I said in December during Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 3 that she need's to regain the community's trust. She doesn't do that by sitting off at a blog and making sniping remarks that wouldn't be acceptable here. She does that by actually engaging here, which she hasn't done. If she comes back and edits regularly, and demonstrates during that editing that she has overcome the problems that led to her being shown the door, then we can have a conversation. I have a hard time believing that the nominators here thought she even had a snowball's chance and wasting the community's time with this. My advice to Kelly remains the same - if you want to be an admin again, you will probably find it easier if you edit under a different username and never reveal the connection to User:Kelly Martin or your blog. GRBerry 14:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose- too polemical and divisive; tends to troll. It's true, she has sometimes had insightful things to say about the project, but so do many other editors who don't share Kelly's problems. We absolutely do not have to "take the bad with the good". There are plenty of admins or candidates who do not have a history of stirring up trouble and misusing the tools, let's ignore the troll and focus on them instead. Friday (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Strong opppose. Extremely incivil, bitey, and aggressive. Will possibly drive away many valuable contributors. Refers to admin tasks as "silly things". Also not very active over last few months. Diffs raised by Walton and Undertow are the final nail in the coffin. Useight 14:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose After reading several examples here, as well as doing some searching of my own, it is my serious conviction that K.M. can't be trusted to use admin tools responsibly. Her great works as an editor and in other Wiki enterprises don't automatically make her a good admin, too. This showed when she had her chance - and blew it. Nothing presented here makes a compelling case that she has changed. Her arbitrary and unreflecting actions would hurt participation, especially of newbs and casual contributors. NO! Gray62 14:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose. Troll. Mike R 15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose. Only an aversion to cliché keeps me from fufilling Godwin's Law. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose Per Nick, Walton, and Mailer. Dureo 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose I am quite shocked at the points raised by the opposers, and I don't think adminship is at the moment suitable. Phgao 16:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Serious oppose The tools are given on trust, all or nothing. We don't give people access to some and not others. Once given, they are given. RfA is a test of two things - is there need, and is there trust of appropriate usage backed by good evidence, if given. User fails both of these in my opinion.
    1. User admits she is unfamiliar with basic policy and expectations. That in itself is a terminal problem. There must be actual knowledge of the policies and their range of uses in practice, to form good judgements on instinct. Consensus can change, it has over the years, and this user shows problematic gaps in knowledge and experience. More worryingly, questions also exist over users' inward acceptance of the community's choice to set restrictions and expectations on permissible admin conduct. RFA is fairly searching for all candidates. Vague descriptions of "frank and earnest" or personal assurances of intent cannot fill this gap in what is expected of someone to be given the mop. Hence there is no actual evidence WP:CIVIL or others will be complied with, and (problematically) serious concerns from respected others and the past it may not be.
    2. Similar theme: Expressions such as "frank and earnest" and "quality of the encyclopedia is paramount, and any meritorious suggestion for improvement must be heeded, no matter how shrilly presented" are recipies for disaster (of the "my voice/view is bigger than your voice/view" kind). "Frank and earnest" can mean anything from fair and reasoned, to the most rude, bullying and harmful actions, depending whose concept of "frank and earnest" is used, and "quality is paramount" has similar problems. What I feel in the user, behind these choices of words (things said, things not said), does not help. We know "quality matters", that's obvious. The important question not touched on is, what evidence exists as to how she balances that priority against other priorities such as fairness, openness, good judgement, recognition and respect of others with different views on article content, and respecting communal standards. A balance is needed. Overzealousness is a major source of damage, as is underzealousness (perhaps more so). My problem is, I see no evidence the user has this balance, for me to set against the concerns of others that she does not. And there is - significantly - no word from the user to suggest a measured approach, or a sense of humility or an understanding that her requested role would be there to serve the editorial community. We get the mop only to help well-meaning editors seeking to write an encyclopedia, that's all it's for. We give it to people who have proven they do this already. I have concerns that the user's measure of "right conduct" seems to be not the consultative approach but excessive self-certainty. A worrying proposition.
    3. Being a source of drama or posting drama-inspiring posts when thwarted and frustrated is itself a negative in my book. It speaks of lack of judgement how to avoid it, and a lack of ability to step back quietly or handle well, when life doesn't deliver what's wanted. A truism, you only know what people are like when they leave, and you see the manner of their conduct when they have no reason to act nice. The user's handling is described by others. I sense a question over working with people, and managing oneself. A large stick cannot substitute for uncertain ability in getting on collaboratively.
    4. I also finally look at the stated reasons for the tools. Editing more conveniently is one, reading deleted page versions another. Many editors -- in fact the vast majority -- edit under identical circumstances. Non-access to deleted revisions is the norm; that's why they are deleted. They cannot access deleted pages even when providing input into discussions. I see no pressing need given by the user, nor honestly do I see a stated purpose. Administrators have those accesses not to peruse old pages for their own purposes, but to allow administrative decisions to be made on content and conduct related matters. The user has no significant interest in these, nor a track record suggesting an interest would be other than to justify the toolset, and there is no compelling case for an exception anywhere in the entirety of this page.
    5. Last, my personal RFA views are shaped mostly around attitudes a candidate has, and has solidly evidenced, and things the candidate won't do wrong (rather than X edits and Y months). I do not have clear sight that the main needs I have in a user with admin access will be met.
    I am as always, willing to reconsider if any of the above are mistaken. I have not commented on other serious allegations because I do not - personally - know enough to know the rights and wrongs of them, or what the user was trying to achieve. Please let me know if there are points I am unaware of which should be taken into account. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Good editor, but not enough AIV reports – Gurch 15:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Candidate is not endorsed by any Wikiprojects. --W.marsh 16:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I've decided that my concerns about this candidate, combined with her lack of WikiProject endorsement, preclude support at this time. --Hemlock Martinis 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral because, despite the initial flurry of support, I fear that this RfA is liable to degenerate into a drama and a bloodbath, and I don't want to be part of that, so I will just share some thoughts and concerns in this somewhat inconspicuous section, at least for the moment. Most of Kelly's prior stint as an admin (and an arbitrator and checkuser) took place before I arrived on Wikipedia, or at least before I became active in project space. When I did become involved, I first came to know of Kelly Martin as a highly polarizing, divisive figure, prone to make angry comments seemingly disproportionate to any cause for them; but very soon thereafter, there came the widespread uproar in the wake of the Carnildo resysopping; and then she was gone; and I was the proposer in the workshop of the Giano arbitration of thanking her for work she had done for this project. A year later and we are presented with this RfA for consideration, and I wish that I could enthusiastically support it, because I am as strong a believer in second and third chances as anyone on Wikipedia. Despite the fact that Kelly seems to have gravely offended many during her prior adminship, one might propose to let bygones be bygones and to evaluate her candidacy based primarily on her participation during the past several months. Unfortunately, Kelly's editing in 2007 alone makes it impossible for me to support her. Her most active period of participation this year, between March and May, was highly problematic and culminated with the statement on her external blog that "I find myself losing faith in the ability of the Wikipedia community to recover from the tailspin it's pushed itself into lately, and I'm not getting much enjoyment out of trolling it, in any case". Nor was the candidate's admitted "trolling" merely harmless frippery; among other things, it disrupted the RfA process for several weeks, and her insulting comments nearly drove at least one administrator off the project. Kelly's denunciation on her blog of another, recently promoted admin as potentially "the worst person in the world" because he teasingly left her an RfA-support thank-you note despite her announcement that she disdained such things, while obviously deliberately exaggerated and tongue-in-cheek, also was intentionally hurtful and was inconsistent with the high levels of civility appropriate for an administrator, and it was not at all atypical of her familiar style of commenting, both on- and off-wiki. Turning from the past to the future, Kelly's declination to answer the standard questions at the top of the RfA deprives us of her input on how she would plan use the tools if she were to get them back. While I can understand Kelly's feeling that by this point she is a known quantity and should not have to jump through these hoops, a response to the first of the "optional" questions here would be helpful; I can't see her, at this stage of her wiki-career, spending her hours responding to AIV reports and closing XfDs and the like, so learning what she would plan to do with a second chance at adminship would be useful. Under all the circumstances, and with the best faith in the world, I cannot bring myself to cast a support !vote here. But I need to add that I take no pleasure, none at all, in withholding my support from this RfA. Kelly Martin is as thoughtful an observer of the wikimedia world as there is, and clearly has spent hundreds of hours thinking about what is right and wrong with En-wiki and how it could be made better, and has much of value to say, although I disagree as often as I agree with her thoughts and her conclusions. Frankly, I find that this situation is tragic. Kelly Martin should, if she had been a little more patient and a lot more civil, be one of the most respected leaders of this community, as she was once before. Perhaps again someday she will be; but alas, bridges burned this badly take a great deal more effort to repair. I will await any response that the candidate or others may have to these observations; neutral for now. Newyorkbrad 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Always a man of many words, eh Brad? Nishkid64 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Brad has yet to grasp vapidity's transcendant power. Mackensen (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These are really insightful comments. I think it's a great loss to Wikipedia that she doesn't have more patience and respect because she does have a lot of value to say (and I agree with much of it as others do I expect). I don't understand her mean spirited behavior and seemingly willful bridge burning but it's too bad because in a different world she would be a one of the most respected leaders of this community as you say. RxS 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per NYB. I'd say withdraw the nomination and focus on improving where he says above, he pretty much hit this situation dead on. Wizardman 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral -- I still don't know what I did to get put on User:Kelly Martin/B. I never even knew this list existed or had been deleted until I later stumbled across my name listed in the ANI archive at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#User:Kelly Martin/B. To my knowledge I never interacted with either Giano or Kelly Martin. Kelly, can you explain this list and what I was doing on it? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll MFD that page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, well I think it would still be appropriate for Kelly to comment and respond to my query. I'm not keen on Kelly-bashing but I'd like to understand what this was all about. --A. B. (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral -- On one hand, Kelly would be a very useful admin. On the other hand, she would stir up a bunch of distracting metadrama (which I detest). I think my best option here is to vote "neutral". MessedRocker (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. Changed from support. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you would care to explain why you did this? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the evidence, I would normally oppose; but since I already voted to support, I'm only going to "neutral". It's a semantic thing more than a substantive one. By the way, I just found that User:Kelly Martin/B was a recreation of deleted material. Page was deleted by MFD on 21 July 2006, then she recreated it two days later with an edit summary of "Bah". Recreating material deleted by MFD is generally not what I'm looking for in an admin candidate. Just something to think about. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. Kelly has a rather... mixed record. The concerns over the candidate sparking off userbox wars, flame wars, userspace list wars, and RFA wars are definitely of concern. But before jumping up and down to oppose, it is correct to take into account the fact that Kelly's record shows a dedication to the Wikimedia projects, a good period where she would combat vandalism, and a strong and usually correct sense of what an encyclopedia is. With less polarizing rhetoric, and a more careful approach she would be an excellent candidate who I would support with enthusiasm. Straight talk is not the problem, for straight talk (in moderate doses) is good. The problem is condescending talk which makes people feel worthless, affronted, treated unfairly, and angry. I think Kelly would benefit from getting back to the approach she had prior to her 2005 ArbCom appointment, for I remember that she was a good contributor, fine admin, and a fun colleague to work with then. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kelly_Martin_2&oldid=161592084"