Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Kelly Martin

Final (72/1/0) ended 01:39 15 June 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin is active in RC patrol and maintenance tasks that would be greatly aided by the admin tools, as well as making countless small improvements all over wikipedia (well, perhaps countable: Kate's tool says she has 3254 edits). She is reasonable, level-headed, intelligent, and fair, even when dealing with controversial subjects, and I believe she'd be a valuable admin. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you; I accept. Kelly Martin 03:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Just as a note: I am going to be out of town for a conference starting on Sunday, and I'm not sure how much Internet access I'll have while I'm there. The end of this RfA falls during the convention, so if you have any last-minute questions you want me to respond to, ask them now or forever hold your peace. :) Kelly Martin 15:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. I was just thinking about nominating her myself because she is very active doing RC patrol and dealing with vandalism. She would really benefit from the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely, I've seen her catch more vandalism than I can count, world champion RC patroller. Everyking 02:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, I was almost tricked by her revert summaries which look exactly like a rollback. Good contributor to more that just RC patrol too, and would make good use of admin tools.--nixie 02:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, of course; and I almost uttered the unutterable cliche (due to her edit summaries that mimic the rollback tool). Marvelously efficient on RC patrol; certain to be a good admin. Antandrus (talk) 02:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strong support. Two things.. first: I thought she was already one! Second: I was going to nominate her just a minute ago!! Amazing user, great janitor, resourceful. Moo, Quackboom and whatever else. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 02:27, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Supporting WP:TRI is always a good sign, helping to prevent regulation creep. Bratschetalk random 02:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Good RC patrol, community involvement, should be trusted with the [rollback] button and an army of daleks to exterminate vandals. JFW | T@lk 02:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. El_C 04:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support. Of course. I thought she was an admin allready. And one of the most excelent ones at that. Shanes 05:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. support {{RFA cliché 1}}. Also, probably the best answered admin questions I've seen. Thryduulf 05:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Great user. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support.-gadfium 07:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support.-JCarriker 07:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support --W(t) 07:29, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  16. Support, yes, definitely. Consensus-building editor with good article contributions, a big asset to Wikipedia. David | Talk 09:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. Happy to support a good editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Rama 10:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Excellent editor. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. People who keep wikipedia nice and neat are great yet often underappreciated. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Duh. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support r3m0t talk 13:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support --RobertG ♬ talk 14:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support, very good editor, this is a real no-brainer. Rje 17:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support and moo enthusiastically. -- Seth Ilys 18:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support Excellent editor and decent human being willing and eager to help out newbies.--Tznkai 18:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:26, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support In addition to what's been said, she's always very pleasant on IRC, which I find nice and bodes well for her as an admin. kmccoy (talk) 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  29. Of course No questions here. smoddy 20:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Everything I have seen has been positive. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. A devoted RC patroller and a generally decent person. FreplySpang (talk) 23:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support - For great (Wiki)justice. --FCYTravis 00:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. A former copy editor dedicated to RC patrol, Dead end patrol, grammar correction (I hope she never sees any of my work), and on and on. Yes, you've got my vote. SWAdair | Talk 02:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support 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. Marine 69-71 05:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support A devoted editor and vandal-hunter. She certainly qualifies for the role. In fact I believe the more women in the team, the better. Oneliner 10:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  37. I've never quite got the hang of the GIMP, but perhaps that's just because she left it too early. She's certainly good to have wielding the mop around here. Support -- Hoary 13:40, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
  38. I daresay "Anglius" is a "troll." Full support. Andre (talk) 13:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. Meant to nominate her myself, she often beats me to reverts when I do RC patrol. - Taxman Talk 15:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Suppoort Morwen - Talk 18:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. If Anglius is gynephobic, then I am gynephilic ;D --Golbez 18:41, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support regardless of gender 20:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. Joyous 21:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. Kelly will be a great addition to the group of administrators. Anglius's vote is highly inappropriate and it is disturbing that someone would vote in such a manner. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. -- Elisson | Talk 00:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support. Seems sane (in the Wiki sense anyway ;) -- Joolz 00:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  47. Kelly has my unqualified support. -- Hadal 04:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support --Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  49. Recently had me believing she already was one, so I support. Radiant_>|< 07:43, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support. Thought she was already. Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support, great user, and want to show opposition to "Anglius's" stupid reasoning below. Bluemoose 15:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support --JeremyA 15:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. Wholeheartedly. I am gobsmacked to read that Kelly considers her contribution to Talk:Ward Churchill to be a disappointment. She was a major source of improvement to the article and made constructive interventions throughout. --Theo (Talk) 16:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support. —Xezbeth 16:25, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  56. support: Evidently talented as well as dedicated, there is reason to believe Kelly will actively and effectively contribute to the diversity and accountability of Admins. Ombudsman 01:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  57. Proud to support. Flcelloguy 02:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support, already an excellent mop-swisher and bucket-slosher. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support — talk page shows evidence of being well respected and the POV battle on Ward Churchill show character, but Anglius's opposition persuades me to vote. -- Solipsist 20:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  60. Support. – ugen64 20:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support. Definately administrator material, very active in helping members and working with RC Patrol. Jtkiefer 03:00, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  62. Support!. Neutralitytalk 05:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  63. Carnildo 19:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support. Jonathunder 01:09, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  65. support because i imply that shes a *chick* and im a gynophyle^h^h^h^h gynofile^h^h^h^h i *like chicks!* i am sure it will transpire that she will be an affective admin!!!! and its' teriffic to have her abroad I mean aboard ha ha Dpbsmith (talk) 01:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  66. Support. Consider her implicitly trustworthy. Muldrake 02:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  67. Support. Great maturity in contributions. -- BD2412 talk 02:47, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  68. Support. Me too, me too! Great contributor. func(talk) 03:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  69. Support. Constructive always. Grace Note 06:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  70. Support. --Kbdank71 16:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  71. Support. Definitely a good pick, has sharp eyes for stuff that needs administration. Sarge Baldy 00:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  72. Strong Support. Back from vacation just in time. I almost missed this one. How can't I support my exceptional newcomer! utcursch | talk 06:09, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Anglius
    Is there a reason for your oppose vote? Thryduulf 05:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I would infer from the users page that they appear to be opposing on the basis of the nominees lack of religious beliefs--nixie 06:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    There are also a number of reasons why, "Thryduulf," but I thank you for your explanation, "Petaholmes." --Anglius 06:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to point out that someone's personal beliefs have zero influence on their worth as Wikipedia administrators, and votes based on (the lack of) such beliefs likewise. JRM · Talk 08:50, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
    Agreed. Anglius, I am a devout Christian, but I still voted support here. Showing bad faith to non-believers (or even people who haven't revealed their faith) is quite frankly immature and not Christian. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 10:45, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Anglius, opposing a nomination without giving reasons is not only discourteous, but it also offers the nominee no chance of redemption, as it were, because you failed to point out where this candidate was going wrong and what she might do to meet with your approval. People who vote to oppose for no apparent reason, or for reasons unrelated to a nominee's suitability for adminship, especially when support is otherwise unanimous, tend not to be taken seriously. In the interests of good relations, I'd appreciate it if you would give a brief summary of your reasons for opposing this nomination. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I apologise, gentlemen, but there is another reason why I oppose Mrs. (or Miss) Martin's nomination. The reason, which, for some people, might appear to rather petty, is that I may be slightly gynephobiac. --Anglius 18:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So because you're afraid of women, you are voting against her? You're right. That is petty, and if you don't have a specific reason to vote against Kelly in the first place besides your own personal condition, then I kindly ask that you remove your vote. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Whatever reason Anglius gives, he still has the right to post a vote here. Nobody should be asking anyone else to remove an already cast vote. It sounds samely unpolite as giving a vote without specifying any reason. Oneliner 09:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am still entitled to "vote," "Linuxbeak." --Anglius 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You may well be, "Anglius." However, I think it is worth making the observation that this is the most absurd reason for opposing an RfA I can remember coming across. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ahem. ;-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:27, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
ARRGGH! How could I forget Scott Gall?! Anyway, I am still amazed at this vote and I'm going to ask Anglius in the most polite and gentlemanly way I can manage why on earth he has adopted this admin criterion. It is possible that he's a "highly conservative helluo librorum who detests atheism, 'political correctness,' and immorality," but he could just as easily be trying to trick us all with his provocative statements. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pardon me if I am eavesdropping, sir, but I am not a "troll." --Anglius 20:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are entitled to vote alright, but casting a vote based on personal beliefs and feelings is already borderline disruptive —this is an encyclopedia project, not a forum community; in your case, these feelings and prejudices have nothing to do whatsoever with Wikipedia, so don't complain if people have trouble taking your vote seriously, or dismiss it entirely. Phils 12:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You obviously do not know what a democracy is. Or at least show that you do not know it. Votes matter, not reasons --i.e. the act of democracy is casting a vote, not giving a reason for it. (Otherwise, the election schema would be horrible). A different subject is the reasonability of a vote, but... that is talking-not-governing. I agree with you in that Angliu's reason is unreasonable, but his vote counts exactly 1: no more, no less. 212.22.33.223 08:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Who is User:pfortuny gone away).
See, though, your logic is incorrect. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not under "Wikipedia is not a democracy. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 10:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I thank you for your warning, "Phils." --Anglius 03:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Please stop writing usernames in "inverted commas". It seems incredibly patronising, and when I read it I feel it implies that you don't take the user seriously. Would you write people's names like this? Harro5 06:33, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Sir, it is because most of our 'names' are actually pseudonyms, and I do not desire to appear to be excessively casual in manner. I was not attempting to patronise. --Anglius 17:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All of you, shut the hell up and act like adults. – ugen64 20:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"I" "second" "that" "comment." Neutralitytalk 05:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Whoa. I don't. Ugen64 and Neutrality, it looks to me like the discussion was actually quite civilized, and it seems a bit arrogant to issue a blanket statement that everyone in a discussion is acting immaturely. In fact, your comment appears to me to be the most inflammatory of them all. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else, but I use a pseudonym to make myself more recognized, not less. A Google search on my real name gives 96 unique Google hits (out of 80,000+ hits), and only two of them are related to me. A Google search on my pseudonym, however, gives results that are almost entirely related to me or to the source of the name. --Carnildo 19:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I already do vandalism patrol, but that doesn't really require administrative rights (the rollback function is available by alternative means, after all, and I've been availing myself of those means for some time now). I'd also be very likely to help out with keeping up with the backlog on VFD and TFD -- which does require administrative rights. That, combined with the ability to block vandals for short periods of time, would be my most common usage of administrative rights. The other thing I might do from time to time would be page protection; I often spot edit wars brewing while doing RC patrol, and occasionally the best way to calm down an edit war is to protect the page for a time. I don't know how often I'd find myself using that power, however; there have been perhaps two instances in the past month where I've thought about protecting a page and in both cases I think I would have chosen not to had I had the choice.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I haven't contributed too many original articles to Wikipedia (there is a short list of them on my user page). The one I am probably most proud of is Fore-edge painting, which I researched and wrote because it appeared on the "most frequently requested" list on the RC page. My main contribution to Wikipedia to date, honestly, has been in the form of lots of little edits, rather than smaller numbers of large ones.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. I've found myself pulled into conflicts on a few occasions, most notably Ward Churchill, which I found myself dragged into when a friend of mine from outside Wikipedia asked me for help with the article regarding the rather extended POV battle surrounding this somewhat controversial figure. I made some mistakes while working on that article, but it was a good introduction on how the Wikipedia process works and I think I learned a lot from it, especially the importance of using talk pages, the value of accurate edit summaries, and also why sometimes it's best to step away from the article and ask someone else to take a look at it instead. (I also think the article is doing much better now than before, although I don't think I deserve much of the credit for that.)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Kelly_Martin_438c.html"