User:Kelly Martin/Response to Durin

I'd like to respond to Durin's allegations:

Kelly blocks users without warning: [1]-[2] (for a week, for vandalism, first ever block for the user),
- This was a block of a user who uploaded an image of a ferret dressed up as Adolph Hitler (probably done with Photoshop) and plastered it on several pages. I stand by the appropriateness of this block.

[3]-[4] (for a week; user was testing response time of RC patrollers, IP had never been blocked before, 24 hours would have done fine).
- This editor was deliberately vandalizing pages to disrupt Wikipedia. I stand by the appropriateness of this block.

These blocks are, strictly speaking, not outside of Wikipedia policy, but seem rather harsh and too quick.
- Yes, when I was doing RC patrol I tended to try to deal with vandalism as quickly as possible. This is generally regarded as a virtue in RC patrollers.

Kelly also blocked an IP indefinitely ([5]) which violated blocking policy, and was undone a day later by another admin.
- This IP is the IP of Jeff Merkey, who has repeatedly threatened Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikipedia with lawsuits. He was blocked indefinitely consistent with the "no legal threats" policy. I stand by this block. The editor who reverted it was not familiar with the circumstances.

Meanwhile, she's admonished other admins for inappropriate use of blocking ([6], [7]).
- Yes, I take abuses of power by other sysops seriously. I have become more conservative in what I consider tolerable blocking over the past month or so, as the problem of newbie biting became more evident to me as I became more involved in dispute resolution. Perhaps I should refrain from updating my opinions in light of new evidence or changing conditions?

I've observed a behavior that, lacking a better description, almost seems like "do as I say not as I do". First, Kelly chastises others for ignoring WP:AGF ([8]). In another edit, she infers that an editor must earn good faith before it is given ([9]).
- This compares apples to oranges. The situation with Radiant! involves an editor (Tony Sidaway) with a long history of positive involvement in Wikipedia. The situation with TheChief involves an editor with a highly credible allegation (which ultimately appears to have been incorrect) of sockpuppetry combined with suspicious behavior in support of a known problem user (Agriculture). Tony is entited to an assumption of good faith; TheChief lost it through suspicious conduct.

Second, Kelly has requested editors refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries ([10], [11]). In the edit summary to her nonsense tagging of Wapol ([12]), Kelly says "Yeah, right". This seems mildly contradictory.
- "Yeah, right"? This article alleged that a historic figure exploded after eating a poisoned mushroom. This is an extremely improbable turn of events, and combined with several other improbables in the article led me to conclude that it was fiction. (I was not aware that the article described a plot summary of an anime; but then again, it should have bloody well said so.)

Third, She encourages users to use edit summaries on all edits ([13], [14]). Also, in her stated standards for adminship she says "Failure to use edit summaries reliably is a negative factor, however". Kelly's use of edit summaries over her last 500 edits is 64%. Taken in isolation, these aren't significant. Taken together, I see a troubling pattern.
- I've already responded to this in the main discussion. I also take issue with the use of this sort of mindless abuse of statistics; perhaps you should exclude from your computation edits not to the main article space. Gmaxwell reports that out of 1243 article space edits since I was promoted to admin, and excluding uses of one-click rollback, only 13 lack edit summaries, a quite respectable rate of 98.96%.

Kelly had a presumption of guilt on the part of an editor after administrators had cleared the editor of suspicion of being a sockpuppet ([15]). This seems to violate WP:AGF.
- TheChief has never been "cleared" of that suspicion. I am one of the "administrators" involved in determining that suspicion existed and I am probably more aware of the evidence supporting the allegation than most other editors. On a more thorough review of the evidence I am not convinced that TheChief is Agriculture, nor am I convinced that he is not. However, since neither editor has ever been accused of anything more than mild disruption, nothing more than routine monitoring is appropriate.

Odd unexplained deletion of an editor's comment on another editor's talk page ([16])
- I don't recall this edit well enough to explain why I did it. However, Mike Halterman thanked me for removing it earlier today. As the edit in question was in the form of a personal attack, and that the editor in question is known to me to be engaged in repeated personal attacks against Wikipedians who disagree with his "conservative" agenda (see also m:Association of Moral Wikipedians), I probably reverted it as an application of the "remove personal attacks" policy.

This edit removed substantial material from an article talk page, and not entirely wholesale. One user's comments were changed by this edit, and many were deleted as "useless" ([17]).
- This edit was in May of 2005. I don't recall why I did it. I have in excess of 6000 edits and certainly do not remember all of them. And, yes, I've made not a few reverts in error during my months on RC patrol.

Spent a maximum of two minutes considering an article on Wapol and then applied a {{nonsense}} tag ([18]). Quick google test on "King Wapol" returns 193 hits. Though the original edits Kelly marked as nonsense were not the best Wikipedia's ever seen, the placement of the nonsense tag, especially after just two minutes of consideration, seems capricious.
- This was discussed above. People who write summaries of fictional plots without labeling them as such really have no expectation that they won't be deleted as apparent garbage. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am also troubled by this candidate's refusal ([19]) to contribute to an RfC she is party to where her actions as an administrator are being questioned. This candidate is a member of ArbCom. To not make even a slight statement of case on that RfC seems to show disdain for process, even if the bringer of the RfC was perhaps out of line.
- I did not comment precisely because I am a member of the Arbitration Committee. A Request for Arbitration regarding Silverback is currently pending before the Arbitration Committee; for me to involve myself in an RfC (and a terribly badly conducted one, at that) at the same time would be an obvious conflict of interest.

I have seen signs of incivility in this candidate. This edit [20] (against an editor of more than 6000 edits) in particular troubles me and this edit [21] (against an editor of more than 3000 edits) seems fairly incivil as well.
- I freely admit to being direct and sometimes brutally honest, to the point that those who prefer a "softer" touch (especially from a woman) may feel that I am being incivil. I do this in part because I find that people are more likely to pay attention to me that way; otherwise, I get ignored. This is in no small part a response to sexism. Being a woman in a highly technical field is hard enough as it is.

I'd also like to add that if out of my 6000+ edits, this is the worst Durin can find, I'd say I'm doing really rather well.