Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Kelly Martin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


[edit] Kelly Martin

Final (52/19/4) ended 04:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin (talk · contribs) – I've been mulling the idea of running for bureaucrat for ages now; the various discussions on how RfA is broken and various suggestions made to fix it have suggested to me that we are going to need more bureaucrats because the decisions that bureaucrats will be needing to make are going to get more complicated and more frequent. I think I'd be wasting my time saying much more about myself; by now I think I'm pretty well known around here. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This RfB is withdrawn; the impact of ongoing slanders by another editor have made it unlikely to succeed. The issue of these slanders will be dealt with more fully in an Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support Great admin, I certainly trust her with the ability to set +sysop. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support we need some more bureaucrats, and Kelly's on my list. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support; obviously, Jimbo realized that Kelly was a trusted and valued member of the community when nominating her for the Arbitration Committee. I support her fully. Ral315 (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support; hard to find a better candidate, and I think we could use a couple more bureaucrats. Antandrus (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. (2nd Edit conflict) Strong support, obviously trusted by the community as evidenced by her appointment to the Arbcom by Jimbo. Alphax τεχ 04:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support (after edit conflict) - I have seen nothing but good work from this admin, and good use of admin powers. I agree that more bureaucrats will be needed to keep up with Wikipedia's growth. BD2412 T 04:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. I support Miss Kelly. Acetic'Acid 05:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Support. As a seasoned admin and an experienced member of ArbCom, she'll bring both fairness and authority to this highly-visible position. And if we move towards the solution I outlined here, we need more bureaucrats, and exactly the type Kelly is. Owen× ☎ 05:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Changed to Neutral, see below. Owen× ☎ 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support and how could I not? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, I don't think that she will be a rouge bureaucrat and not promote (or promote) an admin in cases where it contradicts the consensus reached on the RfB. Titoxd(?!?) 05:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support 100%, Take it from the Marine, we can't go wrong with Kelly. Tony the Marine 06:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. On Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs - David Gerard 11:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support She fully deserves these powers. I have total trust in her having both arbitrator duties, and bureaucrat duties. TDS (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Utmost support. There is absolutely no conflict of interest between being able to set sysop status and being an arbitrator. Kelly is one of the best there is; a rejection here would say more about the process and the oppose voters, IMHO, than about her. Ambi 16:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Tony SidawayTalk 16:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC) One of our best administrators, one of our best minds.
    SupportDespite failing to act a couple times when she should have during admin abuses, I've no reason to believe she wouldn't resolve votes in good faith.--Silverback 16:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Change to oppose. I'd been willing to forgive her treatment of me, but the documentation below makes me realize she has been treating others that way too.--Silverback 19:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Competent people naturally find themselves in positions of power. How, precisely, will being a bureaucrat and ao arbcom at the same time be any more damaging or cabal-like than being an admin and on arbcom? Bureaucrats basically have one more power- in the area of adminship. I fail to find the oppose voter's reasoning convincing enough to vote against a competent and professional candidate.--Scïmïłar parley 16:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, absolutely. I'm all in favor of a little well-placed paranoia, but suggesting that we are on the verge of a problem with power consolidation is an argument that doesn't make sense to me. After all, Jimbo and the board have virtually unlimited power here, as does Tim. Further, that argument presupposes a future that doesn't exist. Future policy can be made to cover such concerns when it becomes a problem, or Wikipedia will fork; that's the power of open source licenses. The GFDL keeps the real power in the hands of the end users, regardless of how any "cabal" tries to grab it. Unfocused 17:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. I don't think myself guilty of hyperbole when I say that Kelly is one of the very best Wikipedians. I trust her a long, long way. [[Sam Korn]] 17:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support FireFox 18:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Supprt. --Golbez 19:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. I am familiar with Kelly's history and feel that she is capable of representing us very well as a bureaucrat. I have independently come to the conclusion that RFA requires bureaucrats who are much more than vote talliers, so her self-nomination is a breath of fresh air. silsor 20:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Overwrought, hysterical support, because she deserves it and would be a great bureaucrat, end of story. Babajobu 20:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Mild support strong support for the candidate, but fairly lukewarm (although not paranoid) suport for consolidations of power --Doc ask? 20:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Strong support. Kelly's calm head, trustworthiness, cutting insight, and eloquence in her reasonings made her a nearly ideal choice for arbcom and just alike they make her an ideal prospect for bureaucratship. Although there are some roles on Wikipedia which when paired will lead to likely conflicts of interest, I do not think that bureaucratship/arbcom is one of them. Should any such situation arise, I trust Kelly Martin to recuse herself, just as she already must do for conflicts of interest that happen with basic adminship and arbcom, and just as any other bureaucrat. Some of the oppose responses below using Kelly's own words amuse me, because most of her self critical comments are because she has set a very high standard for herself and because she is fairly humble. To me these remarks just further support my position, but her contribution list speaks for itself. I'm thrilled that she is willing to step up to the attitional challenges of this new role. --Gmaxwell 20:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. I'm slightly leery at calling for more power to the 'Crats and then wanting to become one, but apart from that I see no reason why Kelly shouldn't be one. At all. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support Meets the requirements as far as I am concerned. MONGO 21:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support --Tabor 23:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support she has shown herself to be a good editor, a good admin, and a good arbitrator and I believe her when she says that she can still make time for beaurucratic duties, I also trust that she would do a good job as a beaurucrat... MOOO!!!! Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support, per Jtkiefer.--Sean|Black 01:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 02:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Last ever edit Support --JAranda | watz sup 03:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Robert T | @ | C 03:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Changed to support. IRC conversation with Kelly and other related discussions leads me to change my vote from neutral to support. Good going. Linuxbeak | Talk 03:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Strong support per everyone above. FCYTravis 04:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. Everything I have seen of her participation in Wikipedia convinces me that she is more than up to the task. Without reservations, —Morven 07:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support because she appears to have a daughter. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support --FoeNyx 08:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support - due to her record as an Admin and an arbitrator and her general contribution to the project. Capitalistroadster 08:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. Durin raises a number of interesting points (see "Oppose" below). Having read his list and Kelly's answers, I can hardly avoid the conclusion that even if Kelly's actions could be construed to constitute policy violations (which I doubt) they are highly insignificant. If these are all that a meticulous critic can find, I'd be happy to see more admins and/or bureaucrats with such a record. We are here to create an encyclopedia, not to go to extremes of bureaucratic nitpicking. Kosebamse 08:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support whole-heartedly. Rama 08:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support 172 | Talk 10:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support, very competent and highly dedicated to the project. Kirill Lokshin 12:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. JuntungWu 12:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support, would make a good bureaucrat. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. jredmond 16:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. GraemeL (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support - although not having interacted much with her personally, I've heard a lot about her and see no reason to believe that she would abuse the position. --Celestianpower háblame 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  47. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  48. Enthusiastic Support. Mike H (Talking is hot) 01:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support Kelly can be trusted. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 01:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  50. Conditional Support, Kelly Martin must immitate a cat for this vote to take effect ;). Seriously speaking, she is one person I cant imagine abusing power. Hence no reason why not. --Cool Cat Talk 01:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support Smart and dedicated member, willing to do the right thing. The additional power at issue here is pretty limited and is exercised under a great deal of scrutiny regardless of the bureaucrat; the room for abuse is pretty limited. Long term, if the consolidation of power becomes an issue it will have to be answered globally and not in the context of one person. Rx StrangeLove 06:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support - Kelly is blunt and to the point. She would have no problem with failing RFAs that should be failed, and defending her position when abused for doing the right thing. (Among other things!) --Phroziac(talk) 04:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose As "expectation for bureaucratship is higher than for admin", and this user seems prone to surface reading of events, as well as not respond positively to attempts to engage. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, has only been an admin for 5 months. Also from your user page These days, my contributions are infrequent and unpredictable, especially as my arbitration duties are likely to consume most of my available time., given that your time is limited by arbcom how are you going to be effective as a b'crat?--nixie 04:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Bureaucrat is a serious responsibility but not one which requires a great deal of time, unlike Arbitrator, which is an endless time suck. I can easily take a few minutes out of my day to take care of bureaucratic responsibilities without noticeably compromising my obligations as an Arbitrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Kelly's humbleness with respect to her involvement is somewhat misleading. In the timespan since her adminship she has made over 3000 edits, which is more than a substantial majority of other admins during the same timespan. --Gmaxwell 21:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Kelly is an excellent contributor who's perfectly qualified for bureaucratship, but on principle, I don't think Arbcom members should have bureaucrat or higher privileges on Wikipedia on the principle of not consolidating power in the hands of a few. I want to make it clear that I don't think Kelly would ever abuse this power or that the power of a combined bureaucrat/arbitrator is really that much, but for something as important as preventing the rise of a genuine, no-foolin' cabal, we need to draw the line a great distance before where it would actually be a problem. If and when Kelly's arbcom term expires I will be glad to support and even nominate as she is one of the single best Wikipedians I have ever known of. — Phil Welch 04:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    #REDIRECT [[User:Raul654]] Redwolf24 (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Please see my explanation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Kelly Martin. I think the issue I'm raising here deserves ample discussion on its own, separate from other issues in this RfB. — Phil Welch 05:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose regardless of her opposition to my RFA above, do we really need another bureaucrat?  ALKIVAR™ 05:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Phil Welch.  Grue  05:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Kelly's suggestion on RFA talk is to turn the bureaucrats into a committee that judges admin candidates on their merit, rather than on voting, using processes analogous to what the ArbCom does. While that sounds like a good idea in principle, I would strongly object to anybody being on both the ArbCom and the BuroCom if it were implemented. And if it were not implemented, I don't really see why we need another 'crat at the moment. As a side point, Kelly has a tendency of snapping at users and sometimes jumps to a harsh conclusion too quickly. Radiant_>|< 11:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Supporters are saying that because she was appointed to a committee she should have this power as well. That is a non sequitur; the two are separate. The case has not been made, in my view. No Account 16:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    I would suggest that you judge the merits of the candidate not of her supporters. Moreover, the question of possible conflicts of interests has been sensibly discussed and your representation of that discussion is quite off the mark. Kosebamse 09:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: too often jumps to conclusions and too often brusque in dealings with others -- not qualities consistent with this job. CDThieme 19:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: I am concerned about a number of issues regarding this candidate. Forgive me for being wordy in the following. I've conducted a careful review of this candidate over a couple of hours to arrive at my decision. I would like to say upfront that Kelly and I had a serious disagreement recently. You can read about this disagreement if you like ([1], [2]). However, I would like to make it clear that I tried very hard to bring a clean slate to the consideration of this candidate, without a predisposition to vote against her. Here are my findings with respect to this candidate:
    • Kelly blocks users without warning: [3]-[4] (for a week, for vandalism, first ever block for the user), [5]-[6] (for a week; user was testing response time of RC patrollers, IP had never been blocked before, 24 hours would have done fine). These blocks are, strictly speaking, not outside of Wikipedia policy, but seem rather harsh and too quick. Kelly also blocked an IP indefinitely ([7]) which violated blocking policy, and was undone a day later by another admin. Meanwhile, she's admonished other admins for inappropriate use of blocking ([8], [9]).
    • 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 ([10]). In another edit, she infers that an editor must earn good faith before it is given ([11]). Second, Kelly has requested editors refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries ([12], [13]). In the edit summary to her nonsense tagging of Wapol ([14]), Kelly says "Yeah, right". This seems mildly contradictory. Third, She encourages users to use edit summaries on all edits ([15], [16]). 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.
    • Kelly had a presumption of guilt on the part of an editor after administrators had cleared the editor of suspicion of being a sockpuppet ([17]). This seems to violate WP:AGF.
    • I am a bit troubled by some edits:
      • Odd unexplained deletion of an editor's comment on another editor's talk page ([18])
      • 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" ([19]).
      • Spent a maximum of two minutes considering an article on Wapol and then applied a {{nonsense}} tag ([20]). 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.
    • I am also troubled by this candidate's refusal ([21]) 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 have seen signs of incivility in this candidate. This edit [22] (against an editor of more than 6000 edits) in particular troubles me and this edit [23] (against an editor of more than 3000 edits) seems fairly incivil as well.
    • I do not see there being a significant reason to oppose based on a notional conflict of being on ArbCom and a bureaucrat; the two areas of responsibility have no overlap. However, I am concerned about the tasking level this candidate is wanting to assume. ArbCom is a backlogged process. WP:RFA is not. Why the desire to take on additional responsibilities for an area that is not backlogged when the candidate is already involved in a backlogged process? Candidates notes that Raul654 is also on ArbCom. Since his election to ArbCom, he's closed roughly 5% of RfAs. Thus, if the candidate were a bureaucrat too, she'd conceivably close 5%? Where's the need? I also note that this candidate was appointed to a temporary posting on ArbCom on October 11. This temporary posting expires at the end of this year. I think the candidate should serve out their appointed term before taking on bureaucrat responsibilities.
    • Also, the candidate herself states she's an infrequent participant at RfA ([24]). If the candidate has infrequent interest in the RfA process, why the desire to be a bureaucrat?
    • With all the above in mind, I do not feel that I can in good conscience support this candidate to be a bureaucrat. Thank you for listening. Again, my apologies for the long description of my opposition. I wanted to make it clear what my basis for this opposition was, rather than there being a presumptive dismisal of my vote because of an earlier disagreement with Kelly. --Durin 19:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Impressive. I myself had forgotten about quite a few of those edits, since many of them were six months or more ago, and therefore predate my adminship. Strangely, nobody raised any of them in my RfA. As to my lack of edit summaries: I tend not to bother using edit summaries on edits of ArbCom-related pages; neither do many of my fellow Arbitrators. Edits to ArbCom-related pages are a substantial portion of my editing activity lately. This really demonstrates why an overly fiddly examination of statistics is not a good measure of a candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I made 22 cites of your contributions to Wikipedia. Only 6 predated your adminship (active as of June 15, 2005). Bureaucrats have typically undergone more scrutiny in RfB than admins in RfA. I do not see anything improper in bringing up behavior across a spectrum, including a small subset (if appropriate and not previously addressed) from before adminship. --Durin 20:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    I would strongly encourage anyone who is considering factoring the above into their decision to actually read the provided difflinks. I read every one of them, in the vast majority of the cases I did not find Kelly's response to be inappropriate in the slightest and in none was her response inexcusable. I believe that other editors not under the influence of dispute goggles will see things in much the same way I have and would feel the above text substantially mischaracterizes many of the situations, even though it was obviously written with the best intentions. --Gmaxwell 21:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    I agree that individuals read the diffs for themselves. I've read them. I'm not involved in any disputes with these parties. I think impugning them as dishonest goes too far. It's probably best to let participants decide for themselves. --Tabor 21:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (Struck because it was in response to a comment that has now been changed --Tabor 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC))
    • Regardless of whether Kelly's behavior in any of these diffs was 'excusable' or not, I would like to hear her at least address some of the issues, rather than labeling them all as "not a good measure of a candidate". Radiant_>|< 23:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    "none was ... inexcusable", I doubt any of the rest of us could meet that lofty standard.--Silverback 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have written an item-by-item response to Durin's allegations on a page in my user space. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I note that in your response to Durin's documentation of your failure to respond to my RfC you stated:
    "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."
    • You rather judicial conflict of interest excuse is belied by your injudicious prejudging and personal attack of the arbitration case, quoted here:
    "That is not an RfC, it's a rant by a known troublemaker. I see no reason to participate in such a clearly broken process. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)"
    • Perhaps a more judicious response, given how you feel, would have been to recuse from the arbitration case, and then participate or not in the reform minded RfC. You have also attacked Durin accusing him of slander, but the interpretation of events he documented overall, is at least as valid as yours and certainly doesn't rise to the level slander and an quick jump to arbitration, however, unpleasant it may have been for you, that he called attention to them. However, I do appreciate your response, especially your "I freely admit to being direct and sometimes brutally honest" apologia for attacking people as childish or bloodthirsty. That doesn't seem much different from my noting certain immoral or abusive behavior might carry over into someones personal life. I think I can use it. -- thanx, --Silverback 14:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Changed from support, see my explanation there.--Silverback 19:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. oppose because of what durin said Yuckfoo 00:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    But what do you think? silsor 02:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Are you going to ask that of numbers 19, 20, 27, 29, 30, 31, and 32 in "support" as well? (That's not a comment on this RfB, but on the incredible rarity of a need to defend a "support" vote while voting "oppose" often brings down the fire.)
    brenneman(t)(c) 03:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    I thought that issue was already described on Wikipedia:Sheep vote. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Phil Welch and also because of questionable admin behaviors and a very curt reply to my serious proposals to improve Arbcom. Admins/Arbs are held to very high standard regarding WP:CIVIL Klonimus 06:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, seems a nice enough person, but has made a number of disturbing statements regarding policy suggestive of a concentration of the reigns of power. Seemingly possesses negative aspects attributed to "old-timers", despite a relatively short tenure. Has been short w silverback, and aquired some other distressing criticism among the oppose votes. Sam Spade 12:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose I havne't seen any evidence of a need for more buracrats. Interactions with this user have given ther impression that the user wants there to be a ruleing clique.Geni 13:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose (vote withdrawn; 18:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)) I object to Kelly using her RfB as a way to prove a point. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think that this is a fair characterization of what I'm doing by not withdrawing this RfB. I ran for bureaucrat because I believe that I'd be a capable and competent bureaucrat and I believe there is just cause to believe that we need more bureaucrats. I elected not to withdraw it not to "prove a point", but rather to ensure that some benefit accrues to Wikipedia from this RfB. (Frankly, I think WP:POINT is one of our most frequently incorrectly cited, and incorrectly applied, policies.) There is, of course, still some chance that this RfB will pass (although as I recall the standard of consensus for RfBs is 90%, which would require, at this point, something like 135 supports, a number I feel I am unlikely to reach, especially since I am unwilling to go out and stump for votes). If this RfB is to be considered "disruptive" (and, to be honest, I don't), I think the onus for causing that disruption rightfully falls on those who disrupt RfA/RfB to serve personal ends not fairly related to selecting qualified candidates, and not on myself for believing that I am a qualified candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    You yourself said you are leaving it going to "provide an object lesson as to how badly broken RfA/RfB are". If the reason you have not withdrawn it is because you want to highlight the problems with RFA/RFB, I think that is indeed "proving a point". The first section of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point says, in crystal-clear terms, "State your point; don't prove it experimentally". I am offended that you would attempt to criticise my vote by implying that I am applying it incorrectly. I thought you were a great member of the community and a good contributor to Wikipedia; my respect for you has now dramatically fallen. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity - is there anywhere defining what level the "consensus" bar for bureaucratship is set? A quick look around showed nothing. —Morven 02:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    Following Kelly's withdrawal of her earlier comments, I am no longer opposing. I'm also glad for the discussion we had together about it. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Strong Oppose I have seen this editor behave in ways I feel unbecoming to the position she already holds at ArbCom, and I don't see a need for more bureaucrats in any case. Xoloz 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Weak Oppose, on behalf of my brother who likes voting for this crap. She's a great user, but I have to oppose per others. RobertRay 20:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose due to history of incivility and heavy handedness towards others. Silensor 22:15, 8 November 2005
  18. Oppose per Radiant. Also, I think that citing the need for new bureaucrats that will arise from a policy she intends to implement as a bureaucrat is a bit circular looking. She's instrumental to the project, but this doesn't sit perfectly in my stomach. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. I find Durin's research sufficiently unsettling to have my doubts. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    Filiocht, I would very much to discuss this issue with you. Did you look at my response to Durin? (This is not an attempt to change your vote; it is an attempt on my part to understand what part of Durin's allegations you find unsettling.) Kelly Martin (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, I read your responses and found some of them convincing, others not so. If you must know, the clincher was when you accused your critics of sexism, in a kind of sub-genre of Godwin's law. Until that moment, I hadn't even considered your gender, but I felt that I could not really have confidence in a 'crat who would play that kind of card in open debate. Sorry. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Generally agree with opposing comments above. Bureaucratship is an executive/administrative position, and Arbitratorship a judiciary one. I believe in the separation of powers as an effective way to prevent accidental tyranny. Ingoolemo talk 07:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    And for those interested, I do think that Raul should step aside as a Bureaucrat for the duration of his term as an Arbitrator. Ingoolemo talk 11:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Neutral, leaning towards support. Kelly is a good administrator, and she is also human. Like myself, she can get flustered at times. I do not think that should be a reason not to support her. Also, I disagree with anyone who votes oppose with the reason "we don't need more bureaucrats". That's a foolish reason to oppose, IMHO. What's wrong with more bureaucrats? However, the reason why I personally am casting a neutral vote is because Kelly has indicated that she was going to remove her self-nom because it was looking like it was going to fail, and thus how "RfA and RfB" are broken. I do not wish to take any sides with something like that. Kelly, I personally trust you and I think you would make a fine bureaucrat, but now that you have announced that you have resigned hope for a successful nomination I can't justify a stance. Take your RfB as a way to see what people have issues with, and don't beat yourself up for them. Instead, fix them! I bet that if you take all of the comments to heart and apply them, you will have a successful RfB. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Weak Neutral. I normally oppose self noms, but I normally support bureaucratorships since I believe as we get more and more admin candidates, we'll need more bureaucrats. Kelly is definately one of the most knowledgable people on Wikipedia regarding Wikipedia itself, but I were asked "Can you trust Kelly's ability to make decisions?", my answer right now would be "I don't know" from what I've seen of Kelly so far in random conversations here and there. However, I could be swayed very easily either way, Kelly's an asset to Wikipedia, I'm just not convinced on whether bureaucratorship would reduce or enhance that. Karmafist 00:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Karmafist, my understanding is that RfBs are always self-noms. If true, then I think RfBs should be excluded from your "no self-noms" philosophy. Babajobu 02:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Baba, you'll have to show me that policy. Right now, there's a fairly good reason that RfAs and RfBs are on the same page -- they're basically the same thing, except for a slightly more powerful position with different consensus rules. Karmafist 22:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    WP:RFA#Requests for bureaucratship reads, "The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Continued here to save space.
  3. Changed to Neutral. Not long ago, Durin said that most voters on RfA don't spend enough time reviewing the candidate's history before they vote. This was certainly the case with my initial vote on this RfB. On one hand, I admire Kelly's peacekeeping abilities; the way she gets opponents to see each other's point of view, the calming effect her words have on those involved in edit wars. But on the other hand, I am troubled by her occasional temperamental, unpredictable overreaction to what I see as minor infractions (or even to acts in good faith). Considering that I am one of the proponents of giving bureaucrats more powers, these incidents, rare as they may be, make me nervous enough to change my vote to Neutral. Owen× ☎ 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. I wonder how she’ll find the time to assume her Administrator, Arbitrator and bureaucrat role. Also, Radiant raises important issues. I will also comment though, regarding her quick to judge and surface reading. While from the few cases I have seen her in action, sometimes she seems to be kick to judge, but she also has shown, that she is capable of revising a previous erroneous judgement, and that is a plus. Quick to judge and deciding to only read the surface is not enough evidences of inability to judge, it could simply be laziness. On the other hand, being ready to revise a previous too early decision, is indicative that someone is ready to revise when she previously took a bad decision. Fadix 02:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • More of a question. There is a perceived lack of civility in some nominations, I think many people would agree that WP:RFA can be overly contentious sometimes. What role, if any, do you think bureaucrats have in keeping the nominations civil and non-disruptive? this is with the understanding that most go without any problems. Rx StrangeLove 05:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Bureaucrats are selected to determine if consensus to promote exists at the conclusion of an RfA (and to change usernames, if the devs ever reinstate that tool). I don't see bureaucrats as having any special role in enforcing WP:CIVIL and other conduct policies in RfA; that responsibility lies with the community through our existing dispute resolution process and in other pertinent policies (such as remove personal attacks, which is controversial). In the past, when people have been persistently uncivil in RfA we have used the standard RfC process; I am yet to be convinced that there is a reason why this should change. I do believe that editors (whether or not bureaucrats) can remove bad faith nominations and even bad faith votes -- but I would caution all editors to be extremely cautious in determining what a "bad faith nomination" or especially "bad faith vote" is. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going to withdraw this RfB when it became apparent that it would fail. But at this point I intend to leave it going to provide an object lesson as to how badly broken RfA/RfB are. Please, continue to rip me to shreds, people, I'm enjoying it. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Reminds me of a typical heated, emotionally-flared campaign for President of the United States... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    ... in a sense that both the position of the President of the United States and the position of a Wikipedia bureaucrat were orignally designed to be "no big deal" admin jobs. But because their actions affect a whole lot of people, campaigns have become rather heated... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, what? I just said that you "sometimes jump to a harsh conclusion too quickly". If you consider that comment to be "ripping you to shreds" then you have just proven my point. Radiant_>|< 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The politics here astounds me. There is a simple question: is Kelly Martin competent to handle bureaucratic duties? That's all we have to answer, by means of oppose or support votes. And for those of you worried about consolidation of power- I don't know if you've noticed or not, but Jimbo Wales still has ultimate authority here on Wikipedia. That means that he can do whatever he want, for whatever reason he wants to. In other words, consolidation of power is already present, and voting based on that fear won't change the facts.--Scïmïłar parley 21:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Quick! Somebody open up an RfC on this Jimbo person! ;-) Karmafist 00:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the question could be better phrased as "should Kelly Martin be given bureaucrat authority at this point in time?". While that's quite distinct from the question "is Kelly a model Wikipedian and a good person" (thus making, say, most of Durin's criticisms not that pertinent in my view), there's more to it than whether Kelly is competent. As for consolidation of power, simply because consolidation of power exists doesn't mean we should perpetuate it. Consolidation of power is something we're trying to move away from, not towards, and my understanding is that even Jimbo is trying to do this by minimizing his own role in Wikipedia decisions. — Phil Welch 00:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • On Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs. The reason for this is that people tend to like assurance that people of proven commitment and competence are doing the jobs. So you'll get all admins on the arbcom even though that's not a requirement, bureaucrats on arbcom, arbitrators running as bureaucrat, etc. And that's fine because this is a project to write an encyclopedia, not an Internet government - David Gerard 15:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The above comment was accidentally removed by TDS when voting - David Gerard 09:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, from many of the comments and votes above, it feels like this is a political campaign for an Internet government position... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. On the talk page, Kelly classifies all oppose votes that aren't about "we don't need more bureaucrats" or "arbs shouldn't be crats" simply as "people who don't like her". I find this inability to distinguish honest criticism from personal issues disturbing, not to mention immature. Radiant_>|< 10:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd have to agree. Generally speaking, it's better not to respond to oppose votes if you put your name forward for something, and it's always better not to take these things personally. In those cases where personal abuse does enter intoi the voting process, it reflects badly on the abuser, not the candidate. In those cases where the candidate conflates valid opposition with personal abuse, it reflects badly on them. Either way, not responding is the best policy. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • This RfB was dead in the water in the first day, shortly after Durin initiated his series of attacks on my character. I see no reason why I can't discuss issues that have arisen out of it before waiting for it to actually end. Furthermore, I am about to file an RfC against Durin based on the original incident which has led him to perpetuate the slanders against me that he did in this RfB. What truly concerns me is the number of people who have bought into his slander without investigating the circumstances from which his claims arise. This is why I will be filing the RfC. Durin has made it clear that he won't leave me alone until I capitulate to him. This RfB is terminated. I won't have Durin continue to use it as a vehicle to slander me further. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. I have not been excessively active in RfA of late but I understand the concept of consensus. For the purpose of RfA, it is generally accepted that a 80-20 margin is considered "rough consensus"; in cases that are near the 80% support margin the bureaucrat is expected to use her judgment to decide whether or not consensus has been reached. In close cases, I am likely to give votes which express a particular reason for supporting or opposing a candidate more weight than those that merely state unqualified support or opposition.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. In any close decision I would, of course, explain my reasoning on the RfA talk page. If I was in any doubt as to my decision, I would, of course, consult with other bureaucrats and with other trusted individuals in the community.
3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. It's hard to remain ignorant of policy long when one serves on the Arbitration Committee, and I have stayed involved in the policy shaping process for most of the last several months, often to the point that I don't do much else. I'm not aware of any credible claims of unfairness against me. I am well known throughout the community (and even, I am told, over on the German Wikipedia) and quite willing to stand on my reputation in this regard.
4. You recently stated that you were in favor of prohibiting self-nominations for adminship. [25] Since you nominated yourself here, what do you feel is different about bureaucratship nominations? Or has your view on self-nominations changed?
A. I self-nommed because I was informed that it is traditional for bureaucrats to self-nom. I don't particularly agree with this, but it is apparently the way things work. My disapproval of self-noms isn't that strong, and is not shared by very many others, so I don't make a big deal of it. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:RFA#Requests for bureaucratship reads, "The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
... which isn't very clear, because all nominations (RfA or RfB) are by request. That's what a nomination is-- a request for candidacy. --Tabor 05:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.