Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Standard questions?

Does the nominee intend to answer the standard questions? Or ought more specific and relevant questions to be devised? I think the community would, and I certainly would, want to hear how the nominee intends to act if she is given the mop. Sam Blacketer 13:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she does. Melsaran (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
She should answer the questions.Rlevse 14:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Our friends at Wikipedia Review are already discussing this RFA, and have made a very valid point: "everybody already knows the answers to those anyway...". Kelly is perfectly capable of writing tick-box answers to the standard questions, but what would be the point? Moreschi Talk 14:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So those of us not familiar with her or the "Giano kerfuffle" would know where she's coming from. They are standard questions and there's no reason for her not to answer them. Without the answers, you're asking the rest of us to take the nom's word on her behalf and simply isn't right. Also, where is this "wikepedia review" taking place?--and I don't mean the "optional thread" currently going on. Rlevse 14:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Here [1]. You have a few minutes to click this before my comment is removed and I am banned, I suppose. 86.138.190.45 14:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You can ask your own questions, and Kelly will answer those. What's wrong with just going back through Kelly's contributions and finding out for yourself? Also, you have my word of honour as an English gentleman that my nomination contains nothing misleading. Kelly knows enough not to delete the main page or block Jimbo (tempting as that latter option is at times). Enough is known about Kelly, and plenty is on record, to make the questions superfluous. Moreschi Talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to dig through her contribs, just as I don't have to for other noms. Her refusing to answer the standard questions indicates she thinks she's special and the rules don't apply to her, something I never want to see in an admin. And whatever she wrote on her first nom is way outdated now as much has occurred since then. Rlevse 14:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you commenting at RFA if you can't be bothered to look at people's contribs? 86.138.190.45 14:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
WTF? You mean you don't bother looking at contributions before participating at RFA? God help us...Also, there is a precedent for this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss. In this case, I suspect it's a case not of Kelly thinking she is superior, but that she heavily dislikes the questions, which are (in all honesty) a tad banal. I, for one, highly suspect that I copied-and-pasted mine from someone else's RFA...kind of indicative, huh? Moreschi Talk 14:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The rules? AFAIK, the questions are optional, so no "rules" apply here. And you say you "shouldn't have to dig through her contribs"? If you support or oppose an RFA, it is expected that you look at the candidate's edits to determine whether they are suitable. Melsaran (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. I do look at them, I'm saying I should have the choice to and not be forced to rely on the nominators for verbiage. I want to her when the nominee has to say on a standard set of questions. sorry for the confusion.Rlevse 14:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The three standard questions don't say anything about being optional, only the additional ones people add.Rlevse 14:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are completely optional: "It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants" - see the word optional'? Followed by the questions? Yes, they are optional. They are also, IMO, meaningless, and so any answers Kelly gives would also be meaningless, and it is not in Kelly's habit to say meaningless things. Contributions speak far louder than words. Moreschi Talk 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. IMO it would be a bit ridiculous for Kelly to have to answer the questions in a fashion similar to all the other admin-wannabes who learn policies by rote. We've already seen what she does with the tools. 86.138.190.45 14:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If they're meaningless, why are they there? So now we have two people that refuse to answer them. That's what you'd call a trend and consensus, so let's just get rid of the questions. IP-why are you hiding behind an IP? Rlevse 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
They're optional - you may wish to answer them, that's all. Removing them wouldn't be a particularly bad idea, actually. Melsaran (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that's something I can agree with here! But in the meantime,... I'm taking a break from this thread now, let the firworks continue-;) Rlevse 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not? That aside, the questions are there because of enwiki's sheer bulk causing social inertia, that is, you can't get anything, no matter how broken, changed. I can give you nice breakdown what the questions actually mean, though...

  • The first one is walking the fine line between looking too eager to use admin tools, and not having any clue what admin tools are used for.
  • The second is a chance to demonstrate calculated humility.
  • The third is an opportunity to gain an unmerited reputation for candour.

That's all they are. Moreschi Talk 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I know.Rlevse
IP is behind an IP because he posted a WR link and doesn't want his ass bannzored, I imagine. I don't call 2 people refusing to answer the questions consensus at all, merely personal opinion. I suppose you may let the candidates answers to questions, or lack thereof, influence your opinion. Although, frankly, I neither review contributions minutely nor read the answers to the questions. Contributions are usually meaningless out-of-context and answers to questions are almost always cookie-cutter. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Bot

Does anyone know why the RFA bot isn't including this? See the one on WP:BN. User:Veesicle 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That board is updated by the Bot on the hour. Should be listed at 16:00 UTC. WjBscribe 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been listed for far longer than that and the bot didn't include it (on either the half-hour or hourly updates). But I see someone else fixed the issue. User:Veesicle 15:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I looked to see if that was the problem but saw that the ---- was there so guessed it just hadn't updated yet. Anyway - the Bot should now see it at 16:00. WjBscribe 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too bad...

Looks like this is failing by a large margin... I guess Kelly made too many enemies who won't drop their grudges; opposition is coming from people on opposite sides in various disputes as she's done something to piss off people in all "camps". It's a shame, since her recent commentary about Wikipedia has been a breath of fresh air. *Dan T.* 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You can rest assured that the outcome of this RfA will have no effect on whether or not I continue my commentaries on Wikipedia. It is, of course, possible that specific comments made during the process may spur specific commentaries, although I won't know that until it's over. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh I expect you will continue to be as vile as ever, leopards and spots etc. Giano 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not an acceptable comment. If your complaint against Kelly is incivility and personal attacks then beware that it cuts both ways. Sam Blacketer 20:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
A little late in the day for Kelly now on that score, she wants a repeat of the "kerfuffle" she can have it, if not she can appolagise for all the abuse on her blog. Quite simple really. This RFA is an attempt at grabbing attention, why complain when she gets it - be happy for her. Giano 20:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Happy to hear your blogging will not be impacted by this RfA. I didn't support your bid for admin, but I appreciate the importance of your blog. Outside, independent discussion is more important than whatever you might accomplish as an admin.Edivorce 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA closed too soon

I just want to symbolically protest the closing of this RfA so quickly. It should have run the full time period. I don't check the RfA forum everyday, and I'm sure others don't either, and that's why we keep RfA's running for as long as we do. I would have liked to have had a chance to make my own vote and comments on this RfA and I'm sure I'm not the only one. It wouldn't have hurt the project to have let this run its course. Controversy may make some uncomfortable, but I think we do ourselves a disservice by closing off discussion too soon. Cla68 01:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

While I sympathize with this sentiment, I strongly believe that further discussion was unlikely to contribute to the project. Once it becomes clear that rough consensus is beyond reach, prolonging the inevitable seems like unnecessary drama. Ronnotel 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not unnecessary drama, because those who don't want to participate don't have to and the results of the debate don't have any impact on Wikipedia policy or guidelines, just a community statement on the amount of trust it has in the RfA candidate. In this case, not everyone, meaning me, had a chance to participate. Also, it appears that the candidate wanted the RfA to run its full course. Cla68 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cla68. Closing early may cause more drama than just letting it run its course, I don't know. If the opposes kept up like they were, it certainly would have sent a message to Kelly regarding any future rfas. This would not have been as big of a distraction as other things, like arguments over content (an example being, oh I don't know, removing links to entire websites because they are "attack sites" :-D ). People interested in drama will find it any way, might as well let them waste that energy in something like this, rather than something more directly related to enyclopedia building But my reason for disagreeing with the early closing is more selfish, in the fact that I wanted to weigh in. Pretend like i posted this at WP:BN too.  :) daveh4h 07:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I must have been blind to have actually missed this RfA... T_T - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I still didn't get to register my vote and comments before it closed again. The problem is that, as usual, I was in my sleep-cycle here in Japan while more action was taking place on the issue. Since a bureacrat "blessed" the closing this time I won't call for it to be reopened again. I just hope that the next time she's nominated for admin that I happen to be awake, logged-in to Wikipedia, and actively watching the RfA page so that I can get my opinion recorded before someone quickly locks the RfA down again. Cla68 02:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

User:Redux posted an interesting comment on WP:BN regarding the early closure of Kelly's RFA by a non-bureaucrat.[2] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you attempting to say, could you be more specific? Navou banter 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
By quoting only very specifics parts of the post, are you attempting to garner protest? Navou banter 05:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to me to post the entire quote or remove the entire thing, which I did now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Your solution works. Keeps the context. Regards, Navou banter 05:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. My mistake. It looks better when each user can read the quote in its entire context, especially with a heated debate like this one. My original purpose was to update this discussion on whether an early closure was appropriate or not. I myself am neutral on the early closure because I see both the pros and the cons of it and it seems to me like a no-win situation either way. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The RfA's been opened again... Nishkid64 (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
By whom, and what on earth for, surely there are not two people hell bent on disrupting the place? Giano 12:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion at one place: WP:BN#Heads up. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If the four horsemen are going to be unleashed just to humour Ms Martin we may s well have them galloping all over the place. Giano 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Even thou I may think this comment is sarcastic, I understand the frustration, and its meaning. Navou banter 13:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Sarcastic? I think you will find that is prophetic not sarcastic. Giano 13:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, and a self-fulfilling prophecy at that. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A thought

"HELL NO. I'd rather kill myself by force-vomiting blood and bashing my head against the sidewalk. Why? Because Kelly Martin is not civil." Ah, I see. --Milto LOL pia 12:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!" -- Tom Lehrer, in his introduction to "National Brotherhood Week" *Dan T.* 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)