Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Kelly Martin - Wikipedia


Article Images

I am running for the Arbitration Committee because I feel that there are not enough candidates already running to fill the open positions with acceptable nominees.

I stand specifically for a zero tolerance policy for administrative misconduct: any administrator who abuses administrative privilege (where "abuses" means uses in a manner inconsistent with policy where such use tends to create or intensify a disruption in Wikipedia") will be, at the very least, temporarily suspended as an administrator. Admins on Wikipedia have had a free hand for too long. I made many mistakes as an administrator, and it is my intention to see that no other administrator makes the same mistakes -- and that those who do, do not get the chance to make them again.

Questions

  1. Gurch 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. bainer (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Phil Sandifer 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Conterversal, yes but was a great arb-com member before Jaranda wat's sup 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC) —— In second thoughts I need to think about this. Jaranda wat's sup 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, she has attracted quite a bit of criticism, but a lot of that is unduly harsh. She was a hard working member of the ArbCom (and a clerk) before, and she has an unwavering commitment to the betterment of the 'pedia. - Mark 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The only person I can wholeheartedly support. Ashibaka tock 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    cow_2001 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking out. Other issues of "Who can vote" aside, an account had only 45 edits by the start of the election. --Irpen
  7. Support. --Golbez 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kelly Martin displays significant insight into Wikipedia's structure, both social and encyclopedic; she is rational and levelheaded, and would benefit Wikipedia in ArbCom. Gracenotes T § 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Rory096 02:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — CharlotteWebb 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. We have some disagreements on some policy issues, and I am not quite sure what she stands for right now, but in the past she has shown a willingness to do unpopular but necessary tasks, and I consider that to be something the project sorely needs. I respect her, and think she would probably do a good job on ArbCom. --Improv 09:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. It was very pleasent to work as an advocate in a case with her arbitrating; please, come back! --Neigel von Teighen 12:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support; very knowledgeable, diligent, fair-minded. Tom Harrison Talk 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Thogo (Talk) 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Her statement is the most persuading one (for me).[reply]
  17. Support Anomo 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Onefortyone 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support.. Approve of your policies; approve of you. tgies 09:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak support Bryan 10:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. robchurch | talk 11:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Ideogram 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. Non. Nein. Przeciw. Hayır. Против. 反対. 反對. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Someone who insults other users and calls them various names? Thank you but no thanks <_< -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Majorly 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No offense, but hell no. Plus, I thought I just heard you on Wikipedia Weekly saying you definitely weren't going to run? AmiDaniel (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I am not satisfied with this candidate's reason for running in the Arbcom elections. BhaiSaab talk 00:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kelly is a great user, and would do (and has done) the job well. However, being an arbitrator absolutely requires the trust of the community, and Kelly doesn't have that. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Ligulem 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Coredesat 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Doesn't have the trust of the community (per Ral315). – Elisson • T • C • 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. TacoDeposit 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose - crz crztalk 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Titoxd(?!?) 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. As much as Kelly has my personal support, Ral is right. theProject 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong oppose. An arbitrator with the extensive record of insults towards the opponents and entire community on and off wiki, even more importantly unanswered ethics questions and, the most importantly, lack of the community trust would undermine the authority the ArbCom. --Irpen 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Hello32020 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Absolutely not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sarah Ewart 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Peta 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Duk 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per Ral315, Grafikm, and AmiDaniel. --210physicq (c) 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. SuperMachine 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No thanks, Rx StrangeLove 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Dr Zak 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. No please. Ars Scriptor 02:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. —Mira 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Bishonen | talk 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  31. KPbIC 02:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Nope. AniMate 02:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. The candidacy, I thought, was a case of The Dog in the Manger, and I could not understand why he (the dog, metaphorically the candidate) wanted to increase drama. This is a user who is "not looking at" Wikipedia and yet wishes to be one of the arbitrators. There is no way, with all of the horrendous incivility and self-importance of her statements, on and off-wiki, that I could honor a vow not to vote against anyone (made before this candidate's candidacy) in this case. Geogre 02:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Per Ral315 ^demon[omg plz] 03:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Raven4x4x 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Involved in arbcom level dispute too recently --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I couldn't oppose powerfully enough. Agree with Geogre on this one. Snoutwood (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strongest oppose ever. Worst candidate possible; exhibits erratic behavior when given any position of "power"; see her RfCs. Xoloz 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Perhaps my strongest opposition here. If based on nothing else, then the opening line of her candidacy statement. Her opinion that there are "not enough...acceptable nominees" demonstrates, in my mind, a gross failure of trust not just in the process, but in her would-be colleagues. ArbCom must be a unified entity. This contributor has shown behavior that expressly does not call to unity, and this candidacy itself exemplifies little more than that. Serpent's Choice 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose  Funky Monkey  (talk)  04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Never in a lifetime. Terence Ong 04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong oppose. Rebecca 04:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. This answer disturbed me (essentially, she has unique insight into who should sit on ArbCom, and is not able to share the knowledge, even in general terms, except that she should be on). "Bigger than the project" is a problem. Oppose Jd2718 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. I thought that, less than a month ago, under controversial circumstances, you requested desysopping, and left Wikipedia? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. If I understand the last sentence of the statement..... -THB 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strongest oppose I've ever registered on wikipedia for any reason. History of erratic, overly dramatic, and self-important behavior. Opabinia regalis 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong oppose. Divisive conduct sometimes verging on the abusive. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I don't understand why Kelly decided to run under these circumstances and with this strange candidate statement. A very odd decision and unlike her. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Oppose Doesn't need a seat on the ArbCom, but a warning for a possible WP:POINT violation. semper fi — Moe 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Not convinced she can buckle down to the work of ArbCom. --Gwern (contribs) 05:18 4 December 2006 (GMT)
  51. Dylan Lake 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Nufy8 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose --Riley 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose — Lost(talk) 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose civility concerns, concerns over the lists of names from several months back which were never explained other than mocking those who objected to them. BigDT 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. This is a joke, right? —Cryptic 06:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose GizzaChat © 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. DarthVader 07:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Were I wholly ignorant of the candidate's history, I might, in view of certain parts of the candidate statement with which I agree, consider supporting; I cannot, though, to be sure, forget, well, everything delineated supra, and I think it quite clear that, whilst Kelly is in some ways particularly suited for ArbCom, she is particularly ill-suited in many more ways. Joe 07:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Too many poor and rough interactions with other contributors the past year, including Xoloz, Geogre, Giano, et. al. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. EGADS! sorry kelly but its already been shown you do not have the appropriate personality for arbcom. Your lucky to still be able to edit wiki after some of the fights you've started. Anyone already asked to step down from clerkship shouldnt be running... period.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose user page says "have moved to commons and only operate here to add images to articles". Gnangarra 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. I love what she says in her statement, but it's impossible for me to have any faith in it at this stage. A few months ago she was one of the most (perhaps the most) extreme proponents of the admin fiat school of thought, abusing others on a regular basis. There needs to be time for her to show commitment to these views she now professes, along with consistent demonstration of a civil attitude towards others. She shouldn't just come back, say she's changed, and immediately run for ArbCom. Everyking 08:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. —Doug Bell talk 08:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Oppose Highly controversial editor. Dr Debug (Talk) 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose Divisive, lack of recent edits. Catchpole 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. To many reasons to list, not least of which is divisive. Giano 08:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose --Van helsing 09:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. – Chacor 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Perception is everything.--cj | talk 09:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose David Underdown 10:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I'm concerned with issues of trust amongst the community as a whole Martinp23 11:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose --Folantin 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose -- Ferkelparade π 11:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Kusma (討論) 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose in the strongest possible terms, per much of the above and past history of this editor. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Shyam (T/C) 13:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong oppose there's not a user on wikipedia I'd trust less. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose My regrets and sympathy to Kelly, but I simply do not believe she has the faith of the community necessary to serve as arbitrator.-- danntm T C 14:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose Incivil. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose. Certainly not. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose Carom 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. TewfikTalk 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Opppose. While it is nice that Kelly confesses that she has made mistakes (she was not so forthcoming in the past), those mistakes are too many and too recent to judge reliably if she learned from them. Also, I don't agree with her "Admins on Wikipedia have had a free hand for too long" platform. In my experience the few cases involving admin misconduct have been dealt very well and on a case-by-case basis. No need to have in the arbcom a person who basically says "since I've been a bad admin I have low tollerance towards bad admins". Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose per Oleg Alexandrov. Sorry, Kelly. 1ne 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose too many serious mistakes have been made, and until their is demonstration on Wikipedia in interaction with the Wikipedia community (not metapedia, email, IRC, blogs, etc...) that they have been overcome she is not suited for the role. GRBerry 17:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. --Conti|✉ 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose Tim! 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose --BostonMA talk 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose, I believe more time needs to be given before we as a community can say all is forgotten 100%. This is just way to controversial of a situation, and civility issues abound. Last I heard of this user they were admitting to provoking other admins ... just not the proper attitude and situation for an Arbitrator. --NuclearZer0 18:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose - Ridiculous. This person IS admin misconduct. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose Since the apperance of bias is a big problem for institutions such as ArbCom candidates as controversial as Kelly are inapropriate even if there were no other concerns. On the other hand, I do support the sentiments of the nomination statement. Maybe at a later date. Eluchil404 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose. Jonathunder 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose David D. (Talk) 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Guettarda 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose, worst idea ever. Kelly's platform of wanting to root out bad admins scares the hell out of me, given her previously demonstrated tendencies to assume bad faith at the drop of a hat. I would approve of such a goal if it were stated by a trustworthy editor. Friday (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose No way. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Michael Snow 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose -- the business of zero tolerance is worrisome, and speaks to an agenda rather than a clear interest in mediating and arbitrating disputes. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose WikieZach| talk 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose. JYolkowski // talk 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. --- RockMFR 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. —Viriditas | Talk 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose. The past is so close, please let the dust settle, in your latest involvement in Arbcom, before trying your hand at ArbCom. I think the Checkuser/Oversight tools shouldn't yet be handed down to this user as of now. Lincher 02:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Seems to have an "I'll learn from mistakes as I continue to make them" attitude. No thanks. riana_dzasta 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Almost everything I've personally seen from this user has been very negative, and often, highly hypocritical. I disagree with the nomination statement; the contributions I've seen from the administrators here have been overwhelmingly positive, with a few... Glaring exceptions. No chance. Grandmasterka 03:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. I'm sorry, but I cannot support. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose. Is this for real? —ptk✰fgs 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose Sorry, but "admins have had a free hand for too long" totally gives the wrong impression. Alphachimp 05:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Kla'quot 05:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose. Bitter history with many fellow editors may make people doubt even if she delivery the most just verdict. --Pkchan 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose - Ral315 states it perfectly. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose - I find Kelly's zero tolerance policy for administrative misconduct quite ironic. Kaldari 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Strong oppose per Kaldari and Grandmasterka. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Oppose. Silensor 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose, per user:Elisson (#12, way up there). This user does not have the trust of the community at this time. This very prolific editor has a history of incivility. I would consider supporting at a later date, if this user were to abide by the civility rule which is a pillar of Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose - No. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Oppose per past concerns & civility issues raised up by others. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Oppose - much too controversial and divisive for such a sensitive position. Metamagician3000 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Oppose. —Angr 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. —Ruud 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Oppose Jpeob 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]