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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Statement

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

[edit] Support

Gurch 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing vote – Gurch 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. bainer (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Phil Sandifer 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    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)
  3. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. The only person I can wholeheartedly support. Ashibaka tock 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    cow_2001 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Striking out. Other issues of "Who can vote" aside, an account had only 45 edits by the start of the election. --Irpen
  6. Support. --Golbez 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. 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)
  8. --Rory096 02:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. — CharlotteWebb 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. 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)
  12. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. 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)
  14. Support; very knowledgeable, diligent, fair-minded. Tom Harrison Talk 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support --Thogo (Talk) 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Her statement is the most persuading one (for me).
  16. Support Anomo 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Onefortyone 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support.. Approve of your policies; approve of you. tgies 09:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Weak support Bryan 10:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. robchurch | talk 11:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Jon Harald Søby 12:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (But would like to see more IRC activity in the important channels. ) Jon Harald Søby 12:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. I like this user's stand on administrative misconduct. In addition, every decision-making body needs someone who can effortlessly conjure enough bad mojo at the right time to bitch slap groupthink before it spins out of control. Kelly Martin is that someone. --JJay 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Administrator misconduct is the biggest unsolved problem at wiki. Their isn't a snoball's chance Kelly will be elected; most who vote are administrators and don't like the idea that they will be subject to any sort of restrictions. She deletes userboxes and is apparently pretty good at pissing people off. But, I have to support her based on the campaign statement. Justforasecond 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support --Aminz 22:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support , based on conversation. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. Supportnot really sure about the circumstances she is involved in but the arbCom did praise her when she resigned earlier this year. seem to be quite determined to helping others out and of course, admin abuse is one of the most important issues on wiki--Certified.Gangsta 03:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. Septentrionalis 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. This is my first and likely only ArbCom vote, but I felt compelled in this instance. Whatever objections I've had with KM's prior actions as an administrator and editor have no bearing (or possibly even a positive bearing) on my opinion that she would be an outstanding arbitrator. I am saddened by the multitudes of knee-jerk oppositions below. Powers T 15:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support I'm taking her statement at face value. If she really means it, god bless her. --NathanDW 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    Support I have always regarded Kelly's side in a debate as being fair-minded. --JossBuckle Swami 07:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, no suffrage. Registered on November 10th. Grandmasterka 07:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. silsor 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. If she can make it through this election without dropping out early, then that should be good enough for my satisfaction. Scobell302 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support based solely on your candidate statement. A watcher for the watchers, huzzah. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 07:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support based on statement. Vizjim 13:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    Support based on statement and questions. Editor Emeritus 13:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    Less than 100 edits, so no suffrage, sorry. Kusma (討論) 13:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    You're right; my error and I apologize. Editor Emeritus 13:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. Strongly. — Dan | talk 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Bastiq▼e demandez 12:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. Tony Sidaway 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Provocative and original thinker. If she still thinks she needs more time at the pointy end, I'm not going to argue with that.
  40. weak Support, basically due to her statement (I´m really AGF here ,-)) Kelly usually have the "right", sound opinions, but she -in the past- unfortunately often presented them in a rather undiplomatic, uncivil and dictatorial fashion. Hope she has learned...Best wishes, Huldra 21:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Moral support The results are clear, but I'll take this chance to compliment her past service and thank her for returning here. 172 | Talk

[edit] Oppose

  1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Ideogram 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. No. Non. Nein. Przeciw. Hayır. Против. 反対. 反對. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Someone who insults other users and calls them various names? Thank you but no thanks <_< -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. --Majorly 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  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)
    I am not satisfied with this candidate's reason for running in the Arbcom elections. BhaiSaab talk 00:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    This user is banned. --Srikeit 08:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. 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)
  8. --Ligulem 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Coredesat 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Doesn't have the trust of the community (per Ral315). – Elisson • T • C • 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. TacoDeposit 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Oppose - crz crztalk 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Titoxd(?!?) 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. As much as Kelly has my personal support, Ral is right. theProject 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. 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)
  18. Hello32020 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Absolutely not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Kelly does not enjoy the trust of the community as a whole and her inability (or unwillingness) to work within the community makes her completely unsuitable for a position on the arbitration committee. Sarah Ewart 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Peta 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Duk 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Per Ral315, Grafikm, and AmiDaniel. --210physicq (c) 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. SuperMachine 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. No thanks, Rx StrangeLove 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Dr Zak 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. No please. Ars Scriptor 02:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. —Mira 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. Bishonen | talk 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
  30. KPbIC 02:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. Nope. AniMate 02:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. 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)
  33. Per Ral315 ^demon[omg plz] 03:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Raven4x4x 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. Involved in arbcom level dispute too recently --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. I couldn't oppose powerfully enough. Agree with Geogre on this one. Snoutwood (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. 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)
  38. 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)
  39. Oppose  Funky Monkey  (talk)  04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. Never in a lifetime. Terence Ong 04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Strong oppose. Rebecca 04:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. 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)
  43. 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)
  44. If I understand the last sentence of the statement..... -THB 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. 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)
  46. Strong oppose. Divisive conduct sometimes verging on the abusive. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. 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)
  48. 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)
  49. Not convinced she can buckle down to the work of ArbCom. --Gwern (contribs) 05:18 4 December 2006 (GMT)
  50. Dylan Lake 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  51. Nufy8 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose --Riley 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose — Lost(talk) 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  54. 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)
  55. This is a joke, right? —Cryptic 06:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose GizzaChat © 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  57. DarthVader 07:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  58. 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)
  59. 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)
  60. 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)
  61. Oppose user page says "have moved to commons and only operate here to add images to articles". Gnangarra 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  62. 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)
  63. —Doug Bell talk 08:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  64. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  65. Strong Oppose Highly controversial editor. Dr Debug (Talk) 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose Divisive, lack of recent edits. Catchpole 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. To many reasons to list, not least of which is divisive. Giano 08:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose --Van helsing 09:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  69. – Chacor 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  70. Perception is everything.--cj | talk 09:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  71. Oppose David Underdown 10:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  72. I'm concerned with issues of trust amongst the community as a whole Martinp23 11:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose --Folantin 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose -- Ferkelparade π 11:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  75. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  76. Kusma (討論) 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  77. 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)
  78. Shyam (T/C) 13:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  79. ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  80. Strong oppose there's not a user on wikipedia I'd trust less. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  81. 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)
  82. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  83. Oppose Incivil. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  84. Oppose ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  85. Oppose. Certainly not. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  86. Oppose Carom 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  87. TewfikTalk 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  88. 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)
  89. Oppose per Oleg Alexandrov. Sorry, Kelly. 1ne 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  90. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  91. 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)
  92. Oppose Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  93. --Conti|✉ 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  94. Oppose Tim! 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  95. Oppose --BostonMA talk 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  96. 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)
    Oppose - Ridiculous. This person IS admin misconduct. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) - Based on further conversation, I am voting support. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  97. 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)
  98. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  99. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  100. Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  101. Oppose. Jonathunder 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  102. Oppose David D. (Talk) 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  103. Guettarda 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  104. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  105. 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)
  106. Oppose No way. •Jim62sch• 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  107. Michael Snow 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  108. 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)
  109. Oppose WikieZach| talk 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  110. Oppose. JYolkowski // talk 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  111. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. --- RockMFR 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  112. —Viriditas | Talk 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  113. 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)
  114. 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)
  115. 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)
  116. I'm sorry, but I cannot support. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  117. Oppose. Is this for real? —ptk✰fgs 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  118. Oppose Sorry, but "admins have had a free hand for too long" totally gives the wrong impression. Alphachimp 05:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  119. Kla'quot 05:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  120. 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)
  121. Oppose - Ral315 states it perfectly. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  122. Oppose - I find Kelly's zero tolerance policy for administrative misconduct quite ironic. Kaldari 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  123. Strong oppose per Kaldari and Grandmasterka. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  124. Oppose. Silensor 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  125. 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)
  126. Oppose - No. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  127. Oppose per past concerns & civility issues raised up by others. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  128. Oppose - much too controversial and divisive for such a sensitive position. Metamagician3000 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  129. Oppose. —Angr 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  130. —Ruud 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  131. Oppose Jpeob 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  132. Absolutely not Can't trust her to be fair. Unequivocally incivil to other users, probably enough to warrant a block on other users. There is no way I can let this nomination even have a Snowball's chance in hell. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  133. Tizio 12:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  134. Oppose, naturally. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  135. Absolutely and certainly not, and I can't even say "sorry" to that. —Nightstallion (?) 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  136. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  137. Strong oppose. flowersofnight (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  138. Strong oppose. Based on historical review appears to favor their own POV/opinions over the good of others. · XP · 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  139. Oppose --MECU≈talk 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  140. Oppose youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  141. I'm sorry but I don't believe I could - ever - support you; You've been very rude before, and you have actually been pretty insulting, you just do not have my trust, especially after that Q list (and B list), and I don't believe you have the community's trust. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  142. Oppose no way Dragomiloff 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  143. Oppose. — Matt Crypto 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  144. Strongest possible oppose over that whole sub-page thing and the WP:POINT violations. Computerjoe's talk 17:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  145. Oppose Too big of a gap between say and do here. I also question motive. -Drdisque 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  146. Oppose per Drdisque. --kingboyk 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  147. Oppose, controversial Advanced 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  148. Oppose. --Fang Aili talk 19:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  149. Oppose. AC members should strive to act neutral. KM has been far too divisive to hold community trust. --StuffOfInterest 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  150. Oppose. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  151. Oppose. Unfortunately, no. Nishkid64 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  152. Too radical. Andre (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  153. Oppose FeloniousMonk 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  154. Strongest possible oppose. Srose (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  155. Oppose, user attracts controversy like a magnet. Sorry, but no. Lankiveil 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
  156. Oppose per above (insulting others, divisiveness, etc. etc.) --Richard 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  157. Oppose I may not be active in Wikipedian policy making, but I do read some of the discussions, and I've seen Kelly Martin in action, and I've read her talk pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by *Kat* (talk • contribs).
  158. Per all above. -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  159. Oppose Cardamon 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  160. oppose Pete.Hurd 06:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  161. Oppose. --Lukobe 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  162. Oppose, unfortunately. Running for arbcom with statement I have moved to the Wikimedia Commons and will edit here generally only in relation to adding my own photographs to articles in the encyclopedia on your userpage seems strange to me. MaxSem 09:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  163. Oppose Addhoc 11:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  164. Not in a million years. yandman 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose, divisive actions. Withdrawn vote. Taking the platform at face value, I do want to commend KM for stating the intention to learn from mistakes and to try to prevent them in others, and therefore I am withdrawing my oppose vote. I cannot support her at this point though (confusing userpage, unanswered questions, it's just too soon). — mark ✎ 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  165. Oppose -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 15:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (a member of the fickle and ill-informed populace)
  166. Oppose I'm sorry Kelly, but I can not support someone who has been so critical of ArbCom into a position on it's panel, I cannot have faith that you would keep in mind the goals and mission of ArbCom. As well, your controversy in the past makes me more than a little hesitant. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  167. Weak Oppose Kelly was an excellent arbitor but since leaving the committee behaviour has been too erratic. Would be willing to support next time if there is more stability in future. --Spartaz 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  168. Oppose -- ShakingSpirittalk 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  169. Oppose for the reasons above. ---J.S (T/C) 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  170. Strong Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  171. Oppose I think trust is essential for a arbitrator - even more than an admin. I can't support a person with a history of seriously problematic behaviour in such a position, even if he or she has recanted such behaviour, and has been a significant contributor to wikipedia. I also worry that someone saying "Admins on Wikipedia have had a free hand for too long" might have an axe to grind. Andjam 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  172. Oppose. Questionable committment to WP based on user page statements, plus history of failing to consider multiple viewpoints and build trust. Fairsing 02:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  173. Oppose to a metaphysical certitude. I never saw any satisfactory demonstration that Kelly Martin understood the community's objection to the User:Kelly Martin/B & User:Kelly Martin/Q, nor was contrition for the ill will & disruption ever adequately demonstrated. Further, my considered opinion is that Kelly Martin has a group of fellow admins who are unlikely to be faulted, despite the circumstances of the case. Kelly Martin has intelligence, critical thinking skills, and tenacity. However, quite frankly, I can't develop in Kelly the level of trust I'd like to have in an admin, much less an ArbCom member. --Ssbohio 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  174. Oppose I agree strongly with Kelly's platform. We do need more accountability for admins. I don't trust Kelly with that mandate though. -lethe talk + 06:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  175. Oppose. This candidacy makes no sense. Her userpage says that she has left Wikipedia. How could she possibly be an arbitrator? --Danaman5 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  176. dab (𒁳) 09:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  177. Oppose per Ral315. skip (t / c) 09:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  178. Oppose. Much better candidates have withdrawn already, we don't need arbitrators who aren't level headed. Fram 10:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  179. Oppose--Aldux 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  180. No way. Just no. David Mestel(Talk) 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  181. Oppose Lectonar 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  182. Never. The idea of poacher turned gamekeeper is sweet but not enough. Grace Note 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  183. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  184. Oppose. Polarizing admin, drama queen, too political. · rodii · 03:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  185. Oppose Too controversial a candidate Bwithh 03:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  186. Been to this junction, done this train wreck. Ms. Martin is still qualified for many positions of responsibility, but not this one. Oppose. —CComMack (t–c) 07:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  187. Oppose. ugen64 08:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  188. Oppose Read discussions, she desires acceptance, but rebukes atonement.Alan.ca 10:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  189. Oppose. I have no confidence in this user acting as an impartial arbiter. Rfrisbietalk 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  190. Oppose - Considering recent events and recent statements, this just seemed for me to be "too much" of a double standard. - jc37 21:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  191. Oppose, drama queens do not make for good arbitrators. She's damaged the project enough as it is. -/- Warren 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  192. Gentgeen 22:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  193. Strongest possible oppose It would help if she apologised for the damage she did to people while she was an admin, some of whom have never resumed editing.--Londoneye 23:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  194. Oppose Requires a more predictable candidate. Canadian-Bacon 07:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  195. Oppose. While I commend Kelly for her newfound willingness to respond thoughtfully to criticism, I feel she is unsuited to ArbCom — not least because an arbitrator must have the confidence of the community, which Kelly has squandered and not yet regained. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  196. Oppose Thief Lord 15:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  197. Oppose Hut 8.5 16:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  198. Oppose --Rob 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  199. Oppose Wachholder0 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  200. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  201. Weak Oppose - I would love to vote for you based on your considered answers to the questions raised, but the level of hostility towards you is such that I'm not sure your decisions would be accepted by a majority, which would be a core requirement of the job of arbitrator. (Changed to "oppose" after reading ensuing debate and candidate's replies to comments written after my initial vote) Orderinchaos78 08:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  202. Oppose. My experience is that this candidate is not always of a mind to look at both sides of a disagreement. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  203. Oppose. jni 14:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  204. Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Additionally, I think Kelly currently lacks the confidence of the community. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  205. Oppose. Michael 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  206. Oppose. No way. — xaosflux Talk 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  207. Oppose. Reasons are misplaced. --TinMan 05:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  208. Oppose Beit Or 10:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  209. Oppose She wants back on ArbCom to root out admins as screwed up as she's been? Erk. She gets a tip o' the cap for sheer chutzpah, but there are too many candidates who don't carry all of her negative baggage. RGTraynor 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  210. Oppose Promising to suspend misbehaving admins after a certain debacle last New Year's Day is laughable. Rogue 9 18:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  211. Oppose. I think Kelly's reason for even standing for election here is reprehensible: the candidates for ArbCom do represent excellent examples of Wikipedians, ones who by in large would serve well on ArbCom, and Kelly's view that nearly everyone is unacceptable is just way too jaded for me. Mangojuicetalk 18:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  212. Oppose. I often agree with what Kelly tries to do, and frequently do not agree with how she goes about doing it. -- Samuel Wantman 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  213. Oppose. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  214. Conscious 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  215. I'm not sure what this exercise in futility (KM's candidacy for Arbcom) is supposed to accomplish. I would know better than to run for Arbcom with her reputation. Philwelch 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  216. Oppose due to not having answered any of her candidate questions for over a week, despite being quite active on her self-referential RfC. This implies this is not a genuine candidacy, rather an attempt to prove a point. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  217. Oppose. Bubba ditto 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  218. Oppose. Hbdragon88 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  219. Eusebeus 01:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Psychlopaedist 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, no suffrage. Registered on October 31st. Grandmasterka 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  220. Oppose -- Longhair\talk 08:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  221. Oppose JPotter 17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  222. Oppose — Omegatron 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  223. Oppose. Peter Isotalo 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  224. Oppose per SamuelWantman. Even when Kelly is right about something, she demonstrates an uncanny ability to express/implement her ideas in the most uncivil, divisive manner possible. —David Levy 15:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  225. Oppose Oskar 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  226. Oppose As per opening statement: Entering the vote because other nominees are not "acceptable nominees" shows, IMO, a lack of respect for others contributions and abilities, or, if you assume great faith, an inability to word her thoughts in a non-aggressive manner. Lost Kiwi(talk)20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  227. Oppose, though I hesitate to vote, because I don't mean to pile on. But, with all respect, I can't imagine that the candidate expected anything else from this exercise. --TheOtherBob 20:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  228. Oppose MediaMangler 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  229. Oppose While it is a noble aspiration to weed out admin corruption, a declaration as such does not show they want to make a thoughtful decision on matters. Ansell 21:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  230. Oppose The only candidate I've actually opposed. The chutzpah! --Wetman 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  231. Oppose. - Introvert • ~ 04:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  232. Oppose There are neutral, dispassionate editors, and there are "others". I'm an 'other'. So is Kelly. Bladestorm 05:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  233. Oppose Good lord NO --frothT C 08:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  234. Oppose. Candidate left Wikipedia in September. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  235. Oppose. Hypocritical, reckless, egotistical, incivil... Platform made me laugh though, but I suspect that wasn't the point :-/ the wub "?!" 13:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  236. Oppose -- civility over all else in matters of conflict is a position that would make for a terrible arbitrator. Believing that civility would trump verifiability and giving over evolution articles to creation science editors over perceived breaches of conduct is not only something I wouldn't want to see in an arbitrator, it is something I wouldn't want to see in an administrator. --ScienceApologist 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  237. Oppose per above.--Húsönd 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  238. Oppose per Samuel Wantman. --Kbdank71 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  239. Oppose. Freshacconci 21:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Happily ever after 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, Happily lacks sufferage - I only count 106 edits prior to 12/4 TheronJ 04:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  240. Oppose - too controversial, uncompromising and absolute in judgement. Ronline ✉ 07:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  241. Oppose. Candidate is mean a lot. Voretustalk 18:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  242. Oppose. Good god - never, downright vile to some editors - totally wrong for such a position. --Charlesknight 22:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  243. Oppose - Nothing personal but the candidate statement is not an agenda I wish to endorse. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  244. Oppose - We need an open mind who AGF and listens to people in the light of improving the encyclopedia objectively. Ian¹³/t 12:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  245. Oppose For many of the same reasons cited above. Davidpdx 14:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  246. Oppose. Absolutely not! Geneviève 19:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  247. Oppose. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  248. Unfortunately doesn't have the trust of the community right now. —Xyrael / 22:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  249. Oppose - too much controversy, lack of community trust. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  250. Oppose outside of community trust issues, completely unsuited tempermentally for ArbCom work Krich (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  251. Oppose with a heavy heart. (Agree with opposing misconduct, but Kelly seemed to look too much for fault in others. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) — Sebastian 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  252. Oppose for agressive blocks on Grue, and the lists which were meant to troll El C by Kelly's own admission, among other things. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  253. oppose too rude. Kiwidude 07:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  254. Oppose Stirling Newberry 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  255. Oppose lacks trust, with reason, Avalon 11:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  256. Oppose. I supported you last year, but not this time. Sorry Kelly, but you began losing my trust and respect when you blocked Grue. Sadly it has all been downhill from there. But before you start crying "pile on", please ask yourself what you were really trying to accomplish by running. If it was redemption, you sought it in the wrong place. So please take this as a sign that it is time for you to move on. But please take solace, as well, from the fact that you have accomplished more and achieved greater levels of fame and notoriety than most of your fellow Wikipedians can dare dream of. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  257. Oppose--Kchase T 12:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  258. Oppose Have seen too much aggression from this user. --Stevecov 14:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  259. Oppose. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  260. Oppose. Sorry, Kelly; I actually like a lot of your platform, but as others have said here, a controversial figure is probably the last thing that's needed in this particular position; we need somebody who's trusted and respected by nearly everybody so that whatever decisions they make are given the respect they deserve. There are plenty of other places where somebody who stirs up trouble can be valuable, but not here. *Dan T.* 22:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  261. Oppose. Zero tolerance should not be a trait of a judge. A judge is supposed to approach their job with compassion and humanity. If we wanted "zero telerance" we would just use a computer to make the decision. John Dalton 23:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  262. Oppose Per many of the reasons above. Not a good fit. Just H 23:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  263. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)