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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Kelly Martin

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

I've decided to reverse my previously announced intent not to run after a curious discussion (on IRC) with another editor who told me that people object to me being on ArbCom because I am too well-trusted and well-respected in the community. Apparently, being trustworthy and respected are qualities not desired in Arbitration Committee members. I found this argument so brazenly illogical that it convinced me to run.

I don't have a platform, other than a promise to handle each case fairly, with every decision intended to further our fundamental goal: to write an encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: I have made an additional statement regarding the "userbox affair" which may be seen on my "Questions" page. I encourage voters to read it before voting. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

I have withdrawn myself from consideration in this election. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. ----Defenestrate 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Doc ask? 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Happy to.--Sean|Black 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Shanes 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. - Seth Ilys 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Ben 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. She has proven herself quite indefatigible in the face of adversity. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong support. Ambi 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Cryptic (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Agnte 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support ➥the Epopt 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. One of the few dozen Wikipedians whose judgements and opinions I trust implicitly. Batmanand 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Carbonite | Talk 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support–Gnomz007(?) 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support - she's doing OK on the arbcom already. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support - Mark 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support --Golbez 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support -- one of two ArbCommissioners able publically recognize unfitness of [a particular administrator] r b-j 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) [comment has been edited]
  31. Levelheadedness. Johnleemk | Talk 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support as long as she promises to lay off the bottle! ;) --Wgfinley 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - Actually gets things done... Very no-nonsense kind of person. -- uberpenguin 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support A Kärcher in the hand, and a mop in the other, like a true disciple of Nicolas Sarkozy. David.Monniaux 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support - we need someone to take action on the userbox lunacy! -- Arwel (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Sarah Ewart 02:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Sdedeo (tips) 02:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Dmcdevit·t 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support - BanyanTree 03:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Fred Bauder 03:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Rob Church Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Calton | Talk 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support FCYTravis 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support kmccoy (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Wile E. Heresiarch 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support - the userbox thing was bad, but doesn't outweigh the good for me. ←Hob 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Strong support 172 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. — Dan | talk 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support Keeps the reason we're here firmly in mind and nearly always does the right thing. Rx StrangeLove 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support linas 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support incumbent with laudable record. HGB 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support Dysprosia 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Bobet 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. FOo 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support As an arbitrator, she has displayed good judgement and uniformly excellent comments. As for the recent user-box debacle, this to me was outside of the purview of her arbitration duties, so I disregard her "editorial" action. Hamster Sandwich 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support :) gren グレン 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Strong Support. Not only does she weigh into matters objectively, but also has the courage of her convictions to not back down. Netkinetic 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. android79 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support Sam Vimes 07:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support I do not like her handling of the userbox case, but I thought she was a good arbitrator. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. Unbiased, and always keeps her eyes on the "pedia" part of Wikipedia. /blahedo (t) 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support - Triona 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support - Only 78 oppose votes? The lynch mob hasn't yet turned up, I see. --- Charles Stewart 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Strong Support. utcursch | talk 07:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support--MONGO 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support, takes heat for being tough, good record doing thankless job. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support. --Muchness 09:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support. --Kefalonia 09:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support. -- Rama 09:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. --Viriditas 10:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support. Kelly is very fair and unbiased. Unfortunately the userbox thing might doom her, sad to say. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support. a loyal wikipedian TrafficBenBoy 11:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support "every decision intended to further our fundamental goal: to write an encyclopedia" Exactly what's needed. — MikeX (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support David.Monniaux 12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Duplicated vote for the same candidate. --Interiot 04:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support -- Michael Slone (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support --malber 13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support despite bizarre rationale for deciding to rejoin the fray and curious lack of a stated platform... Tomertalk 13:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support Chuck 15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support -- nae'blis (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support - Beatnik S. 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Chairman S., a.k.a. Beatnik S., does not have suffrage (created Oct. 2, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:39, Jan. 9, 2006
  84. SupportCberlet 16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support --Buridan 16:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support -- Forever young 17:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Forever young does not have suffrage (created Oct. 5, 2005 [2]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:40, Jan. 9, 2006
  87. Support --Wikimol 18:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support Demi T/C 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support to even out the antiunuserboxestablishmentarian movement. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support Duffer 18:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support Garion96 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support Monicasdude 19:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  93. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support without reservation —BorgHunter (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support, userboxes notwithstanding. — Haeleth Talk 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support --Pjacobi 22:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support—Bjones 22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  99. -Splashtalk 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support - Cheers Szvest 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  101. Support. Rangek 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support. Kelly Martin's my hero. -- Krash 00:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support. A good arbitrator, and someone who seems to have Wikipedia's interests at heart. NatusRoma 00:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support. Salsb 01:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  106. older≠wiser 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 02:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support I think she should continue into a full term. --JohnDBuell 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support The timing on the userbox thing was unfortunate; I'm sure she'd be a shoe-in if the issue wasn't so fresh. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support. From what I've seen, she's backed up every single one of her "screw process" actions with solid reasons why doing so benefits Wikipedia. One of the few I fully trust to use WP:IAR. Unfocused 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support. silsor 06:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support. JeremyA 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support. Curps 07:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support. bogdan 09:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  115. Support. IceKarmaॐ 15:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support. Scoo 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  117. Support in light of Kelly's apology. —Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  118. Support --The Brain 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  119. Support I disagree about userboxes, but support anyway. Septentrionalis 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  120. Support. Extremely controversial, but she's willing to do the work, and has done a damn good job at it in the few months she's been working on it. Ral315 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  121. Support. She's controversial, but she does everything in good faith. *Dan T.* 20:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support, can identify dicks on wikipedia that need circumcision. Something we lacked efficency on the last arbcom team when I had a hearing. I wasnt too satisfied with that one. I am not criticising all past arbcomers, just perhaps a spesific one who knows who he/she is. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Said was offended by my comment here, too easily offended. Hence withdrawing support, though this has no grounds for an oppose. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  122. Support. JFW | T@lk 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  123. Support. User has taken bold action to correct problems and obvious infraction of rules. --Pierremenard 23:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  124. Support Uncomprimisingly supports Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia. Mallocks 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  125. Support Vsmith 00:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  126. Support, after thinking about it for several days. Chick Bowen 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  127. --Bhadani 09:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  128. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  129. Support. Andre (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  130. Support. – BCorr|Брайен 17:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  131. Support Cormaggio @ 18:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  132. Support, have shown ability, admin action is different to arbitrator role. KTC 19:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  133. SupportDr. B 21:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Everyking 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Haukur 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Friday (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 00:14, Jan. 9, 2006
  8. – ugen64 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    —Kirill Lokshin 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. —Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - Policy - Mackensen (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Sadly Oppose --Jaranda wat's sup 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. brenneman(t)(c) 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose I belive Kelly did a very good job as an arbitrator so far, but her behavior on the userboxes debacle and subsequenent comments on her talk page were not appropriate for somebody wielding so much power on Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Evil Eye 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Raven4x4x 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. —David Levy 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose — Omegatron 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Reluctant oppose. --AySz88^-^ 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per Oleg Alexandrov. JYolkowski // talk 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strongest Possible Oppose as shown in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin and this edit[3]. karmafist 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong oppose as per her strict policy and her recent actions in Wikipedia, as Karmafist remembers on his comment. --Angelo 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. TacoDeposit 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Reluctant oppose because of continued failure to appreciate constructive criticism of how recent actions were done. Jonathunder 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose as per Oleg Alexandrov, Karmafist and Ifnord. Inappropriate behaviour indeed. Staffelde 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose--Duk 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Highest Possible Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Strongest Oppose See candidate's RfC. Xoloz 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose--CBD ☎ ✉ 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Needs a break from dealing with ArbCom and other Wikistress.Changed by voter --CBD ☎ ✉ 22:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per Oleg. Kit 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose.--ragesoss 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose per Oleg. Evil saltine 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Should not be permitted to piss on any more playgrounds. Grace Note 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Nothing personal. Too controversial-- You'll work better when unfettered by being in the public eye. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose Too confrontational. Paul August ☎ 03:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose for issues brought up in RFC. --Rob 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose RfC --Admrboltz (T | C) 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose Crunch 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose --2004-12-29T22:45Z 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. I take no joy in casting this vote, but it is based primarily on her comments following the userbox fiasco - WP:CIVIL. Tufflaw 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose -Greg Asche (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose, serious concerns about respect for consensus. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. Rhobite 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose. Ronline ✉ 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Dottore So 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose --Heah talk 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose --Hurricane111 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. oppose Grutness...wha? 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. Infoboxes, like most others here. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose per Oleg Alexandrov. --Aaron 05:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose. Strongest possible. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose. Not a good attitude for an Arbiter. Kaldari 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose – It genuinely pains me to vote such, but the distain for community opionion that she's shown recently force me to conclude that she has lost the ability to be rational when the going gets hot. – ClockworkSoul 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose per ClockworkSoul. —Cleared as filed. 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose novacatz 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose ObsidianOrder 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose For compassionate leave--Tznkai 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose Actions regarding userboxes, disdain for process and community policy, tip jar on user page, and tendency to snap at other editors make her a poor candidate. I don't feel that someone who creates so much controversy themselves would make a good arbiter. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose--Robert Harrisontalk contrib 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose --Tabor 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose per RfC and answers to questions.  Grue  06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose--cj | talk 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose per User:WAvegetarian. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose per ClockworkSoul. — Catherine\talk 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose per everyone. zen master T 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose, due to disdain for community. Sam Spade 06:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose. Per past 71 candidates. And if I may say in jest: "Screw process" does not a good campaign slogan make. ; CJ Marsicano 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose. NO WAY!!! Probert 06:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose -- Userbox incident reflects poorly. Adrian Lamo 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Adrian Lamo does not have suffrage; he had only 136 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Echoing ClockworkSoul. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose. --Angr (tɔk) 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Strong Oppose Did not like the users conduct on the userbox debate. and as per her RfC Brian | (Talk) 06:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose per her RfC. jni 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose. I like Kelly very much, just disagree with her stance on IAR to much to support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose, she is on RFC. --Terence Ong Talk 08:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Oppose. siafu 08:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Oppose due to userbox incident. Catamorphism 08:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Reluctant Oppose due to conduct surrounding userbox incident. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Oppose with extreme regret. Terrifically valuable contributor but recent actions undermine that. why? ++Lar: t/c 09:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Oppose due to conduct surrounding userbox incident. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 09:06Z
  82. Oppose. Too controversial. -- Michalis Famelis 09:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Oppose. Too abrasive with those she feels hurt the encyclopedia. It's not that she's wrong, but rather that sometimes the carrot works better than the stick. -- SCZenz 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Oppose Per above. Banes 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Oppose. I don't care about userboxes, but competely ignoring usual practice, and then not realizing the bad emotion this would cause is more something I would expect from somebody whose case is before the ArbCom than one of the members of the ArbCom. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Oppose Too controversial. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Oppose Adrian Buehlmann 10:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Strong Oppose per Oleg Alexandrov and Karmafist. -- Sneltrekker 10:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sneltrekker does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 20:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 89 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Strong Oppose based on statement's conflict with WP:POINT.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Oppose per Oleg Alexandrov. Has made herself too controversial. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 10:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Reluctantly oppose. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) long comment moved by Mark to talk page on 13:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Oppose. Unpredictable, seems to think policy doesn't apply to her. So how can she apply it to others? Dan100 (Talk) 11:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. Oppose. Some Wikipedians are more equal than others? I hope that day never comes. -- Peripatetic 11:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  93. Oppose: antiegalitarian, anti-consensus. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Oppose. Kelly's recent actions, and subsequent unapologetic behavior indicate to me that she is not suited to this level of responsibility. While she has garnered respect for her contributions to Wikipedia, she seems to have little respect for due policy and has proven to be a polarizing figure herself - certainly not a desirable trait in the ArbCom. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia; also, events in the past month or so speak out against 'er. —Nightstallion (?) 12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Oppose, per all. Sorry. →FireFox 12:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  97. Oppose, for same reasons as given by others. Petros471 12:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose, This user is the antithisis of what the arbcom should be about. changed to neutral, please leave here as proof of how I previously voted.  ALKIVAR™ 12:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  98. Oppose per userboxes. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  99. Oppose due to recent controversy. I hope I'm never involved with it, but the ArbCom must be above the disputes they resolve. --Last Malthusian 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. Reluctant Oppose Despite good track record, the userbox incident (and poor handling of the fallout from it) is too much to ignore. I expect more from arbitrators. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  101. Oppose. Has acted in retaliation several times, abuses blocking policy, avoids accountability for her actions, can't deal with criticism, is often incivil, and has no respect for community consensus. Radiant_>|< 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. Oppose due to the userbox incident mdmanser 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Oppose. - Darwinek 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  104. Oppose. Civility is one of the five pillars.--Eloquence* 14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  105. Oppose. Mark1 14:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  106. Oppose after behavior userbox incident and fallout. Brighterorange 14:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  107. Oppose, questionable judgement and too argumentative. Proto t c 15:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  108. Does not have the requiste level of community trust, IMO. Too unilateralist. DES (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  109. Oppose Per recent controversy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gflores (talk • contribs) .
  110. Oppose per userbox controversy and lack of respect for community. --Fang Aili 16:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose, and hate to do so. Unfortunately, candidate's recent behavior leaves me little choice.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing my opposition per discussion with Kelly, in which I found her arguments convincing.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  111. Oppose, per userbox. Regardless of whether Ms. Martin's userbox crusade was proper—and it wasn't—the doubts that surround that action extend to her, and thus to her neutrality and effectiveness as an arbitrator. No arbitrator should have a cloud over her. --zenohockey 16:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  112. Oppose; I hate userboxes but I don't trust her. — Dunc|☺ 16:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  113. Oppose, userbox debacle, etc. - Masonpatriot 16:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  114. Oppose, although I don't feel good about it. Lord Bob 16:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  115. Oppose, lack of regard for Wikipedia users. - Hayter 17:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  116. Oppose -- Ferkelparade π 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  117. Oppose; no problems with deleting user boxes, big problems with the way she handled the RfC. Rhion 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  118. Oppose due to recent Userbox controversy Sceptre (Talk) 18:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  119. Oppose, too many controversial edits, borderline abuses of admin power and mulitple violations of WP:CIV.Gateman1997 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  120. Oppose, userboxes suck but the way they were deleted was wrong. -- Kjkolb 18:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  121. Oppose — Eoghanacht talk 18:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  122. Oppose — Vamp:Willow 19:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  123. Oppose. Poor judgement. Arrogant. Lacks respect. - Xed
  124. Oppose above user summed it up for me. --Loopy e 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  125. Oppose Failed to predict the "userbox" fallout and didn't engage in discussion about the issue. Pilatus 20:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  126. Oppose Speedy-deleted many user-space templates which were not candidates for it, furthermore did not discuss the matter beforehand. KirbyMeister 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  127. Oppose, reluctantly as have had several nice IRC chats with this candidate in the past. However, she cannot be trusted with admin responsibilities, and therefore cannot be trusted with a higher post on the 'pedia. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  128. Oppose, poor judgement with admin powers Tedernst | talk 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  129. Oppose Jim62sch 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose readding removed vote due to only have 138 edits at the time. I still oppose. Arkon 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    You still don't have suffrage. You must have had 150 edits as of the start of the election, which you didn't. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 22:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per Oleg Alexandrov. Englishrose 22:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Englishrose does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 21:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only 137 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  130. Strong Oppose as per the comments by the community here and WP:POINT, which was disregarded in the recent userbox incident. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  131. Oppose. --HK 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  132. Weak oppose per lack of judgment when deleting userboxes. --Ghirla | talk 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  133. Strong Oppose after personally having an affair with her concerning her inability to accept good faith and not make blind assumptions based on POV. -MegamanZero|Talk 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  134. Oppose. -5, Running as a statement. Avriette 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  135. Oppose. --Mairi 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  136. Oppose due to bad judgement in userbox deletion affair (least important), lack of leadership in the debacle afterward, consistent inability to recognize abuse of administrator powers, and mistaken belief that fostering a vibrant, healthy community is somehow not essential to the task of collaborating to write an encyclopedia (most important.) CarbonCopy (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  137. Oppose. We love you too much to let this happen to you, Kelly. You probably should have known better. --Dschor 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  138. Oppose because of the userbox purge fiasco.   Iceland Guðsþegn – UTCE – 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  139. Oppose userboxes, her rudeness. Avalon 00:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  140. Strong oppose per duh. ~~ N (t/c) 00:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose not comfortable with answers to questions. Ben Aveling 01:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • BenAveling likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 05:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  141. Oppose -- lacks the maturity, objectivity, common-sense, leadership skills, and humility necessary for this responsibility. David Hoag 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  142. Strong oppose per RFC. Doesn't respect policy as embodiment of community consensus. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose The "screw process" statement really got to me. Nothing personal. --SpacemanAfrica 03:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • SpacemanAfrica does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 14:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 37 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  143. Oppose per RFC. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  144. Oppose. Need new ArbComm. SEWilco 04:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  145. Oppose per disregard for community --Alynna 04:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  146. Oppose per DavidHoag. WikiFanatic 05:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  147. Oppose as per RfC, and for refusal to answer questions. Brute-forcing personal POV can ruin the project. -- Goldie (tell me) 05:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  148. Oppose Search4Lancer 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  149. oppose Kingturtle 06:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  150. Oppose --Carnildo 09:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  151. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose based on precedent, her lack of respect for due process, lack of foresight, and her holier-than-thou attitude towards other Wikipedians. This person should not even be an administrator. TCorp 12:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    TCorp's account was made on December 20th 2005. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  152. Oppose, not because of the userboxes incident (which I think is irrelevant to her capacities in arbitration) but because of her judgment in the recent Xed case. The decision to commend the prosecutor for actions that were admittedly hasty and the easy support vote given to a far too harsh remedy give me the impression that there isn't enough passion to get it right and to further our ultimate goal of writing an encyclopedia. — mark ✎ 12:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  153. Oppoose because of her combative attitude to questions on the question page, and widespread assumption of bad faith when dealing with criticism or questions about her response to criticism. Thryduulf 14:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  154. Oppose from statement and especially questions page Ncsaint 15:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  155. Oppose It's somewhat ironic that Kelly Martin is a candidate for the arbitration committee, considering her own extremely arbitrary actions as of lately. May she realize the extent of the mess she's made and wisen up. --Twisturbed Tachyon 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  156. Oppose. Peculiar decisions and actions while temporarily on ArbCom; I'd have no confidence in her neutrality, objectivity, or good sense. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  157. Oppose in regards of recent actions. Her questions page didn't quite made me change my mind. --Valmi ✒ 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  158. Oppose. Too many clashes with other Wpedians. Lincher 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  159. Oppose weak oppose Oskar 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  160. Oppose. Too confrontational. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  161. Oppose Userbox thing.- JustPhil 22:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  162. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  163. Oppose, per Valmi. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  164. Oppose for the userbox explanation - Hbdragon88 23:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  165. Oppose due to userbox debacle. --StuffOfInterest 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  166. Oppose does not stay civil at times. --PeregrineAY 00:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  167. Oppose. Would have supported, but after the Great New Years' Userbox Debacle of 2006, cannot support at this time. She needs to take a time out for a bit. Dr. Cash 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  168. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  169. Oppose. Limegreen 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  170. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  171. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  172. Oppose. For her action regarding userboxes. CG 15:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  173. Oppose--Gozar 17:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  174. Oppose. Based solely on answers to questions. Nothing to do with Userboxes.--ghost 19:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  175. Oppose for her thoughts on justice. Wally 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  176. Oppose. The Userbox thing... not good. --Optichan 20:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Userbox tyrant. BlueShirts 20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  177. Oppose User made a bad misjudgement involving Checkuser in a recent dispute involving blocking four UK users who were good contributors, made no reply to me at all on extensive comments which I made on her page in relation to the dispute which I consider pretty rude. Arniep 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Can't support because of attitude during RfC, can't oppose because she's done well on ArbCom so far, as far as I know. Hermione1980 22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I feel that her good actions in the past and her current actions cancel each other out and cannot support or oppose her. She is a good admin who made a bad decision, however that does not mean she is a bad person/admin/wikipedian, everyone uses bad judgement one and a while. Mike 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Mike does not have suffrage as this was the 133rd edit, 136 counting deleted edits. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 01:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    ... but, as neutral comments are just that, comments - the voting rules for suffrage apply only to those chosing to actually vote. I've "re-instated" it, in as much as such a term makes sense in this context. James F. (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I don't feel I should support her per her recent use of Admin privileges, let alone ArbCom privileges. However, as this is the first major issue arising in relation to her being given extra privileges, I don't feel she is deserving of an oppose vote. So I abstain from the vote at the moment, pending any drastic change in her attitude towards the criticism she has been recently receiving. Werdna648T/C\@ 10:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I think it's bad to give additional power to someone who seems to think she's above policy. I'm also troubled by her incivility, and by what seems to be her contempt for those with whom she disagrees. I do believe that she worked conscientiously for the ArbCom, but there are others who could do that without being so abrasive. AnnH (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Based on her apology, on my conviction that she worked hard for the arbcom, on my belief that there has been more than enough nastiness over this issue, and on my respect for the judgment of some of the people who supported her both in the RfC and in this election (and who know her better than I do), I am changing my vote to neutral. AnnH (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose for the userbox explanation - Hbdragon88 23:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Moved vote to Oppose block, was put in wrong place by Hbdragon88. Mike 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Ooh, sorry about that. I was voting, but someone had changed the page before I could, so I dropped it at the bottom, forgetting about the neutral section - Hbdragon88 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Changed to Neutral - Arbitration requires a fair hand. It also requires an ability to be a shoulder on which to vent, and knowing what private information to pass on. A recent, private exchange with her has led me to seriously doubt she can be even-handed and I will reserve my vote for another time. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here