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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaron (talk | contribs) at 05:07, 9 January 2006 (→‎Oppose: typo fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kelly Martin

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)[reply]

Questions

Support

  1. --Doc ask? 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Happy to.--Sean|Black 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Shanes 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. - Seth Ilys 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ben 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. She has proven herself quite indefatigible in the face of adversity. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support. Ambi 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cryptic (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Agnte 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support ➥the Epopt 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. One of the few dozen Wikipedians whose judgements and opinions I trust implicitly. Batmanand 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Carbonite | Talk 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support–Gnomz007(?) 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - she's doing OK on the arbcom already. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Mark 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. --Bumpusmills1 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new, first edit on December 9th --Jaranda wat's sup 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - A wikipedian who without doubt, is as trustworthy a person you could come across. Total support. Tmalmjursson Thor Malmjursson 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's 61st edit. Rules require at least 150. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:28, Jan. 9, 2006
  26. Support --Golbez 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support -- one of two ArbCommissioners able publically recognize that Karmafist is fully "unfit" to be an admin. r b-j 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Levelheadedness. Johnleemk | Talk 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support as long as she promises to lay off the bottle! ;) --Wgfinley 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Actually gets things done... Very no-nonsense kind of person. -- uberpenguin 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. 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)[reply]
  34. Support - we need someone to take action on the userbox lunacy! -- Arwel (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Sarah Ewart 02:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Sdedeo (tips) 02:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Dmcdevit·t 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - BanyanTree 03:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Fred Bauder 03:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Rob Church Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Calton | Talk 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support FCYTravis 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support kmccoy (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Wile E. Heresiarch 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - the userbox thing was bad, but doesn't outweigh the good for me. ←Hob 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support 172 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. — Dan | talk 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 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)[reply]
  49. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support linas 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Everyking 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Haukur 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Friday (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 00:14, Jan. 9, 2006
  8. – ugen64 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Kirill Lokshin 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Policy - Mackensen (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sadly Oppose --Jaranda wat's sup 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. brenneman(t)(c) 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I belive Kelly did a very good job as an arbitrator so far, but her behavior on the infoboxes 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)[reply]
  14. Oppose. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Evil Eye 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Raven4x4x 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. —David Levy 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose — Omegatron 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Reluctant oppose. --AySz88^-^ 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Oleg Alexandrov. JYolkowski // talk 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strongest Possible Oppose as shown in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin and this edit[1]. karmafist 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. 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)[reply]
  23. TacoDeposit 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Unilateral decisions (such as the userbox debacle); her vote on Punkmorten's Request for adminship; and her "tip" jar in her userpage. While I wouldn't suggest she is "buyable", I would avoid even the appearence of evil by not soliciting money while acting as an arbitrator. Ifnord 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created 3 October 2005) - Mark 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Reluctant oppose because of continued failure to appreciate constructive criticism of how recent actions were done. Jonathunder 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose as per Oleg Alexandrov, Karmafist and Ifnord. Inappropriate behaviour indeed. Staffelde 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose--Duk 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Highest Possible Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strongest Oppose See candidate's RfC. Xoloz 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose--CBD ☎ ✉ 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Needs a break from dealing with ArbCom and other Wikistress.[reply]
  31. Oppose per Oleg. Kit 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose.--ragesoss 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose per Oleg. Evil saltine 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongest Possible Oppose as shown in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin--Kf4bdy 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 98 edits. 150 required (before start of election) for suffrage. Ambi 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. Should not be permitted to piss on any more playgrounds. Grace Note 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - per scrabble - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [2]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:30, Jan. 9, 2006
  35. 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)[reply]
  36. Oppose Too confrontational. Paul August ☎ 03:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose for issues brought up in RFC. --Rob 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose RfC --Admrboltz (T | C) 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Crunch 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose --2004-12-29T22:45Z 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. 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)[reply]
  42. Oppose -Greg Asche (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose, serious concerns about respect for consensus. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Account created in November 23rd, vote don't count. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Rhobite 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Ronline ✉ 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Arkon 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not enough edits for suffrage. This was the user's 139th edit. - Mark 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Dottore So 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose --Heah talk 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose --Hurricane111 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. oppose Grutness...wha? 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Infoboxes, like most others here. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose per Oleg Alexandrov. --Aaron 05:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Kelly_Martin&oldid=34458648"