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

Moved support comments

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)

Failure to warmly welcome personal attacks from other editors is hardly grounds for dismissal. Maybe you should run. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:10, Jan. 9, 2006

Ineligible votes moved here

1. Support. --Bumpusmills1 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   Account too new, first edit on December 9th --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

2. 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)

   User's 61st edit. Rules require at least 150. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:28, Jan. 9, 2006

3. 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)

   Account too new (created 3 October 2005) - Mark 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Strongest Possible Oppose as shown in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin--Kf4bdy 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   Only 98 edits. 150 required (before start of election) for suffrage. Ambi 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose - per scrabble - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:30, Jan. 9, 2006

6. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   • Account created in November 23rd, vote don't count. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose Arkon 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   Not enough edits for suffrage. This was the user's 139th edit. - Mark 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose, per the Sam Spade.--God of War 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   Account too new (created 3 December 2005). - Evil saltine 06:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

9. Support David.Monniaux 12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   Duplicate vote (probably a mistake), the two vote diffs are: [2] [3]. --Interiot 04:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved Comment here

1. As my Oppose vote was wiped from this page (I came back from not using Wikipedia specifically to vote here), apparently because of some rule about when you first register this account or some nonsense, I thought that I'd say here why I think that she should be removed. It is not about user boxes. In the end, who cares if user boxes remain or not? The issue is cover ups. You could say removing my vote from here is a cover up. Or you can say her pretending that she had nothing to do with the improper banning of User:Poetlister when she was actually the one behind it. You could talk about her covering up of other administrator errors, her abuse of User:Mistress Selina Kyle, and so many other things. Whilst its nice that she finally got caught out because of the user box scandal, this is far from a first offence for this serial offender. But as her Request for Arbitration showed, while she remains an arbitrator she is untouchable. Hopefully this is the first step towards her losing her administrative priveleges. Wikipedia doesn't need people like this. Its people like Kelly who destroy Wikipedia. And her covering up the truth makes Wikipedia in to nothing short of a fraud. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
   • It's unfortunate timing, Zordrac. With 4,000+ edits we're all pretty damn sure you're not somebody's sockpuppet. A month ago you had more edits than me. But without (a) conclusive proof of sockpuppetry, or (b) inflexible age/edit threshholds of some kind, there would be no impartial way to keep the system from being gamed in one way or another. Without standards of some kind, such foul play would be inevitable and beyond control. Yes I do take a dim view of humanity, and no I'm not unduly troubled by it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:02, Jan. 9, 2006
     • Zordrac, I don't suppose you could dust off the old account and use that one to vote express preference? ++Lar: t/c 09:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Long comment by User:Chan-Ho Suh

Long comment by User:Chan-Ho Suh shifted to the talk page by Mark on 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC):

Reluctantly oppose. She appears to have made many good contributions to Wikipedia and the community...BUT besides the concerns raised by Oleg (see #13), she has behaved inappropriately regarding her talk page. She apparently doesn't see that her stringent blocking policy (for users making comments she deems unsuitable) assumes she has a special right; obviously, I, a non-admin, would not be able to get an admin to block a user merely on my say-so, which is basically what Kelly Martin's policy amounts to. She also blocked an (allegedly) trouble-making user Mistress Selina Kyle for a "lie" which Kelly Martin said amounted to a personal attack. The lie in question was MSK's statement that a user had been banned from IRC, a statement that Kelly Martin later said was true but somehow still a lie since the ban was only temporary. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-Add

Just thought I would note here that I readded my vote. Evidently I had only 138 of the at least 150 edits needed. That is no longer the situation. Arkon 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• No offense intended, but you might want to consider that the suffrage requirements are as of the start of voting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

None taken. I'll repeat what I wrote to another editor about this. "While I would agree that you are most likely correct in your interpretation of the wordage on what you must have to vote....I am going to disagree obviously because I -do- want to vote, and being disregarded for a lack of 12 edits just makes my head hurt. So, I am going to claim ambiguity in the wordage used which is In order to vote, you must have an account registered on or before 30 September 2005 and 150 edits by the start of the election (January 9). There is no time stated, just a date. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. " Arkon 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A novel approach. However, the first vote was cast by User:Doc at 00:03 UTC. That started the election IMMHO, unless you can contrive another novel point to make. :)-. Moriori 00:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still sticking to the (January 9) date. Although I must admit this has gone from annoying, to rather funny. The arbitrary rules to vote in the arbitration elections, good times. Arkon 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess, you oppose Kelly Martin for -- how shall we precis it -- acting unilaterally, but will act unilaterally yourself by insisting that rules re elegibility for the election apply to everyone but you. Something like that? You are right, it has become rather funny. Moriori 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's a bit sharp, mate. Accurate, but sharp none the less. Surely you can understand how frustrating it would be to be in that position? And can't we apply some common sense here? We're not a bureaucracy, process is supposed to help us. And Arkon, you'd do much better with this crowd by arguing similary. There are few insults that carry greater sting around here that "wiki-lawyering", and you're skating dangerously close.
• Let's just have the facts, and be honest about how we feel. Is there anyone else withing 15 edits of suffrage? Do we actually fear some sort of landslide of new accounts? Wouldn't we all be better off to simply make our votes, make out notes on the votes, and let it rest?
  brenneman^(t)(c) 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, commonsense tells me that voters (in any election) require eligibility, which is frustrating for editors like Arkon who just miss out, but thems the breaks. If we didn't have and enforce guidelines for this election then why even bother with it? Yes, process should help Wikipedia, but flawed process never will. Your ref to landslide of new accounts is interesting. Surely it might cut both ways. Moriori 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be taking me very wrongly here Moriori. Is my amusement not quite coming through in my obvious contradiction of agreeing with what you guys are saying, yet arguing that it shouldn't matter? Yes, I want my vote to count. Yes, I've made far more than 150 edits in my years of being here. Yes, it is funny (and annoying) to have my opinion discarded for a lack of 12(11?) edits. You seem to be trying to jump on the pile, while the pilee (me) is off getting drinks. Arkon 04:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Make mine an arf. Arkon, the gist of you saying "it shouldn't matter" is in effect saying "stuff the process", which is the reason many people voted oppose against Kelley Martin. It doesn't seem to be getting through. You want to stuff the process so you can vote against someone who said stuff the processs. A most peculiar sort of amusing.. Moriori 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, I replied on your talk page as well, but I think it bears repeating that this, if it is considered to be wikilawyering, has to be the most half-ass wikilawyering ever. Try to keep in mind the context and content of my complaint. (Jeez, I thought I went out of my way to be light-hearted about it while pointing out my annoyance.) Arkon 04:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a possible out -- have you (Arkon) done any vandal fighting in the form of marking articles for speedy deletion? Or have you made any edits on articles that have been deleted? I know I marked probably hundreds of speedies before I became an admin. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

JP, nah I don't think so, at least not on the actual account, but I don't know any way to pull that up. Besides I was an anon editor for well over a year. Can't count those either I would wager. Arkon 04:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the guidelines should be enforced. 150 edits is the bar. I guess there's no way to get a count of those edits that consisted of adding {{delete}} to a garbage article, is there? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As of this timestamp, Arkon has 0 (zero) deleted edits [4]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:07, Jan. 10, 2006

Wow! I haven't visited Kate's Tools in MUCH too long! Thanks! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox oppose votes

I wonder how many people are voting "oppose" on this issue solely because of the userboxes? Many of the oppose votes even say this as such. It's kind of sad that so many users are letting little pet projects get in the way of a fair vote. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of sad that so many users still believe that this issue is about userboxes. —David Levy 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Dear Cyde, userboxes have long since been not the issue hear. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then what exactly is this about? Some kind of alleged abuse of admin powers? I'd like to hear about it, because most of what I'm seeing on the votes page is "userbox, userbox, userbox". --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Its been about the community disagreeing with Ms.Martin's behavior before and after the userbox incident. As I cited before, most users endorse her in her mass-deleting of disruptive userboxes. THat's no longer the isssue here. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The dispute began with the deletion of userboxes (rendering this term a convenient means of referencing the issue), but it escalated into an ordeal that should not be rehashed here. —David Levy 05:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)