Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Shell Kinney

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Shell Kinney[edit]

There are two main reasons that I would be an asset to the Arbcom. First is my commitment to the Foundation's projects and the community that supports them. Second is my experience with Wikipedia, dispute resolution and OTRS.
I've been an editor since June 05 (my account name was previously Jareth) and an Admin since November 05. I started working on the now defunct Wikipedia helpdesk email shortly before becoming an administrator - when this closed, I was invited to volunteer at OTRS. While some of the answers to OTRS emails are simple, many involve research to resolve and all require delicate handling of disputes and a solid knowledge of policy.
The ArbCom needs members who can stay active and nimble even under the weight of a rather thankless job. Thank you for this opportunity. Shell babelfish 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the lateness of this addition, however, I chose to give the person time to correct their statement first. I did not at any time call another editor a cretin. The statement being referred to is in reference to a person who stalked, or encouraged the stalking of a number of Wikpiedia editors. Anyone who is not aware of the situation is welcome to email me for a full explanation. Shell babelfish 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Daniel 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --W.marsh 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bakaman 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kurykh 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Gurch (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SQLQuery me! 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John254 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cryptic 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I am impressed by her dedication to the project. Pocopocopocopoco 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Elonka 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Spebi 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. JayHenry 07:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --MONGO 07:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Crockspot 08:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Angela. 10:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Neil ☎ 12:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Unqualified support. Excellent candidate. PeaceNT 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Dekimasuよ! 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Barely passing the threshold in convincing for a weak support. KTC 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. From my interaction way back in April, I will support every time. — Rudget contributions 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Shell Kinney is trustworthy. Acalamari 18:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I'm actually on the fence, but I liked your answer to my question, so I'll give a weak support. Wizardman 18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Trust is all thats needed.....--Cometstyles 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. —Celestianpower háblame 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - not my first choice, but sounds good enough. -- Schneelocke 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. --Docg 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. WjBscribe 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Cool Hand Luke 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Fainites barley 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support ×Meegs 01:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Has shown excellent judgment and understanding of Wiki process during the times I have come across her. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. @pple complain 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Rockpocket 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. John Vandenberg 09:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --Versageek 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Automatic support for OTRS candidates. Phil Sandifer 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    not automatic, but deserved--Docg 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented as this is Doc glasgow's second vote the wub "?!" 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Weak support -- has experience in conflict resolution. — Sebastian 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (changed to "weak" after reading the "cretin" quote cited below. I still hope that the candidate can learn from mistakes, though.)[reply]
  44. Michael Snow (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  46. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this candidate! - 14:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per the ludicrous reasons given below for opposing. --B (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Tony Sidaway 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Has the requisite track record.[reply]
  53. Support one of the few users that I have been in a conflict with that, when I came out of it on the other end, I truly respected. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Terence (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Understands the long view. BusterD (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support AgneCheese/Wine 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support A few rough edges but a strong candidate overall. Strikes me as a straight shooter instead of a drama queen. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I respect apologist's opinion. Brusegadi (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, per answers to questions. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. • Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support KleenupKrew (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support semper fictilis 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Xoloz (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support --Mike Searson (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - quite impressed with answers to questions. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Shell has done a huge amount of OTRS work, and sadly the fruits of her labor there are the oppose votes below. She deserves more support than she has received. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Taprobanus (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - calm and consistent given a thankless task. Warofdreams talk 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per her statement, answers, supporters, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support high-quality edits and evidence of fairness Luqman Skye (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - The Bethling(Talk) 09:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Sue Wallace (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Basic moral support. There is sometimes an important difference between NPOV and SPOV. But she's a good guy. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Sound contributor to the project. Would exercise common sense. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. ElinorD (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support wbfergus Talk 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Thanks again for the barnstar. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support this dedicated wikpedian. JERRY talk contribs 01:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support David Lauder (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support NoSeptember 20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support dv dv dv d 22:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. maclean 09:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support: Christchurch (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support, disagree with her on a few important matters, but paradoxically because of just that, feel I have to support her candidacy. The arbitration committee should be neither all bleeding heart softies, nor Judge Roy Beans and Judge Judys. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Sure. DS (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Sarah 23:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. More highly qualified candidates, sorry This is a Secret account 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. east.718 at 00:30, December 3, 2007
  3. Nufy8 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. The candidate pushed with vigor for his fringe exclusionist interpretation of fairuse policy. This shows lack of concern for the encyclopedic content. The latter is a concern for holding the position of any influence in this project. --Irpen 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Temporary withdrawing my vote per this discussion per suspicion of name confusion. Would gladly issue a most sincere apology if I am mistaken. --Irpen 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely withdrawing my vote with an apology to the candidate over the name confusion. Full explanation here and in the link above. --Irpen 06:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose As per Irpen, we don't need any zealous layperson copyright enforcers on Arbcom, there are enough on wikipedia already. Travb (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) as per Irpen. Travb (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Travb.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Secret. --Coredesat 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Alexfusco5 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Rebecca 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose -Dureo 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mercury 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Húsönd 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. WAS 4.250 09:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Oppose, does not exhibit the appropriate leadership qualities. An arbitrator who refers to his fellow editors as "cretins" [1] [2] is dubious at best. Mindraker 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Splash - tk 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Addhoc 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose AvruchTalk 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Avruch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Edivorce 18:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Davewild 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Ripberger 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Jd2718 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. GRBerry 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Better, but I'm still not convinced. Guettarda 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. EconomistBR 00:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Atropos 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Cactus.man ✍ 00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Viriditas 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose less robustly Of all the declared OTRS candidates, this is the one I would have most liked to support; my reasons for opposing do not prevent ever voting for an OTRS agent. But I cannot swallow what seems automatic desysopping for the reversal of any OTRS action, and the answer to Daniel's fourth question comes too close to that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. She closed a deletion review in which she participated. [3]. Later, an uninvolved admin determined that the consensus was, in fact, the opposite of what Shell claimed.Antelan talk 06:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. WilyD 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. SashaNein (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. BobTheTomato (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Longhair\talk 13:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Automatic desysopping for reversing an OTRS action seems a bit extreme, what if an action was implemented improperly and an admin tried to fix it? Homestarmy (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose per Mindraker.--Bedivere (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strongly oppose. The same that last time: I and many other good faith editors had a terrible experience with Shell as administrator in the infamous White People article case, where she supported a disruptive editor (that was eventually banned but not without much grief and struggle) systematically. I don't think she has meditated about this or at least I have no indication of it. Also I am starting to become suspicious of her ambition and motivations. --Sugaar (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Wolfman (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose: This user may be nice, but not fair and impartial. Others may have had a different experience, but this was mine even though we got near to resolving our issues on the Dunin articles later on but I cant forget my first experiences that left me with a very bad taste. Lesson: Dont take sides. Do the right thing. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose better candidates --Mcginnly | Natter 13:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Everyking (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose - nothing personal; we need a different perspevtive. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  49. Mattisse 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose --健次(derumi)talk 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 07:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose per Septentrionalis. I feel OTRS and ArbCom should operate separately. Good work in one does not equate to good work in the other. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Weak oppose. the wub "?!" 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose Saudade7 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Per Carcharoth and others. OTRS and ArbCom are not good fits. Risker (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose Per separation of powers.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Oppose - attempted to close [4] a highly controversial deletion review that she had participated in. [5] That's not just a reason not to put her on the arbcom, it's a pretty good reason for having the arbcom remove admin powers. :-( --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Maxim(talk) 00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose per recent events. R. Baley (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose I don't mind the attempt to close itself, I think it was done in good faith. But she lost her cool a little at AN/I, which makes me hesitate. delldot talk 12:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose Catchpole (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose, more qualified candidates. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose: Opacity is the death of Wikipedia and the justification of all its detractors. Any closed world within Wikipedia that shows relish for its secrecy is cancerous. I have had hackles and doubts raised in the last day or so. Apologetically, Geogre (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. — xaosflux Talk 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. --Vintagekits (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose: Regrettably. Concerned about reasoning given in this thread behind diff provided by Antelan and AnonEMouse. Don't wish to see this idea of impartiality represented in the arbitration committee. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Prolog (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Poor judgement in closing the recent DRV. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 22:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose. --Padraig (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Shell_Kinney&oldid=1147979035"