Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Shell Kinney

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

  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. Baka man 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. SQL Query 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. -- El on ka 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.....-- Comet styles 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. WjB scribe 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. Rockpocke t 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. John Vandenberg 09:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Support -- Versa geek 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 Agne Cheese/ 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

  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. -- Core desat 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Alex fus co5 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. Hús ö nd 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. Ral 315 — ( Voting) 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oppose Avruch Talk 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Avruch does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(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. Ante lan talk 06:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 15:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. Wily D 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/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Shell_Kinney&oldid=1147979035"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Shell Kinney

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

  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. Baka man 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. SQL Query 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. -- El on ka 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.....-- Comet styles 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. WjB scribe 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. Rockpocke t 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. John Vandenberg 09:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Support -- Versa geek 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 Agne Cheese/ 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

  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. -- Core desat 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Alex fus co5 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. Hús ö nd 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. Ral 315 — ( Voting) 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oppose Avruch Talk 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Avruch does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(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. Ante lan talk 06:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 15:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. Wily D 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/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Shell_Kinney&oldid=1147979035"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE