Shell Kinney

Without pointing specific fingers there are a lot of things broke about the way ArbCom works at the moment - mailing list leaks that haven't been plugged, super secret trials and information - tons of things that seemed like silly little flea bites when they started are now out of control festering sores that no one knows how to fix. I'm afraid my style is a bit more cauterize the wounds and a bit less touchy-feely recovery, but I think some honesty, frankness and transparency might just be the things that can turn around some of these disturbing trends. More at User:Shell Kinney/ArbCom2008.

Support

  1. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ѕandahl ♥ 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --PeaceNT (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. iridescent 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. kurykh 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think Michelle would be a great addition to ArbCom. Level-headed in my experience and loves to talk about issues and process them critically. Mike H. Fierce! 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As long as you promise to be more careful with your e-mail? [<-account creation team in-joke] L'Aquatique[talk] 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Daniel (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - intelligent and fair. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Prodego talk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Experienced in mediation. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Could do a very good job. AGK 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I'm surprised to see myself saying this, considering that she just article banned me for a week, and I strongly disagree with her decision there. But overall, I think she's got the best interests of the project in mind, and therefore I must Support. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. A very fair minded and savvy admin who seems to have the wisdom needed to be a referee, judge, and juror in the Committee. -- Fyslee / talk 05:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Given the candidate's lengthy history in dispute resolution I'd expect to see more opposers taking issue with Shell's performance as a dispute mediator. The lack of criticism on these grounds, on top of her thoughtful answers, suggests to me she'd make a good and pretty impartial Arbitrator. --JayHenry (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Sarah 09:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Aye ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --maclean 00:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. IronDuke 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - I don't see anything in the oppose section which can hinder my vote...--Cometstyles 06:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Peter cohen (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Kauffner (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Michael Snow (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support A steady, experienced hand is needed here. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Joe Nutter 01:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Jehochman Talk 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Good candidate and I approve. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Terence (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. @pple complain 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support based on existing work with the Mediation Committee; candidate has experience, appears to handle conflict resolution well, encouraging with praise, and supporting people to work toward a solution. I believe and trust the candidate's statement that she has a desire to help people and to help move the project forward. SilkTork *YES! 01:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Has experience and dedication, and my trust. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support --VS talk 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Dreadstar † 06:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I trust Shell's judgment, and have used her as a go to person to take over OTRS tickets. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-08t00:51z
  42. Indeed Ecoleetage (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, seems levelheaded and unlikely to try to create policy. Like the response that footnoted quotes overstepped, not so much that we should "ramp up" default to delete, but does not seem prepared to force such a measure. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. An excellent mediator; I have no doubt that the user will make an equally excellent member on the ArbCom.Bless sins (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I like their clue and forthrightness. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - I've had nothing but positive experiences with this editor. Dougie WII (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - BusterD (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - I liked most of the answers to the questions (though I hope she'll take another, more critical, look at how consensus is working on this site, because I think she's mistaken in her belief that it's scaled well). I didn't find any of the opposes persuasive, especially in light of her specific commitments with regards to recusal. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Rivertorch (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Hobartimus (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support JBsupreme (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support -- Samir 07:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support views on BLP. Also some decent idea on protecting confidentiality. And we do sometimes need less touchy-feelyness Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support --AAA765 (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Shell was amongst those about whose candidacies I did not take a voting position last year; my ambivalence persists this year, but I guess that I am persuaded that the candidate would prove a nice addition to the committee. Joe 07:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: Shell's no nonsense style, her knowledge of WP and her experience—especially her mediation experience—make her an excellent choice for ArbCom. Sunray (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - perfect candidate for committee. Caulde 14:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Epbr123 (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. SQLQuery me! 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support -- lucasbfr talk 21:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Has some imteresting ideas. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Voyaging(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Mathsci (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose extremely troubling conduct from this user makes me believe that this is the worse possible candidate listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Disappointed with some of her handling of OTRS tickets. krimpet✽ 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Caspian blue 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Steven Walling (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Majorly talk 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. See reasoning. east718 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. iMatthew 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. --Mixwell!Talk 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Atmoz (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I came to support, but have reconsidered, and now I feel there are better candidates for the committee. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose: Was aggressive towards me in the past while trying to defend a friend of hers on the wiki. Definitely not suited for AC. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Don't trust candidate's judgement. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - there are better candidates; not enough experience in content. Maybe next year? //roux   editor review10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Less drama, please. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. PhilKnight (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. — neuro(talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose due to concerns about impartiality. Skinwalker (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Verbal chat 12:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Rebecca (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 13:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. This was bizarre. Moreschi (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Synergy 19:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. On balance. Davewild (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. GlassCobra 00:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Alexfusco5 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose per User:SandyGeorgia. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Maybe next time. I am really on the fence with this one but not totally comfortable yet to vote for. Want to see her stand on her own more and not back her friends, sorry, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Excessive favoritism.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. - filelakeshoe 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. Миша13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose not entrely comfortable with her judgement of situations Gnangarra 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Questionable past judgments that were not neutral. - Fedayee (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Gentgeen (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Kusma (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Splash - tk 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose Lacks judgment in matters involving allies.--G-Dett (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose dougweller (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. opposeSlrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose as I have done to anyone whose answer to the confidentiality question hasn't satisfied me. This candidate hasn't answered it at all which is by definition unsatisfactory. Cynical (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Wronkiew (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose Law courts have secret discussions before handing down the vertidict. How different is it with ArbCom? (I'm not saying ArbCom is a wikiLaw-Court, but it functions a little like a law court) Leujohn (talk)
  62. Oppose - Shyam (T/C) 09:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Tex (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose Fred Talk 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose, simply put, there are more qualified candidates out there. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose - Per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose — xaosflux Talk 05:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Kelly hi! 16:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose although with no animus. Geogre (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category