Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Shell Kinney

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement

[edit]

Note: Most know me as Jareth, my account name for much of the time here

I'm afraid I'm not the best speech writer, but I'll have a go. I'm a closet wikignome - I work on many tasks with the best interests of the project in mind. This, my experiences with a couple of ArbCom cases and my work with OTRS have led me to interact with many different facets of the project and hopefully I've learned from them. The work I do also leads itself to mediation and negotiating resolutions, whether its internal or with an external party through the ticketing system.

The community lays the foundation for precedents; policy itself should not come from the committee. ArbCom is an important part of keeping the editing environment healthy and I would be honored to devote my experience and skills to that cause. I have considerable time I can apply which I would hope might help resolve cases in a more timely fashion and allow Fred to cool his fingers now and again.

Further info based on questions:

  • I have the time to work with ArbCom and still do other things to help out the project. Neither becoming an admin nor starting work on OTRS changed my enjoyment of dabbling in areas of the project that need assistance.
  • Its possible I will make mistakes, however, I will also learn from them and whenever possible, fix them. My ego is infinitely less important than the well-being of the project.
  • Don't vote based just on what you see here, stroll through my contributions and decide for yourself if I'm qualified/sane. Be comfortable with the contributors chosen to represent the community on ArbCom and don't be afraid to ask for recall if someone doesn't work out.
  • ArbCom should limit itself to conduct disputes and rule based on existing community consensus. What I think about a particular policy doesn't change that mandate and I don't intend to try legislating from the bench.

Thank you for your time; I will be happy answer any questions.

Questions


  • Since some editors have requested further information on the incident behind Sugaar's comments below, please see the warn and the block he refers to and judge for yourself.

Support

[edit]
  1. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jaranda wat's sup 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hello32020 01:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Terence Ong 04:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Warofdreams talk 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. THB 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Changed to support after rechecking history. Coredesat 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Riley 06:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Vercalos 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC), Provided I actually qualify to vote on this matter.[reply]
  10. Support his crusade against trolling and personal attacks. Piotr's vote made up my mind. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Catchpole 09:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weakly. – Chacor 09:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support very very weakly Anomo 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --§hanel 15:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support MerryJ-Ho
    This user is banned. --Srikeit 11:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  (Ŧ) 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. --Myles Long 19:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support RFerreira 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Michael Snow 23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - has my confidence. Metamagician3000 08:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support ×Meegs 10:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - I'll take this space to respond to Sugaar. I am an administrator who shares mops with Shell at the same noticeboard I can offer some insight. Shell issued a very brief (6 hour) block on Sugaar recently and opened a user conduct WP:RFC in an attempt to clear up the matter. I had recused myself from the dispute in question and Shell stepped in. I don't consider Shell's actions to be sufficient reason to withhold my support at this nomination, much less oppose it. Both of these two editors have my respect for creditable participation at Wikipedia. DurovaCharge! 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak Support not enthusiastic about him, but couldn't find a particular point to oppose -Drdisque 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Andre (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, absolutely. Dragomiloff 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Yamaguchi先生 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support --SteveMcCluskey 05:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Agne 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Sadly, only Weak Support per the issue raised below, but support nonetheless. Keep up the good work. =) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. As others, I support rather weakly (although I'm a great fan of the abide by the consensus of the community theme) and where otherwise I might have declined to participate in view of my finding the concerns relative to which one might oppose as not particularly egregious. Joe 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Gamaliel 14:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Docg 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Cryptic 13:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Michael 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-13t20:41z
  42. Support -- Candidate understands the issues regarding SPOV very well (school of hard knocks can be a real asset). I encourage those who voted against this candidate due to the infamous hasty block of myself to reconsider. --ScienceApologist 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Hall Monitor 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. --Iantresman 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support AvB ÷ talk 10:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support --t ALL IN c 21:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Cpuwhiz11 00:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Be wise! -- DLL .. T 12:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. I know this user and trust her judgment. Bastiq▼e demandez 12:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. —Xyrael / 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. theProject 02:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support (Liked one of the cases he provided as an example. I had planned to do some more research but got held up by other things, including a state of emergency in our area, so my first impression will have to do.) 04:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianHelm (talk • contribs) 2006-12-17t04:06:04z
  53. Support Rivertorch 19:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. - crz crztalk 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ßottesiηi (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rebecca 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KPbIC 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Our visions of 'what is just' don't seem to run pararell, as seen in our recent discussion. Which is not to say you are not doing a great job in many places I am not aware of. Perhaps next time I can vote differently...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cyde Weys 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis 04:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. semper fi — Moe 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Nufy8 06:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Dylan Lake 07:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NO WAY (or in other words: very very strongly oppose). Not sufficiently even-handed. Tends to resort too easily to disciplinary methods, even going beyond what policy allows, and not to look to conflicts in depth. Almost never admits an error. She thinks that blocks can be used as punishments in unclear PA allegations, she ignores other admins' discrepant opinions, ignores the results of RfCs and is not open to recall or even recusal. In brief: too arrogant to be in charge. --Sugaar 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. cj | talk 11:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SuperMachine 13:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Shyam (T/C) 14:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Block of Science Apologist. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per Sugaar, was heavyhanded with constructive editors, and assumed good faith with trolls. Something is not right.Bakaman 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Pjacobi 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Guettarda 22:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Gurch 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. —Viriditas | Talk 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Agree with Sugaar. GizzaChat © 07:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose--ragesoss 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Yanksox 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose FeloniousMonk 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Nishkid64 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Cardamon 05:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Weak oppose - overall an excellent admin, however, can't support, because too quick in blocking productive editors... Addhoc 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Like the candidate personally, but isn't the most qualified in this great field of possible arbitrators. Xoloz 21:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Dr Zak 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak Oppose Seems too heavy handed for arbcom. --Danaman5 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. An arbcom limited to conduct disputes is a waste of time. Also per Sugaar. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Morton devonshire 22:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. OpposePer Sugaar--D-Boy 10:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose, Mallanox 20:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose per Sugaar. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose -- Longhair\talk 09:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Sarah Ewart 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Quick trigger with blocks shows a style ill-suited for ArbCom Lost Kiwi(talk)22:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Not responding to new questions. --Aude (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Derex 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Derogatory and threatening behaviour, not understanding wikipedia policy. [1] Happily ever after 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Happily lacks sufferage - I only count 106 edits prior to 12/4 TheronJ 04:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose --rogerd 05:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Seems like a reasonable candidate, but without enough community interest (this will be just the 101st vote) to be considered at this time. Jd2718 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose Kiwidude 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Shell_Kinney&oldid=1100739799"