Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vassyana

I have answered a candidate "vote guide" at User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide/Vassyana. My candidacy is based around three principles: devolution, project principles, and coherent interpretation.
Devolution is devolving responsibility to the standing administrators and broader community. This would not preclude me from supporting sanctions and other measures as part of an ArbCom case. The community generally expects action to be taken on ArbCom cases. However, I would clearly and explicitly remind the community of their options and encourage them to take the initiative and action in similar circumstances. ArbCom needs to clearly encourage and support admins and the community in resolving disruptive behavior.
Wikipedia has a number of project principles that form the foundation of our policies and guidelines. I am more likely to support decisions firmly grounded in these foundational principles and would oppose decisions outside of these principles. In cases where the principle is clear but policy is vague, I would act in favor of the underlying principle and encourage the community to clarify the policy.
Coherent interpretation is key to the healthy function of ArbCom and the community. On a number of occasions various policies, principles and ArbCom decisions are perceived to be in tension (or even contradictory). I believe that this is an erroneous approach resulting from a failure to consider the various factors in context. Rules, principles, and standing precedent should not considered individually in a vacuum. I will endeavor to interpret the rules and precedent in whatever manner results in the most complementary and coherent reading. Acting otherwise leads to inconsistent decisions and fragmented rules.

I believe most, if not all, concerns about ArbCom can be addressed by acting on these principles. In terms of process, I support transparent arbitration proceedings and decisions. All ArbCom decisions should have explicit reasonings and arbitrators should be open to elaborating on decisions to clear up any lack of understanding in the community. I am open to any and all questions that will help you make a decision on my candidacy. Vassyana (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Seddσn talk 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Privatemusings (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --maclean 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Elonka 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Switching to neutral. --Elonka 00:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Jehochman Talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. PhilKnight (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. krimpet✽ 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mr.Z-man 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Majorly talk 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Honey, i support. --Mixwell!Talk 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Atmoz (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Daniel (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support. Intelligent and NPOV mediating with Prem Rawat articles. Momento (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Mike H. Fierce! 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Effective mediator, no concerns. Will make a fine arbitrator if elected. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. support Kingturtle (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Synchronism (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, fair-minded, intelligent, hard working editor. Dreadstar † 07:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, insightful answers to questions. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I was impressed with the answers to questions. Brilliantine (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong candidate. —Dark talk 09:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. - Good mediator. Am concerned with responses regarding my questions on civility, but hope it will become better explained when V has a seat. //roux   editor review09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. — neuro(talk) 10:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Jayen466 10:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --Scott Mac (Doc) 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Tom B (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support --Folantin (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support --Tikiwont (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Absolutely. Useful voice at FTN now and again. Oppose concerns are unimpressive. Moreschi (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Verbal chat 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Colchicum (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Changed vote to Abstain. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:55, 13 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) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the account checker on the ArbCom Elections page says I AM eligible to vote in this election. What is going on here? I protest this seemingly arbitrary decision. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Mervyn Emrys's eligibility was incorrectly rated by a bug in the software (which bug has since been fixed), a discussion about whether his votes should be counted or not is ongoing at WT:ACE2008#Eligibility. --Elonka 02:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote reinstated - Lar CU confirms Mervyn Emrys' eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support -- Yaf (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. ~ priyanath talk 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. --Kbdank71 16:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Has a degree of humility that would help to make a fine arb. ElinorD (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Xavexgoem (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. GRBerry 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support NVO (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Synergy 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I guess you could call this a "strategic support". — CharlotteWebb 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Most absolutely support. AGK 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. DurovaCharge! 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Good answer to Mailer Diablo's second question. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Good answers to my questions. Acalamari 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Good answers, and I have always been impressed in our few interactions. I think he has exactly the right attitude.--Kubigula (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support iMatthew 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Yes; I've been favorably impressed on a number of levels. I think his judgement and experience would make him an excellent Arbitrator. If elected, I'd suggest consideration of recusal parameters per some of the "opposes" below. MastCell Talk 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Not afraid to take strong stances, platform is distinctive, to-the-point and compelling. Skomorokh 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Every time I encountered him, he had sound judgement on issues. Feet firmly planted on ground. Good answers to candidate questions. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. TS 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Weak Support GlassCobra 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support -- Intelligent, able to resolve disputes, good judgment, steady, even handed, educated. TimidGuy (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support -- Levine2112 discuss 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. SupportNrswanson (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per above. Khoikhoi 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Captain panda 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to oppose. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. A fine, upstanding editor who will make a good Arb. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 09:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per Mastcell. Bucketsofg 13:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Epbr123 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, excellent candidate, with valuable and extensive experience in WP:DR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Khukri 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Littleolive oil(olive (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  80. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. LLDMart (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. east718 23:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. OK. The main candidate statement is vague as has been stated, but Vassyana has explained elsewhere what he means by the distinction between policy and principles, and it's a reasonable one. Chick Bowen 02:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Good experience in mediation, will make a useful arbitrator. - Fedayee (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - Tājik (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. User:Krator (t c) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Kind, balanced and willing to make hard calls. Renee (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Michael Snow (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support --Node (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Vassyana has worked with MedCab as a coordinator after I stepped down from that the position, and I feel he has done a fine job of it. Kylu (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support --Namsos (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 07:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote, if you are truly Naerii, log in. — neuro(talk) 07:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion on IRC took place, looks like it is ok to let them vote. — neuro(talk) 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not querying the decision, so much as the methodology. If IRC is not apppropriate for admin decisions, when is it appropriate to validate votes MikeHobday (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. --NikoSilver 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support dougweller (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support What some below have seen as a bias, I see only as a bias towards neutrality, and an impressively scholarly neutrality at that. Rumiton (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Wronkiew (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Joe Nutter 21:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Calm rational user = what we need Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support outstanding impartial contributor to discussion, gives right priorities to content, people and processes. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Terence (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Neutrality and clear thought is above all needed in Wikipedia. --Hectorian (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Slightly concerned about issues raised regarding the Prem Rawat fiasco but overall a solid track record.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Sfrandzi (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support --Cactus.man ✍ 20:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Randomran (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Definitely My experience with Vassyana is that he possesses qualities needed to be a highly competent ArbComm member. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Weak support Weak answer to the science question and support from certain anti-science admins and editors cause me pause. However, I'm willing to overlook a slightly anti-science attitude in the hopes of improving Arbcom. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. A rare person you see in life, an outstanding mediator. Caulde 12:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Good experience as a mediator, good attitude, good record, should be a good arbitrator. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. --Fang Aili talk 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. —Animum (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support I read through the oppose camp's rationales, related pages, and conversation, but I'm not persuaded by them. Rather, I believes the candidate's profound knowledge of religion (impressive FA works) would be a great asset for ArbCom since politics, religion, geographic disputes are our favorite subjects there.--Caspian blue 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support, deserves. Shyam (T/C) 10:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Good answers on recusal questions and I have seen few of his mediations/RFC (last is Sveta Gera) . Vassyana question is clear and simple to solve this nationalistic dispute.--Rjecina (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. Slam Dunk. Of course no one is entirely perfect, and people who actually do work also make mistakes (hence the irony of REALLY good candidates getting more opposes than the merely adequate ones)... but that said, if there's anyone I'd love to see on arbcom, it would be Vassyana. He has a good head on his shoulders! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - Biruitorul Talk 16:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support--Iamawesome800 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. support   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 05:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Strong Support There is no doubt about it. Vassyana is one the best Person, wikipedian and Admin around and Arbcom will be better with him.--Anish (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support —Ashley Y 09:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Dmcdevit·t 11:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - While I haven't always agreed with Vassyana, my interactions with them have convinced me that I'll always have cause to respect Vassyana's opinion - and that's exactly the sort of person I'd like on ArbCom. - Bilby (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support, Bless sins (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Tends towards fairness and detailed well-reasoned explanations. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support, per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes, fair and ethical user. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Alohasoy (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support I hope ArbCom would be like what you said in your Candidate statement. Leujohn (talk)
    Support 138.162.0.41 (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, as an IP you are not eligible to vote. If you have an account that has had 150 mainspace edits by November 1, please log in. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support - I think he would be a strong asset to Arbcom, and he "gets" the role of the community. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - better than others. Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Alun (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support RMHED (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support --Patrick (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Based on your work at MedCab, I think you would definitely put in the necessary time to be an effective arbcom member. Wizardman 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Cla68 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Rockpocket 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support despite concerns over devolution. POV pushers and vested contributors make the community unable to deal effectively with complex issues like pseudoscience and conflict of interest, despite (or perhaps because of) Arbcom's useless and counterproductive discretionary sanctions. Still, I believe that the candidate is level-headed, wikipolitically independent, and will help drain the swamp of the current Arbcom. Skinwalker (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support, In my view he is a fair user. --Wayiran (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support A sound candidate. I like the opening statement and answers to the questions are thorough and well-reasoned. Rje (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I was impressed by his opening statement and that he believes that "arbitrators should be open to elaborating on decisions to clear up any lack of understanding in the community."—Sandahl 04:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Neutral.—Sandahl 06:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support -- The Myotis (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Farmanesh (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support: Sensible, proactive: traits that will serve ArbCom well. --Jim Butler (t) 17:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support: No negative experience, seems sensible. --Illythr (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Giants2008 (17-14) 04:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support Excellent background here as a mediator, patient, sensible, and effective. DGG (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support --danielfolsom 05:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. WODUP 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. I took a number of factors into consideration - to specify a few: keen willingness to learn, outstanding answers to my questions, and a good sense of timeliness (although Questions 4b c and d took a little more time). At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 3. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support Sounds like a plan. Haukur (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Hardyplants (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support JBsupreme (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. --MPerel 00:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support — xaosflux Talk 04:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support. Very good answers to candidate questions. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support - views on BLP are good. Views on sometimes need for discretion by the arbcom are more akin to mine Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly hi! 16:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support - Xasha (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support -- Samir 08:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  178. He has done mediations for a long time, and I respect his honest and modest reply to my question. — Sebastian 09:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support Sunray (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support MaxPont (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support - I do have some concerns, as expressed by others in the oppose section. But, there are seven slots to fill, and think you are a better choice than some of the alternatives. --Aude (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support Willking1979 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. seresin ( ¡? )  22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support Sandy and Jayvdb seem to have confidence in you, so I don't see why it would hurt. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support. ST47 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support ..Modernist (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support PseudoOne (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support I have some concerns but I have more concerns about other candidates. Orderinchaos 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support, strategically. Maxim(talk) 23:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support. Kablammo (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support Sarah 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support As per SebastianHelm and Ottava Rima.Feel you will a good arb particurly with your mediation experience. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support – Waltham, The Duke of 23:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Strong Support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  197. ' Support. Gimmetrow 23:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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) Changed to support Maxim(talk) 23:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. In his longterm mediation of Prem Rawat he appeared to favor one side of the dispute, participated in writing a draft of the article, and then defended that draft. Because of the many disputes related to new religious movements that the ArbCom deals with, a user who cannot remain neutral on these matters could cause problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I happened to observe a portion of that Mediation in the course of a third party invitation for scrutiny of the events therein. I seen no evidence of Vassyana unduly favouring either side in the mediation. AGK 18:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further discussion at User talk:AGK#Prem Rawat mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dlabtot (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Voyaging(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Your core beliefs are rather complicated and confusing. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Steven Walling (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. iMatthew 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Will Beback (talk · contribs) raises some valid concerns. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Prodego talk 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rebecca (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak 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 13:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Tom Harrison Talk 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pcap ping 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm striking out my vote to counterbalance one below that I think was cast for the wrong (stated) reason. Vassyana tried to add to the sources policy the idea that secondary sources can sometimes be just as unreliable, and sometimes more so than primary sources. His effort failed. Unfortunately, the absolute classification employed in Wikipedia today has enabled a number of POV pushers, like those acting in the Cold Fusion article, where review papers from obscure journals have been pushed as more reliable than other primary sources. I still don't find his statement or answers to questions convincing enough for me to support. Pcap ping 12:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 1 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) 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Politics ViridaeTalk 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No anonymous arbitrators, please, especially if they have only 11,000 edits (2,000 mainspace edits).Biophys (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per Will Beback above --B (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Sorry, but I have concerns about your neutrality, per the example given by Will Beback. Having looked through your edit history, I don't believe you have the breadth of topic experience necessary to make a good arb member. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Alexfusco5 02:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. --Kleinzach 08:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Like Will, I was worried about Vassyana's editing of Prem Rawat, which didn't seem neutral. Secondly, I had an encounter with him on WP:NOR a year ago, when he tried to make various changes, which included implying that secondary sources are more likely to be biased than primary sources (e.g. here), which is simply false. In trying to defend his changes, I felt he became a little abusive (he accused me of lying at one point) and obsessive — during the five months or so that he tried to change the policy, he posted 493 times to the talk page, insisting that, if we didn't respond to him, it meant we didn't object to his proposals, at which point he'd add them to the policy. It has left me uneasy about seeing him on the committee. SlimVirgin talk|edits 13:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose, with apologies. Your candidate statement reads like empty political blather, and I shudder that I might wake up to arbcom decisions reading like this. --dab (𒁳) 18:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Maxim basically. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Миша13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. +O As per SlimVirgin, neutrality concerns. Just not where I want to go. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Gentgeen (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose per "he posted 493 times to the talk page, insisting that, if we didn't respond to him, it meant we didn't object to his proposals, at which point he'd add them to the policy." We've seen this before with other admins, and where did that get us? SashaNein (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose RMHED (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. - auburnpilot talk 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Kusma (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose - as per Will Beback Mccready (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - due to suggestion of partiality in the NRM field (brought up by Will Beback (talk · contribs · logs), which is potentially a major concern for any potential Arbitrator. ←Spidern→ 17:38, 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) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. Not only endorsing the secret evidence and non-public email lists that have destroyed Arbcom's credibility, but actually participating in it? Cynical (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Protonk (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose II | (t - c) 04:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Skinny87 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Orderinchaos 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to support. Orderinchaos 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Politics. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose per Will Beback. AdjustShift (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose --VS talk 01:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. kurykh 10:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose MikeHobday (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose I believe that your "devolution" principle is unsuited to ArbCom. Editors end up at ArbCom because the community has failed in resolving their particular disputes - asking the community to take on the responsibility of resolving disputes it has already admitted it cannot resolve is not a viable solution. Awadewit (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose per answer to Lar 1B and 2B, no more BLP please, especially not imposed by ArbCom. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Tex (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Weak oppose; I really want to see a few candidates "win". Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. Various concerns - all niggling, I guess. WilyD 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I have great respect for this user but I also have great concern that devolution is a step backwards, for reasons similar to what Awadewit says. I will expand on this thought at some point but my concern is essentially that, while nice in theory, in practice devolution tends to put all the power in the hands of the admins who are the most tendentious. --JayHenry (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Per my reasons. MBisanz talk 13:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. Per SlimVirgin. Manxruler (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Devolution would be a disaster. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite weak oppose. I think Vassyana could be a good arb-- but I don't see the zeal for improving & reforming the project that some other candidates exhibit. The first step to improving a system is to recognize there is room for improvement, and my vague impression after reading V.'s statements is that is some other candidates may have a firmer grasp on the fact that there is some room to improve Arbitration. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to Strong Support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Gazimoff 14:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose - I don't find the general statement of principles in your statement a convincing manifesto for actually changing things on a committee where you'll be one of many voices. Chrislintott (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose per Will Beback. Crum375 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose but generally like what he says. Fred Talk 20:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per devolution only. Disputes reach the Arbcom precisely because they have been discussed ad nauseam by the community and it's time for them to come to an end. Húsönd 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose - nothing personal, but I have chosen a group of 7 (now five) editors who I want to win. RockManQReview me 01:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. IronDuke 02:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose Amalthea 04:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose per Will be back. Xoloz (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Opposenothing personal, tactical vote. --TimBits 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose on responses to science / NPOV and NOR concerns. . dave souza, talk 12:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose -- billinghurst (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose - Ryan4314 (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose Nothing personal; purely an attempt to redress the % rankings closer to the net rankings (which I believe to be a better metric) --RexxS (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. 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. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Nothing wrong with you except running ahead of somebody I like better. SBHarris 02:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose per Will Beback's concerns, and neutrality concerns of my own after reading through that issue. Ariel♥Gold 04:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose mostly tactical Wkdewey (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC) never mind Wkdewey (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose I share the significant worries held by Seraphim and Cynical. Joe 08:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. NW's Public Sock (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose I found the reasons to oppose cited by MBisanz compelling enough to move me into opposition. Additionally, the support of Wikipedians whose approach to this project are diametrically opposed to mine (Ryan Postlethwaite and Phil Sandifer) would be enough to give me pause about supporting this candidate. If they think this candidate will move the project in their direction, that would chill any nascent support on my part. I could overcome that concern, just as I overcame my concern about voting in concert with Will Beback (whose rationale to oppose I don't find factually supported) to oppose due to Mbisanz's cogent statement of concern. --SSBohio 19:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. SQLQuery me! 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. For reasons too idiosyncratic to elaborate on here. Mackensen (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Purely tactical. S.D.D.J.Jameson 21:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose per support of 'devolution' from ArbCom - I'm of the opinion that ArbCom is doing too little work at the moment, not too much. It's unhelpful to take the position that more cases be handled by the community, since the reason cases come to ArbCom in the first place is because the community can't resolve them. Terraxos (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Grandmasterka 21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose - I believe that he has too much faith in Wikipedia's community consensus-based DR resolutions, as evidenced by his description of arbitrators being ideally unnecessary and by his enthusiasm for devolution. As well, as with all candidates I view pseudonymity as a strike against, though not a mortal one. The combination of these concerns means that I can oppose without investigating the concerns expressed about Prem Rawat mediation, which I otherwise would. As a final note, though, I saw nothing wrong with his answers to Rspeer's question, and am confused by those who are opposing on that basis. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose AlexiusHoratius 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose - Seems to be a good editor, but not what I think ArbCom needs right now. لennavecia 22:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose, I favor other candidates to this one. --Pixelface (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Not really a big fan of oppose votes, or of tactical voting in general, but this election is close enough that I have to make some hard choices about those "on the bubble". I don't think we would be completely ill served by Vassyana on arbcom (although I can't be sure, this editor is somewhat of a cipher to me, and the Prem Rawat stuff makes me a bit unsure) but there are candidates that I strongly feel that we really need on arbcom that are too close, marginally, to Vassyana for me not to oppose. So, with regret and with no offense intended, Oppose ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Tactical vote - Carcharoth has a greater number of supporters so I am attempting to reflect the views of a greater percentage of the editorship. I shouldn't be disappointed if this candidate still succeeds. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose EJF (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Vassyana&oldid=1223288378"