Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Larno Man (talk | contribs) at 02:18, 2 December 2008 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
  5. Elonka 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Jehochman Talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. PhilKnight (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. krimpet✽ 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mr.Z-man 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Majorly talk 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 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]
  13. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Honey, i support. --Mixwell!Talk 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Atmoz (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Daniel (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support. Intelligent and NPOV mediating with Prem Rawat articles. Momento (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Mike H. Fierce! 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Effective mediator, no concerns. Will make a fine arbitrator if elected. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. support Kingturtle (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Synchronism (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, fair-minded, intelligent, hard working editor. Dreadstar † 07:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, insightful answers to questions. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I was impressed with the answers to questions. Brilliantine (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong candidate. —Dark talk 09:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 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]
  32. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. — neuro(talk) 10:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Jayen466 10:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. --Scott Mac (Doc) 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Tom B (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support --Folantin (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support --Tikiwont (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Absolutely. Useful voice at FTN now and again. Oppose concerns are unimpressive. Moreschi (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Verbal chat 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Colchicum (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:38, 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) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support -- Yaf (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. ~ priyanath talk 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --Kbdank71 16:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Has a degree of humility that would help to make a fine arb. ElinorD (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Xavexgoem (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. GRBerry 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support NVO (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Synergy 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I guess you could call this a "strategic support". — CharlotteWebb 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Most absolutely support. AGK 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. DurovaCharge! 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Good answer to Mailer Diablo's second question. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Good answers to my questions. Acalamari 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. 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]
  61. Support iMatthew 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. 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]
  63. Not afraid to take strong stances, platform is distinctive, to-the-point and compelling. Skomorokh 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. 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]
  66. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. TS 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Weak Support GlassCobra 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support -- Intelligent, able to resolve disputes, good judgment, steady, even handed, educated. TimidGuy (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support -- Levine2112 discuss 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:18, 2 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) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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]
  5. Dlabtot (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Voyaging(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Your core beliefs are rather complicated and confusing. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Steven Walling (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    iMatthew 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to support. iMatthew 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Will Beback (talk · contribs) raises some valid concerns. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Prodego talk 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Rebecca (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 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]
  15. Tom Harrison Talk 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Pcap ping 16:07, 1 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]
  18. Politics ViridaeTalk 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose.Biophys (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per Will Beback above --B (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Sorry, but I have concerns about your neutrality, per the example given by Will Beback —Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Vassyana&oldid=255336655"