Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Lankiveil

Support

 * 1)  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Mattinbgn\talk 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) PhilKnight (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Committee members need extensive experience with Wikipedia to ensure they've "seen it all" and can make informed decisions on the issues. This experience might be obtained from long service as an admin or bureaucrat, and it might also come through years of good editing and calm, consistent contributions to articles and policy discussions.  Arbcom needs a balance of both, and Lankiveil amply meets this second criteria. S/he would be an asset as part of the Arbcom team. Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Atmoz (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket ) 02:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Daniel (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Very much what Euryalus said. Orderinchaos 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) I approve! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Mike H. Fierce! 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Per insightful answers to questions and long contribution history. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Rebecca (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, good length of history, thoughtful answers to questions, and quite importantly seems averse to ArbCom making policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) &mdash; neuro(talk) 10:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Nancy  talk  11:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) I hereby support this user. &mdash; E  ↗ 12:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Good answers to my questions, I feel that this candidate has done their howework and would be a good change to Arbcomm  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Support -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Fine (apart from your opinion on making notability a firm policy which should not affect your performance on arbcom if elected). Davewild (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - keen, with solid contributions. Gives every reason to inspire confidence. Warofdreams talk 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Impressive track record. Would certainly prefer this candidate to some others running. Glass  Cobra  23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I can trust him her  it this candidate.-- Koji  †  00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  Alex ' fusco ' 5  02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support ---Larno (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  ѕwirlвoy   ₪  05:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per thoughtful answers and statement, as well as excellent contrib history. I think this editor would do a fine job on ArbCom. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) No major concerns. Acalamari 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. A bit of fresh perspective would be valuable. Lankiveil seems thoughtful, aware of personal limitations and open to feedback, which allays any concerns I may have in common with opposing voters. Vassyana (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Joe Nu  tter  01:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per User:Cometstyles/ACE2008...oh wait, I don't have one :S ...-- Cometstyles 06:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support --Tikiwont (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Kusma (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Yes from me -- VS talk 06:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support -  Shyam  ( T / C ) 09:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) GRBerry 17:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Good record, can be trusted. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Solid sensible and trustworthy Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Says the right things. Fred Talk 19:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Has all the right qualities.  Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Good guy who needs much more experience but I feel he would be a very fair, fine arbitrator. Sarah 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Rivertorch (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Weak Support I'm torn here, but based on your thoughtful answers, I'll give this one to ya. Leujohn  ( talk )
 * 26) Support He needs some experience? no place better than Arb. Five Years 16:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Several people I respect seem to have found reason to oppose, but I'm just not seeing it. Also per Giggy.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Support -- Samir 07:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Support My few encounters with the candidate and his answers to the questions (most especially Lar's first and second questions, the two on which, concerned as I am about the committee's overreaching&mdash;substituting its judgment about what policy ought to be for that of the community and failing to recall that the community are [basically] sovereign [that only the Wikimedia Foundation may set off an issue as beyond the community's control]&mdash;particularly on BLP-related issues, I focus most in this election) convince me that he properly understands the narrow role of the ArbCom and that he possesses the sound judgment, deliberative temperament, and civil demeanor that serve any arbitrator well (and the presence of which in an arbitrator well serves the community). Joe 06:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Gregg (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - --Roisterer (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Maybe next year? ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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)  00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Nufy8 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Dlabtot (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  Voyaging (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, due to lack of experience. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  krimpet  ✽  01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) -- 'Kanonkas' :  Talk  01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Just due to a lack of experience--Caspian blue 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Steven Walling (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Mr.Z-man 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose  Majorly  talk  01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Due to lack of experience. Great editor and admin, though, so I think if you return next year I will be able to support. Avruch  T 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) -  NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16)  iMa tth ew  01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Too inexperienced. --  Mix well ! Talk 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. Just not this year. Too much is at stake. rootology  ( C )( T ) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Epbr123 (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) John Vandenberg (chat) 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose. (rationale)  r speer  /  ɹəəds ɹ  04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) While my impression of Lankiveil is very positive, he lacks the experience to be an arbitrator, and there are better candidates running.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 05:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25)  Prodego  talk 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose - not this year; we need more experience. I'll be very interested to see you run next year, though. // roux   editor review 10:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) 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 13:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Weak oppose - but please take your experience here, add more experience as an administrator, and consider running in the next election. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Weakly oppose; has done good work as an editor and admin, but an accumulation of minor concerns barely tip the balance. Nothing personal, and best of luck. MastCell Talk 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32)  Syn  ergy 20:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) I don't know how to evaluate deletion work and determine what sort of Arb you'd be.  I think you have some very good answers and instincts, and would certainly reconsider in future, particularly with some foray into producing top-quality content and some more project-space participation to review.   --JayHenry (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Clean sheets do not qualify one to arbitrate encyclopaedic disputes.   Skomorokh   03:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Weak Oppose--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose Experience of another year may increase your support. --Stormbay (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose. Миша 13  22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose. Sorry, man, I just don't feel that you're ready just yet.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Gentgeen (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Michael Snow (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose...Modernist (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose due to endorsement of secret trials. Cynical (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 45) Terence (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  19:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) Wronkiew (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 48) Good answers to the questions, but we need a bit more evidence of ability, and there's little in the contributions to reveal the candidate's ability. I had expected a bit of involvement in article creation, policy making, consensus building, conflict resolution, and being a part of the wider community. I was frankly disappointed that the past year appears to have mainly consisted of leaving single comments on AfD and RfA, and some simple vandal reverting - that is not high level stuff. I'd like to see a couple of good years involvement in the tough end of Wikipedia before the candidate offers to stand again.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose Per my details.  MBisanz  talk 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 50)   kur  ykh   10:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 52) Tex (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 53) Weak oppose - An intelligent, good faith, even-keel editor who I just don't think has enough immersion in Wikipolitics (which isn't a bad thing in general, just as it applies to an Arb Comm candidacy).  His answers don't indicate the depth of knowledge and familiarity with the issues facing Wikipedia that I would hope for.  I suspect if he was thrown on to the committee he's probably wind up making a good go of it, and I might favour that course if we were short of good candidates, but in this case telling him to wait a year is a luxury that we can afford.  As a final note, since he's not fiercely guarding his pseudonymity, I'd encourage him to consider divulging his real life identity, which is my preference for editors in positions of authority. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 54) I fear that this candidate's judgement (and insufficient experience) will cause further divide between ArbCom and community - the effects of which are undesirable and detrimental for this project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose sorry we need a candidate who can hit the ground running and you're not it Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 58) No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 59) Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose. —  xaosflux  Talk 05:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 61) Oppose - lack of experience. Caulde  14:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 62) SQL Query me!  20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)