Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Nandesuka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

Nandesuka

As Wikipedia expands, it is suffering 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 other editors. 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.

Arbcom has the potential to deal with problems that are beyond any one administrator. To realize that potential, Arbcom has to make two decisions: which requests to consider, and which requests not to consider. The act of deciding wisely which cases need to be heard is more important than the details of whatever decision is reached. The ability to provide stability and finality to the community is key. Arbcom must not get distracted by cases the community can handle. But Arbcom must not hide from difficult cases, simply because they are ugly. Deciding where the line falls is where the hard work is.

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. As an arbitrator, my first concern will be examining requests with seriousness, respect, and civility. I will bring as much transparency to the process as I can. Thanks. Nandesuka 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Support

  1. M A Mason 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Friday (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Sean|Black 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. brenneman(t)(c) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Questions reveal you as an intelligent, insightful and potentially very effective arbitrator. Batmanand 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support karmafist 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. SupportDlyons493 Talk 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strongest support Profoundly wise editor. Xoloz 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Edit history reveals remarkable civility and cool head.--ragesoss 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Can't see if they can swim without throwing em in the water Fred Bauder 03:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Mo0[talk] 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support freestylefrappe 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. Good User. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support --Tabor 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support --Crunch 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support – This editor's statement sold me. – ClockworkSoul 05:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. android79 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Chick Bowen 06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support --cj | talk 06:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. --Angr (tɔk) 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. — Catherine\talk 07:09, 9 January
  31. Support, sound judgment in my experience. --MCB 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. The statement. — mark ✎ 08:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. --Kefalonia 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Raven4x4x 11:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. support: Ombudsman 11:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. —Nightstallion (?) 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support  Grue  13:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support, refreshingly level-headed. Radiant_>|< 14:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. From the candidate staement: "People who only disrupt the encyclopedia should be banned." and "It is never appropriate to ignore civility." Well said, I strongly agree with both. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. --BBird 15:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Moreso after reading the evidence by Charles below in the Oppose section (#14 at this time). --Habap 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. --Viriditas 15:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. The "evidence" by Charles below swung it for me -- asking for a third-party opinion on a dispute! How crazy can you get! --Calton | Talk 16:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Recommended to me by some people I trust; my own personal investigation and the candidate statement indicated good things, and the diff link below seems to show someone staying above the fray. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support --kingboyk 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support, Good editor, good history. Good choice.Gateman1997 19:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:51Z
  50. Support. Cool-headed and articulate. Pilatus 21:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Haukur 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support William M. Connolley 22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
  53. Support. --HK 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Splashtalk 23:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support--Confuzion 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. My only reservation is that Nandesuka can be quite sarcastic sometimes, which might not come across so well coming from an ArbCom member. Hermione1980 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. siafu 00:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
  59. Well said, sir. ~~ N (t/c) 01:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support primarily for views on adminship. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 06:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/10:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support for views on civility Rhion 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support howcheng {chat} 18:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. Nooby god 02:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. Transparency. - Xed 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support. enochlau (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support.--james_anatidae 06:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support: --Bhadani 09:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support: It should be pointed out that the diff below was there because, specifically, Theresa was a friend of Tony's, and Nandesuka was trying furiously to avoid dispute and find mediation, so there's certainly nothing bad about it. I had thought Nandesuka too new for support, but this "evidence" against him brought me off the sidelines. Geogre 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support -- never expected to vote along with karmafist, a most abusive admin, but if civility for everyone is your platform, i'm all for it. maybe in ArbCom some of you will be able to put a lid on abusive admins. r b-j 17:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  73. Support. mikka (t) 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support, good statement outweighs any inexperience issues I may have had. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support I'm confident he will do great things in ArbCom. Ashibaka tock 18:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support There are few people better qualified for the job. Patient, intelligent, and well-versed in policies. Jakew 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support - like your policy. --NorkNork 21:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support. Seems like a solid candidate. Velvetsmog 23:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support -- Davidpdx 12:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support Rohirok 02:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support Ruy Lopez 05:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support Bit disturbed you rank civility so high compared to the serious chronic problems here, but otherwise your statement looks good and I have not seen anything in your edit history to make me doubt your good intentions. DreamGuy 05:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support Mr. Know-It-All 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Somewhat nervously Support... why? ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support: good statement and answers to questions. Jonathunder 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support. Liked answers to questions -- Masonpatriot 05:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support. Insightful; likely to be good at the job. Antandrus (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support. Model candidate. Youngamerican 18:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support - kaal 17:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neofelis Nebulosa (talk • contribs).
  92. Support. -- Dragonfiend 03:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support, mostly because when things get heated during Arb, civility must be maintained. --Ds13 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support --Loopy e 20:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support Christopher 03:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support as per Batmanand (support number 7). Thryduulf 17:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support — intelligent and well-balanced statement and answers to questions. Candidate should look into those cybernetic implants. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support --Durin 17:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. On second thoughts Support --Jaranda wat's sup 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support. dave souza 09:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support. Egil 14:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Oui. encephalon 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support Looks good, kinda different. --AySz88^-^ 23:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Ambi 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    --Jaranda wat's sup 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose questions --Angelo 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new; created in November. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. — Dan | talk 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Bobet 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose [2] --- Charles Stewart 09:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Rama 10:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Oh wow. Per Charles Stewart's difflink. --Gmaxwell 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Zordrac. Tomertalk 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. — Dunc|☺ 14:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - Sorry, to new IMO. Awolf002 20:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose, as Charles Stewart. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. You had me right up to the point you said "should ... be banned." Avriette 23:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. older≠wiser 02:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose rash. SchmuckyTheCat 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose, too new and inexperienced. HGB 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. Conscious 09:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose, late entry, focusing too much on admins. KTC
  33. Oppose, too new. Zocky 11:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose per Fifelfoo Fad (ix) 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. OpposeDr. B 17:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose If everyone in ArbCom would have to recuse my cases, who would decide them? Dabljuh 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. maclean25 00:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Reluctantly oppose -- Francs2000 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose' Good contributor, but needs more experience. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. Joined late, too few Questions thus too few answers. (SEWilco 03:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
  41. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. oppose Kingturtle 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. Preaky 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose. Four hours per week is not sufficient. Superm401 | Talk 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Too quick to speedily delete articles that at least arguably do not meet the criteria, and did not respond to a query regarding such a deletion. Ender 07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    User's first edit was November 28, so most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Neutralitytalk 01:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose per SEWilco. WikiFanatic 03:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose. Sunray 11:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Alex43223
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Vote_Nandesuka_b654.html"