Nandesuka

Final (43/12/4) ending 18:46 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka ( talk · contribs) - Nandesuka has been here since March and has about 2500 edits. I believe he would be a good candidate for adminship. -- Zoe 18:46, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you. Nandesuka 20:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support, of course. Zoe 18:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, Molotov (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Merovingian (t) (c) 23:09, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Pilatus 23:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply

5. Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

6. Support. After having made a study of Nandesuka's contributions I realize that he is an excellent contributor to the encyclopedia, who would make good use of administraor tools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Support. The best answer to question 3 all month. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Support. Whenever I've come across Nandesuka (a thing that seems to happen frequently), he's being level-headed and thorough. - Splash 15:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Support, great editor with lots of contributions in the Main, WP and WPTalk spaces. What I've noticed suggests a responsible individual who is able to substantiate his views reasonably and knowledgeably, and who has that grasp of WP policies required of admins.— encephalon έγκέφαλος  16:53:12, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
10. Support, no reason to believe he would abuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:07, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
11. Support. After looking through Nandesuka's edit history over the last day, I have found nothing but reasons to support this user's candidacy. Nandesuka has made excellent edits since his arrival here in March, making use of enviably good edit summaries. He has edits spread out through many namespaces and a good number of user talk page edits. It seems to me from a review of contribs and from personal experience that Nandesuka is quite level-headed at VfD/AfD. No reservations. Fernando Rizo T/ C 22:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Support to counteract some opposition for the wrong reason (If soemone has voted deleted in an AfD discussion they can't close the vote anyway). -- TimPope 10:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Support: A user who understands and supports the existing policies, and he has been level headed and kept his cool. Geogre 17:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Support thoughtful, intelligent, patient, and altogether a suitable admin. Jakew 18:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
15. Sapōto desu. Exploding Boy 20:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
16. Vacuum c 20:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
17. Ruairidi 02:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Support - Nandesuka has impressed me with his/her ability to cut to the point of heated discussions of WP:TOBY & WP:ZAP. S/he is direct, calm and civil: all good things. FreplySpang (talk) 14:56, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. But please tell me your sex so I can refer to you as him or her rather than they? R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

    I'm a he. Nandesuka 02:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

20. Support. Excellent edits, good common sense. I'm having a Tripitaka moment. - brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 07:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
21. Support. Has a recent update of the common sense plugin, and appears to be getting better at handling wiki-conflict. JFW |  T@lk 21:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Support. What can I say? I was coerced into it!!11!!1 Seriously, Nandesuka seems like a good contributor and I'm happy to support him. Hermione 1980 23:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
23. Excellent candidate, right amount of experience. Nandesuka and I have some very serious points of disagreement, but I have always found his manner agreeable. He has not displayed serious antagonism, and I think that's impressive. I value that skill and think he'd be an asset to Wikipedia as a sysop. I think some of the opposition may be ideological--well I encountered some of that when I was up for sysop (can you say "autofellatio", children?) Such ephemeral issues pass and what matters is how the candidate handles situations. Give him the mop and bucket. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
24. I am voting largely to counterbalance the weirdly large number of oppose votes that don't really cite actionable criticisms. I see no valid reasons to oppose this user. Andre ( talk) 00:56, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
25. Having looked through Nandesuka's contributions in the wikipedia and assorted talk namespaces, I've noticed many statements from Nandesuka that are the statements I'd have made in that situation. As such, I feel able to trust him as a sysop. The Literate Engineer 03:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
26. Extreme lesbian support! -- Phroziac ^{( talk)} 15:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
27. Sounds good to me. R adiant _>|< 17:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
28. Support. After looking through Nandesuka's contributions and talk page, I believe he would make a good administrator. -- cesarb 20:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
29. BRIAN 0918 • 2005-09-14 02:49
30. Support What Andre said. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 03:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply
31. Support. Flower party 17:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply
32. Support Very Good in VFDs will make a good administrator -- Aranda56 23:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply
33. Support. An editor's value to wikipedia should not be measured in edit counts. Much more level-headed at dealing with conflicts than I am. Go go go! -- Miborovsky 03:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
34. Support. The more sarcasm the better, as far as I'm concerned. Gamaliel 05:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
35. Support After looking through his recent edits, can't see anything bad. And some of the later Oppose votes convinced me. AlistairMcMillan 11:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
36. Support. Based on looking through the user contributions and interaction on the (highly stress-inducing) Wikipedia talk:Toby discussion, I believe Nandesuka presents proper rational comments and motivations. -- IByte 13:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
37. Support. Good contributor, seems to understand policy well, no reason to think he will abuse amin powers. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
38. Support. Obviously a good editor. I don't think there is any reasons that he shouldn't be an admin. -- Karl Meier 17:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
39. Absolutely Support. Great editor, easy to work with, does a lot of good work, all mentioned above. ∞ Who ?¿? 18:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
40. Support. This looks like a close one; a good editor, reasonable, I just don't find the opposition compelling. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
41. Support after a long look at this user's contibutions, I definitely support this candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
42. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
43. Support. Seems up to the job. -- Calton | Talk 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose, disagree with Zoe that this is a good candidate. Silensor 19:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose SchmuckyTheCat 19:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
   • I'm curious to hear your rationale. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
     • I don't vote for people when I don't have an opinion. My only interaction with this person is on VfD on a series of bus articles where I thought he was rude. His enthusiasm to vote delete makes me question his ability to judge CSD. SchmuckyTheCat 16:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Weak oppose, agree with Silensor. — JIP | Talk 07:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
4. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose, user is far too enthusiastic to delete and overtly confrontational during the normal course of discussion on VfD. Bahn Mi 08:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Moving to oppose now. I'm not satisfied with the answer I got below (in "comment" section), and he doesn't really seem to fully understand the Wikipedia idea of consensus. You said that you only called them votes because of the old VFD name (which still isn't good), but you recently "voted" in CFD, warned someone about having a "vote" count twice [1]. Also, your "welcome to Wikipedia" remark here to Kappa definitely was not "within reason" but extremely condescending, as well as here where you call a nomination "a joke" (when it was certainly in good faith with a plausible basis). I'd like to see some improvement, and more participation in the Wikipedia namespace outside of deletion debates and I'll support in a couple of months. Dmcdevit· t 20:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
   • Thanks for explaining your vote. I'm confused about why you think my "vote" on CFD, specifically, was inappropriate, especially since the issue under discussion began with Beland saying: The votes so far have not provided the requested clarity. Please specify what you think should be done with the subcategories, and whether or not you think some or all images should be merged into Category:Nudity. (emphasis in original). I was being responsive to that request (as were the nine other editors who also "voted" there. The other examples you bring up are interesting, as well: the note I left for the user about his "vote" counting twice was in the context of specifically explaining and citing that Wikipedia is not a democracy, noting "it is, of course, perfectly legitimate to comment as much as you like on the Articles for Deletion page, and a strong argument, within the bounds of civility and assuming good faith on the part of others can often persuade more than mere numbers." Lastly, my reply to Kappa was in response to him characterizing a good-faith nomination with a plausible basis as "random"; was that characterization also "definitely not within reason"? What distinguishes that from my "joke" question? In any event, thank you for explaining your vote. While I disagree with you that my having definite opinions and being willing to express them means that I don't understand consensus, and therefore makes me a poor choice for having a mop, I certainly respect your right to oppose my nomination for whatever reasons you choose. I will take your criticisms seriously and try to learn from them. Thanks again, Nandesuka 22:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply
     • I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying. I note that you just called this RFA a vote, and seem to continue to call CFD and AFD a vote (or at least, you haven't said they aren't). I certainly never said you don't understand consensus because you have opinions, that's the exact opposite, it's because you seem to believe in votes rather than consensus. That's precisely why voting is evil, it undermines consensus-building discussion by encouraging partisan, unexplained drive-bys. That CFD was not a vote but a consensus discussion. The joke comment was inappropriate because it amounted to an acusation of bad faith. The commment to Kappa was even more inappropriate. Kappa is a well-known veteran with 1000's of edits, especially on AFD/VFD, so to say "welcome to Wikipedia, please read up on ouur policies" or whatever it was, is demeaning to say the least, and not something that I thought you woud be continuing to defend. Also, your rudeness here seems to be the same reason Schmucky opposed above, btw. Dmcdevit· t 23:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Quite apart from the sarcastic comments, Nandesuka hasn't been here quite long enough or made enough contributions to article space for me. -- Angr/ _{tɔk tə mi} 23:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. User has no featured articles that I am aware of, too low of an edit count, not enough effort on editing/creating side of wikipedia.   ALKIVAR ™ 01:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose. He is very very rude and condessending. He always votes to delete and makes funn of others all the time. Wiki brah 03:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply
   • • Will u even count her vote as Nandesuka is one of the people that always vote delete to her junk articles which is normally either speedy deleted or annoyminiously deleted and was even banned once for vandalism . 100 Percent a bad faith vote -- Aranda56 23:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose Disclosure: This user and I are currently in the middle of a petty dispute. My opinion is that he fails to undertand the nature of civilized discourse -- plenty of civility, or at least well-disguised hostility (which may very well be the definition of civility), but little grasp of rationality. He should be a mediator, not a trustee of factual truth. — Xiong 熊 talk * 06:32, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
    • I believe the dispute Xiong refers to can be found, in its current incarnation as of this writing, here. I encourage people to read it and judge me accordingly. I was aware that it might impact this discussion, but decided that if I let an RfA dissuade me from vigorously discussing issues of importance to the community, then I really wouldn't be an appropriate choice for admin. Nandesuka 06:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
      • No; it's in the Pump. Your disregard for fact and reality is what makes you an inappropriate choice. We don't need brave admins, only honest ones. — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:14, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
        • It's on the VP only because you moved it there. The place where Nandesuka replied is not on the VP, it's on the page he linked to (and he even used the permalink). Your disregard for fact and reality is appaling. -- cesarb 23:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. Too keen to delete. Dan100 ( Talk) 22:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply

    It isn't so much this as a lot of his "votes" seem somewhat rushed and poorly thought out. However, he generally corrects them later etc. and lately seems to be doing better - so maybe in a week perhaps. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply

12. No way. Grace Note 03:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral, Lack of the preview button has inflated count i think. Jobe 6 20:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
   • This is a very fair criticism of a problem I've had, and one that I'm aware of and am working on. I'm consciously trying to make previewing an integral part of my Wikipedia workflow. Nandesuka 21:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Support Know candidate from several VfDs. My opinion is very mixed. IMHO I'd say use the preview button and try back in a couple of weeks. Besides that is a good candidate (uses edit summaries, etc). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Neutral Can't make up mind... going to sit this one out.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Neutral for the time being due to similarly mixed feelings. May be willing to support in the future if this nomination fails. Hall Monitor 22:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Neutral I have mixed feelings too. mrholybrain 22:11, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
5. Abstain. Seems like a very good contributor and candidate, but does not have sufficient time here for me to support. siafu 19:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Neutral for now. I would like to see Nandesuka gain more experience to overcome the perception that he lacks integrity because he has had the tendency to violate WP:FAITH. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

• I know it's not required, but could the oppose voters please explain their votes? Zoe 19:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

  I don't want to get into a bickering match over it. Not giving reasons, in my case, should be read as "Me too". With sauce, indicated by the strength of the opposition. I don't have a problem with his describing votes as votes though. That's what they are. Most contributors don't actually bother with "discussion" at all, unless you can include rude backbiting in that. Grace Note 03:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Just ran into this page, and agree with Zoe. Are there good reasons to oppose the candidate, or are the opposing votes just a way of settling some old scores? Oleg Alexandrov 21:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• I'll third that. It would be helpful to know you guys' opinions before voting. -- Scimitar ^parley 14:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Would the candidate care to speculate on the reasoning for the opposition? At least the first one sounds more like opposition to the nominator than the candidate. The candidate might not care to speculate; that's fine. - Splash 15:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I would just like to state that I didn't take Silensor's comment as an opposition to me as the nominator, just a disagreement with the nominaiton. Zoe 20:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• The only thing I can speculate, as mentioned candidate was involved in some contentious VfDs and maybe people didn't like the actions there, and possibly outside of VfD. Of course, this is sheer speculation. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• I don't think it's appropriate for me to speculate on other people's opinions. I do hope that those who oppose my nomination explain why, if for no other reason so that I can work to improve myself in those areas. If anyone has any questions for me or wishes for me to clarify aspects of my edits, I am willing to respond to those. Nandesuka 17:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• I'm not sure if I oppose, but the sense I've gotten from having only seen Nandesuka in VFD is that he has a tendency to violate WP:FAITH and do some biting. Also, in looking back at through his contributions, he seems to think of, and in many instances refer to AFD as a "vote," which IMHO is a very harmful way for someone who is expected to close those discussions to think of it. I'm trying to decide whether to move this comment to oppose. Dmcdevit· t 22:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • When I started participating on AfD, it was called VfD; I was simply using the prevailing terminology at the time (and this points out that the rename was a good idea). I will certainly own up to being snarky on occasion, but I believe that I keep it within reason. The fact that you perceive me as not extending enough good faith I will take as constructive criticism, and try to do better. Certainly, AfD probably has many spirited arguments concentrated in a fairly small space, which may be one reason I seem that way if judged solely on that basis; I have a feeling that would be true of most editors. I do ask that you look at my category and article-space edits as well, to perhaps see me interacting in other venues. Thank for the feedback. Nandesuka 22:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Although such things are not done by simple majority and are decided by consensus, people's responses are commonly called "votes", look at the top of this page it says "vote here". So although it is not a vote in the traditional sense, to "vote" is part of the terminology of wikipedia, and I don't judge Nandesuka badly for doing so. Now VfD has been renamed to AfD, our culture may change to talking about opinions and suggestions rather than "votes". Allow us community members some time to catch up with developments! -- TimPope 10:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Let me just just go on record as calling the things here "votes," the things on VfD "votes," and all the other places where users sign to indicate their volition "votes." I still call it VfD, too. Does that mean that I'm unfit now? Geogre 11:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Not at all. Let me point out that I first made a comment, but had hoped for a better answer. It appears to be more than just a "terminology" issue. Nandesuka in recent comments seemed to support vote counting. And it was a little irksome when, in the context of our discussion, he said "thanks for explaining your vote". :-) But you'll see that I opposed for more reasons than that. I would also call the things here mostly votes, but it doesn't men it doesn't disgust me. I've wanted a better RFA system for a while. Dmcdevit· t 18:56, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

Amusingly, when I first started editing, I was completely uninterested in category work. Over the past month I've slowly started becoming more and more interested in it, so I'd like continue to work on CfD, helping out as both a user and, where appropriate, an admin. Participating in protecting pages from vandals is important, too; I do conscientiously revert vandalism when I encounter it on my watchlist, and I'd like to help out by monitoring the noticeboard and acting where appropriate. I'd like to do some VfD cleanup, as well. It also seems like there is always a backlog of requested moves and merges; I have a sysadmin's obsessive nature when it comes to feeling satisfied in cleaning out a backlog. My first priority is to be a good editor and a good contributor to the community, and I don't need to be an admin to do that. I believe I've spent enough time in sysadmin-like roles in my day job to not let the presence of a few extra buttons fundamentally change my nature.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

It's not a lot of text, but I completely rewrote the "treatments for premature birth" section of Premature birth. It was fairly sketchy and "laundry listy" before, and I believe I managed to turn it into a useful, readable, encyclopedic summary. I'm pleased with it because I believe it will encourage to readers to discover other interesting aspects of the subject. I'm also, along with several other editors, in the middle of an ongoing top to bottom rewrite of the Dungeons & Dragons article. This article has great detail, but missed being a featured article because of a few problems. I'm pleased with it at least in part because I have a love for the subject, but also because of the level of collaboration that the currently active editors are engaging in. It can be pretty intimidating to start chomping on a huge article by yourself, so its somewhat validating when you are able to act in concert with other editors, in a way that makes you feel like a well-oiled machine.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

I've had a few, and it's something that I've thought about a lot, actually. I've noticed that my way of dealing with it has changed subtly as I've continued editing. The best example happened just yesterday; I was working on the Intersexuality article. There was a paragraph in the article that was, it seemed to me, somewhat POV and provided no citations. I had asked for citations some time ago, but eventually timed out and removed the paragraph. Another editor was offended by the removal, and we went back and forth a bit. This raised an interesting issue: the only reason I struck the paragraph was, quite honestly, because I felt it was POV and unsourced. I believe that the other editor believed, quite honestly, that I was acting out of personal prejudice against intersexed people. I think this pattern of interaction is unfortunately very common on Wikipedia: we talk about assuming good faith, but sometimes we only assume good faith on the part of those who agree with us. I saw the direction in which we were heading and sought a third party, who I invited in to offer his opinion on the matter; he rewrote the paragraph for NPOV and found some interesting sources that I hadn't been able to locate (I wish I had). I think that that was a fairly good way of making forward progress, and hopefully demonstrating that I don't simply want to edit by fiat. I hope this will have earned me some credibility with the other editors of that article. But the larger point, I think, is that we always forbid what we fear: WP:FAITH is needed because it can be instinctive to feel that not only do others disagree with us, but they maliciously disagree with us. I don't think I can "solve" that problem, but I think that being aware of it can help you recognize when it's happening, and let you defuse bad situations before they become critical.