Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Nihonjoe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement

[edit]

My main reason for running is that I enjoy trying to help people work things out, and I want to help keep Wikipedia an open and fair place to which to contribute. I've had an official account here since 2005, though I used Wikipedia (and did some minor editing) fairly regularly for about a year before that. I've been generally easy to work with and I'm a generally balanced, civil, and respectful editor. I've worked on a wide range of articles, though my main focus has been articles somehow related to WikiProject Japan, which I set up in March of this year to help organize the work on that part of the encyclopedia. While I have made some mistakes along the way, I believe I have learned from them, and am a better person for the experience. By becoming a member of the Arbitration Committee, I hope to continue being balanced and improving the Wikipedia project as a whole. Working on Wikipedia has been one of the most enjoyable things I have ever done (for the most part), and I look forward to helping to make the project even better in the years to come. Thanks for your time.

Questions

Support

[edit]
  1. - crz crztalk 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delirium 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. pschemp | talk 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: in my experience, intelligent and level-headed - Che Nuevara 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I don't always agree with him, but he makes well-reasoned points in a courteous way. He has the professional demeanor necessary for this job. Dekimasu 03:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Warofdreams talk 04:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. THB 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Nufy8 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. A cursory review of the candidate's history several days hither led me to think that, though reasonable and cordial, he was perhaps insufficiently acquainted with policy and practice to serve as an arbitrator; the answers to the questions, though, demonstrate exceeding competence and logical thinking, each of which portends only good things. Joe 07:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, could be a surprising candidate. — CharlotteWebb 08:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rather strong support. Seems to understand that policy is important and even more: that there's a spirit behind it that's even more important. Aditionally not being Anglo can be an advantage, specially in issues related to ethnocentric bias. --Sugaar 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support.--MariusM 12:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --CComMack (t–c) 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-05 02:11Z
  18. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Silensor 06:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Shinhan 07:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. サポート. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Level-headed user. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. —Angr 10:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Vote changed[reply]
  23. Support.-上村七美 | talk 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. —Nightstallion (?) 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. --Endroit 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Nishkid64 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support -- Ned Scott 03:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Lincher 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak Support. On the whole I like his answers, however I have some concerns about experience outside of his area of expertise. --Merlinme 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Fred Bauder 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Sakurambo 桜ん坊 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Looks good. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. support Yuckfoo 03:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support --(十八|talk) 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Lovelight 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Cla68 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, demonstrates the qualities we need in an Arbitrator. -/- Warren 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I have no idea who he is, but he's Chinese, and he's not a smelly American computer geek. co --Chrisottjr 03:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support GunnarRene 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. riana_dzasta 09:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I've had limited interactions with Nihonjoe (mostly our WikiProject: Cleaning up after Darin Fidika, but a few other instances), and I feel very confident that he has good judgement and conducts himself well in disputes, and doesn't have an agenda. Mangojuicetalk 18:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support _dk 09:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support GRBerry 22:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I've seen him wade through contentious issues, building consensus without losing his cool or getting personal. The Crow 02:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Dragomiloff 02:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support --sony-youthtalk 17:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, would be a wonderful person for the job. Voretustalk 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support --t ALL IN c 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. We need you. -- DLL .. T 12:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Samir धर्म 20:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --Bondego 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Jaranda wat's sup 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Awolf002 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KPbIC 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rebecca 03:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Terence Ong 04:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. semper fi — Moe 05:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A very good editor, but seems to stick to relatively noncontroversial corners of Wikipedia (mostly WikiProject Japan) and thus does not seem to have much experience with dispute resolution. --Hyperbole 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Can't vote for someone who I've never seen on WP:ANI, WP:VPP, or any other public board. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Chacor 09:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Van helsing 10:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. cj | talk 10:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Shyam (T/C) 13:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose (based on answers to my questions) missed my whole point of two months and no edits Anomo 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. SuperMachine 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Gurch 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Michael Snow 23:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. —Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Watermint 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Rather biased and abusive in his use of admin power on articles that he edits himself. Saintjust 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. In my experience, this admin is biased against the deletion of articles having to do with his major personal interests. tgies 08:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose needs more experience in the "red zones" of wikipedia. -Drdisque 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. A good guy, but there are better candidates. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Andre (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - apparently unwilling to deal with controversy --Andy Blak 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak Oppose. Good Wikipedian, but not enough experience dealing with areas that are important for arbcom. --Danaman5 19:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose as Quadell. Xoloz 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Cryptic 12:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose, try again next year. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Jonathunder 18:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Cyde Weys 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. Comments made at Image talk:YasuiKunihiko-81Produce.jpg and Image talk:HidakaNoriko-81Produce.jpg make me wonder if he understands what Wikipedia is all about. —Angr 12:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Leotolstoy 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Sarah Ewart 01:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Being around for some time isn't enough, you have to be around the right areas. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose unfamiliarity with SPOV issues apparent in candidate's first brush attempt to describe the problems related to controversies over science. --ScienceApologist 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong oppose - didn't seem to understand the difference between proposals and guidelines; didn't seem to understand that you can edit any article you want as long as you keep NPOV: see this AfD page - Chardish 07:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments on that page clearly show that I do understand the difference between proposed and actual guidelines. I even say as much in my reply to your comments there. And nothing I wrote on that page can be construed to mean that I don't think anyone can edit any article. I wrote that "people are generally advised to not edit articles about themselves or companies where they work in order to avoid any conflict of interest." That is the general consensus on the topic. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. —Centrx→talk • 06:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose This user does not appear to have good judgment. Bastiq▼e demandez 12:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Chsf 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Lack of experience. —Xyrael / 22:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose ×Meegs 02:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. 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 04:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Needs more experience in the hot zones. Stirling Newberry 11:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Haven't seen the user often in controversial dispute resolution. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. Michael 20:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose Seems like a reasonable candidate, but without enough community interest (fewer than 100 votes at this moment) to be considered at this time. Jd2718 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Lacking in experience. Kiwidude 22:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Nihonjoe&oldid=1087278059"