Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Nandesuka

Link to Theresa Knott's page
I'm confused as to how the link referenced in two of the oppose votes reflects at all badly on this candidate. Beginning with the actual difs, I see one where he says"I'd like to ask you to take a look at our discussion on those pages, and render an opinion. If you think I'm over the line, I will of course step back.", and the following where he says "I am openminded and willing to hear and respond to criticism from someone not so close to the issue, and I hope that Tony is as well." What's the problem here? - brenneman  (t)  (c)  14:22, 9 January 2006
 * I agree. Nandesuka's postings on Theresa's page illustrate a great deal of maturity and sensibility. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Have either of you actually followed any of the diff links and tracked down nandesuka's response? Look at his one sentence reply to Tony's complaint: This is characteristic of his replies: not taking the accusation seriously, and instead using the complaint to cast aspersions on Tony. While I agree there is often room for disagreement as to whether a personal attack has taken place, treating a good faith complaint in such a condescending manner violates my understanding of WP:CIVIL. Far from evidence of maturity, I find Nandesuka's behaviour evidence of at least some immaturity and a sign of unfitness for ArbCom. --- Charles Stewart 16:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User talk:Nandesuka/Archive 2
 * As nicely as possible, you're being sold a bill of goods. I have, in fact, watched the entire drama unfold, and have seen Nandesuka attempt, on several occasions, to reach some accord with Tony.  Sharply at times, yes, but continuing to attempt to move forward, even until the last edits to TK's page where he continues to be open to the idea that he may be misreading the situation.  I note that you've provided the link exactly as Tony provided you.  It's a bit odd to create a "spanning" link when talking about Nandesuka's contribution, don't you think?  As opposed to two separate links like at the top of the page?   brenneman  (t)  (c)  16:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue the merits of an RfAr that I've tried and failed to follow, because it is irrelevant to the point I am making. Tony can be a pain in the ass sometimes, I've had my own experience of that, but I don't think that you think that Tony was being sly when he posted his complaint on Nandesuka's talk page.  For a candidate to has staked his entire platform on WP:CIVIL, Nandesuka's response leaves a lot to be desired. --- Charles Stewart 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk. - brenneman  (t)  (c)  17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I should put some kind of summing up here: I didn't really work this one out with Aaron, but he and Tony (who provided me with that difflink) more or less did at User Talk:Aaron Brenneman. My opinion is that Nandesuka's involvement in that RfAr was less constructive than I would normally want from an ArbCom member: I could say the same about Tony, who I did vote for, in other places but then Nandesuka is not running on a Mend ArbCom groupthink platform. --- Charles Stewart 09:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the evidence before I voted, I came to the same conclusion as Brenneman. I had originally intended to support both for ArbCom, but after reading it, I'd decided to oppose Tony's - except he had already withdrawn. --Habap 16:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)