Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Phil Sandifer

Statement
Being something of a glutton for punishment (An essential skill), I offer myself up again. If elected, I intend to focus on the task of writing proposed decisions - something that currently is done by one person. While Fred is quite capable of the task, a second pair of eyes in decision proposing is important, and will lend balance to the decisions.

I also think it is increasingly inevitable that the arbcom is going to have to get its hands dirty with cases that involve looking at content, and cases that involve trying to sort out the increasingly tangled knots of essays, guidelines, policy, and instruction creep that increasingly leads to messes. The de facto committees that form around the frightening number of guidelines we have need disentangling, and furthermore need an exceedingly subtle touch that does not overplay the arbcom's hand and weaken its reputation.

Beyond that, I would apply the philosophy that I've demonstrated in my actions on Wikipedia - a high value on pragmatism, an eventualist mentality, a low patience for idiots, but a high tolerance for well-intentioned users.

Edit:I've been asked to point out that I got a username change in January away from Snowspinner and to Phil Sandifer.

Questions

Support

 * 1) SqueakBox 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) One of the few current arbitrators I approve of. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I like his minimalist approach.  Lankiveil 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
 * 4) Firm approaches are oft necessary. --Gwern  (contribs) 05:17 4 December 2006 (GMT)
 * 5) Tbeatty 06:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) SchmuckyTheCat 08:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) -- May the Force be with you!  Shr e shth91 13:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Phil Sandifer is committeed to keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. He has been too outspoken for many at times. But the arbcom could use at least one member with such a well-articulated action-oriented approach. 172 | Talk 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Endorse. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) No choice: I would trust snowspinner with this position, honestly.  Matt Yeager   ♫  ( Talk? ) 23:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Stompin&#39; Tom 23:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Stompin' Tom does not have suffrage; he registered at 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Symbolic support. There's no way you're going to get approval, and you've done some controversial things in the past, but I have to agree with Matt Yeager.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I plan on giving a support vote to only about three/four people, and this user caught my eye. //  I c e d K o l a  ( Contribs ) 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--ragesoss 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) robchurch | talk 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash; Nightst  a  llion  (?) 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Fred Bauder 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) KillerChihuahua?!? 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support —CComMack (t–c) 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support -- M P er el ( talk 20:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. skip (t / c) 09:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Restored articles that should have been restored and blocked certain users who really deserved it. That showed massive common sense, which is what this is really all about. --JJay 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I often disagree with him (and in fact I voted oppose last election) and he's done some things I consider very counterproductive, but he's done much more that is productive and I can't argue with his energy and devotion to the project. Gamaliel 14:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong Support He has experience, dedication, knowledge and a willingness to be his own man.  He also has stood up for wikipedia and other admins in tough times.   Nobody is arguing he's not qualified and as 1 vote on a committee any of the "just do it" stuff wouldn't be an issue.  jbolden1517Talk  15:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per courage to do what is right, not what is popular or convienent. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 15:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Weak support. Didn't like answers to my questions but in general I think he'd do OK. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support --  t A  LL I  N c  21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) &mdash;Xyrael / 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Stirling Newberry 10:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) -- Majorly  00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Ligulem 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) No. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Tito xd (?!?) 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Grouse 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Core desat  00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) - crz crztalk 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Jaranda wat's sup 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Hello32020 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Peta 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Sarah Ewart 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) --RobthTalk 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) — Mi  ra  03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Snoutwood (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) KPbIC 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * KazakhPol 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * KazakhPol does not have suffrage; he registered at 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 13:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Rebecca 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Xoloz 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) John254 04:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose  Funky Monkey    (talk)   04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Ter e nce Ong 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) OpposeTHB 05:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Too much controversy. semper fi —  Moe  05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) While in principle I agree that content disputes might someday need a DR-esque resolution system, ArbCom is not the place and now is not the time.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Wheel warrior. &mdash;Cryptic 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Nufy8 06:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Dylan Lake 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) — CharlotteWebb 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. His "just do it" approach has some appeal, and Phil is generally of sound judgement. But some rather odd actions with his admin tools the past year as well, including a block of Aaron Brenneman who he had recently been in a serious dispute with. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  07:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose his interpretation of WP:IAR is just wrong.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) —Doug Bell talk 08:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) AniMate 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose Dr Debug (Talk) 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) -- Ghirla  -трёп-  08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) --Zleitzen 09:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Weak oppose. – Chacor 09:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) cj | talk 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose Jd2718 12:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 12:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28)  Shyam  ( T / C ) 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose (based on answers to my questions) Anomo 14:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31)  Tewfik  Talk 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) -- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) SuperMachine 17:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose no way Dragomiloff 17:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) --Conti|&#9993; 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose David D. (Talk) 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) —  P ilotguy  (push to talk) 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Michael Snow 23:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) A great editor but wanting ArbCom to make content decisions is just bad. JoshuaZ 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Demi T/C 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Very strong oppose. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose Kaldari 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose GizzaChat  &#169; 07:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose per user:Sjakkalle. Firsfron of Ronchester  08:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose - likely to be eccentric and idiosyncratic, which is the last thing we need in such a powerful position. Metamagician3000 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose. —Angr 10:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose per user:Sjakkalle - Lincher 11:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Tizio 12:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose. flowersofnight (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose. One of the people most often cited as abusing their admin rights is not a good choice for the committee. Phil did more than his fair share in making the Everyking situation worse. - Taxman Talk 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) I know the controversy is not necessarily your fault, but it is a fact that it exists, and it would make your ArbCom tenure a living hell. Sorry.  -- Cyde Weys  18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Strong oppose. Andre (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) If this were a vote on his adminship, he'd probably be de-sysopped by now... Scob e ll302 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose.  Nish kid 64  01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose Yamaguchi先生 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) -- Run e  Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) GRBerry 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose. Per Taxman. &mdash; mark &#9998; 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Weak oppose. I like his attitude, however I didn't like his answers. The debate with Levy was apparently not well handled because of time pressures. Would probably support next year if it's been demonstrated Phil has handled disputes better. --Merlinme 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Oppose --Runcorn 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose. --NathanDW 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Weak Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Oppose. 06:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) gK
 * 67) Oppose per some dubious recent actions. Fram 10:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Oppose--Brownlee 12:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Firm oppose--Holdenhurst 13:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Oppose --Takeel 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Oppose. I don't agree with his judgment in the hypothetical scenario. --Danaman5 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) Trapolator 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Why do this, Phil? You have a lot of good ideas but you one bad boy. Grace Note 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 74) Strong oppose  &middot; rodii &middot;  03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 75) Oppose Sorry, but the musings about Phil's wikiphilosophy on his user page don't inspire much confidence here Bwithh 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 76) Per Taxman, Sjakkalle, and, most especially, Serpent's Choice.  Joe 05:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 77) Oppose. ugen64 08:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 78) Reluctant oppose. As I said in January, a fine mind, but temperamentally unsuited for ArbCom. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 79) Oppose Candidate wants to turn ArbCom into something it is not intended to be. Alan Pascoe 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 80) Strong Oppose noosph e re 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 81) Strong oppose Kevin Baastalk 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 82) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 83) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 84) Oppose.  Grue   09:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 85) Not a chance. Before ArbCom multiple times in the past for non-trivial reasons, I have to agree with Cyde here. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 86) Oppose Eusebeus 12:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 87) Oppose. Jonathunder 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 88) Oppose for not answering all questions, and for position on ArbCom & content. Mango juice talk 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 89) Conscious 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 90) Oppose -- Longhair\talk 08:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose -- Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cocoaguy does not have suffrage; he registered at 15:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose — Omegatron 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Oskar 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Getting into content dispute is not what the ArbCom needs right now Lost Kiwi (talk)22:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. - Introvert  •  ~  04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose -- Undue weight exclusion of ideas not understood as evinced by candidate's response to SPOV question. --ScienceApologist 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak oppose. the wub "?!"  19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) --Kbdank71 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) no Derex 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Candidate refers to contributors he doesn't like as "idiots" including in candidate's statement for this election and in a pseudo-scholarly paper proffered at Wikimania. The project doesn't need more leaders who promote ridicule and intolerance. Saignomore 06:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Saignomore does not have suffrage; he registered at 05:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC) and he had no edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 12:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Your missed the entire point "a high value on pragmatism, an eventualist mentality, a low patience for idiots, but a high tolerance for well-intentioned users" No. Ian ¹³  /t  12:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Krich (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. In my experience, Phil tends to stubbornly cling to preconceived notions, blindly dismissing or discounting evidence that contradicts them (and sometimes ignoring people entirely). He's done so in the past, and he did so once again in response to some of my questions.  Open-mindedness is a key trait for an ArbCom member, and I don't see it in Phil.  I'm also displeased with his frequent incivility (demonstrated by his reference to fellow editors as "idiots" in his candidate statement).  &mdash;David Levy 15:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose with above reasoning. Kiwidude 22:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)