Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Phil Sandifer: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dcabrilo (talk | contribs)
2,232 edits
Line 75: Line 75:
#'''Hell no'''. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] is the '''last''' person I would call on to resolve a dispute. And arbitrators should not be elected based on ultimatums. He can hold his breath all he wants. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] 09:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Hell no'''. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] is the '''last''' person I would call on to resolve a dispute. And arbitrators should not be elected based on ultimatums. He can hold his breath all he wants. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] 09:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Strong oppose'''. It's not really nice to condition return to the project by ArbCom membership. While I can understand personal reasons behind it, it's not the way to ''solve'' things around here. --<span style="color:red">★</span>[[User:Dcabrilo|čabrilo]]<span style="color:red">★</span> 10:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Strong oppose'''. It's not really nice to condition return to the project by ArbCom membership. While I can understand personal reasons behind it, it's not the way to ''solve'' things around here. --<span style="color:red">★</span>[[User:Dcabrilo|čabrilo]]<span style="color:red">★</span> 10:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#--[[User:Mcginnly|Mcginnly]] | [[User talk:Mcginnly|Natter]] 10:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:14, 3 December 2007

Please Note: Comments longer than two short sentences will be moved to the talk page.

Phil Sandifer

I lack a particular or burning desire to be an arbitrator (my plate being reasonably full as it stands), but I am willing to do the job, and thus feel obliged to put my name forward.

Recent events have changed my mind on the above sentence. As it stands, I would like to be an arbitrator fairly actively.

I tend to think that I am, by this point, a known quantity. I've been an administrator for something resembling three years now, was one of the first arbcom clerks, am an OTRS volunteer, helped author a number of policy pages and processes, am an active participant on wikien-l, etc. If elected to arbcom, I would, I imagine, change virtually nothing. The arbcom generally makes sound decisions, and I have no desire to radically reshape the process.

In response to the inevitable question of how I would find the time to be an arbitrator, I would intend to scale back my OTRS involvement in favor of arbitration, and would probably resign after one year to prevent burnout.

There is also, finally, the obvious issue that I've left Wikipedia. But it's not unreasonable to ask, why would I support a candidate who's left Wikipedia? Obviously, if elected, I'd ask brion for a password reset and come back. But that's clearly not the only issue. I left Wikipedia because I was frustrated at the mechanisms for policy formation. In the article space the anarchic and free-for-all nature of our editing is counterbalanced by clear principles that guide our editing. No counterbalance exists in the policy space. This has led to the ludicrous situation whereby we've had an easier time sorting out articles on the Middle East than we have had sorting out notability guidelines for webcomics.

It is no secret that the arbitration committee assumes de facto roles beyond those on WP:RFAr, becoming among the people that Jimbo and others consult for advice on matters. If elected, I would seek to use those additional roles to encourage both Jimbo and the community to find a way to reform policy formation - one that retains the benefits of the anarchic, free-for-all editing, but that is also more accountable, more controlled, and more capable of looking at the project in a programmatic way instead of a way based on solving individual problems and applying, often blindly, those solutions in a broader way.

Let me note, I consider this encouragement SEPARATE from the business of ruling on individual cases. WP:RFAr is not an instrument of policy formation, and I promise that I would not use it as one. Arbitration cases are decided according to current Wikipedia policy. But arbitration is also a social role. I believe I would be a fair, capable, active, and effective arbitrator. I also believe that I would use the larger position for good.

Support

  1. Kurykh 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mr.Z-man 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. spryde | talk 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Docg 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ragesoss 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Anthøny 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While I think the whole leaving thing was pretty lame, but we've all had our lame moments. Phil still makes for a great candidate. -- Ned Scott 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alexfusco5 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. While he clearly has tendency to crack under stress, I think Phil has demonstrated himself to be someone who, in general, utilizes excellent judgment and foresight, and who rarely acts rashly. I believe he makes a quite capable arbitrator. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very very weak support KTC 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. May not be a popular choice, but I feel he has a better understanding of the project and editors than many realize. --InkSplotch 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Consistently reasonable. Picaroon (t) 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mercury 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:31, December 3, 2007
  18. Absence of negative evidence. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support — Jack Merridew 07:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. SchmuckyTheCat
  21. Crockspot 08:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Can't support anyone with a big leaving message on their userpage. This is a Secret account 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prolog 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Chaz Beckett 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per unilateralist views. When the policies clash with the candidate;s views acts on the latter. --Irpen 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --W.marsh 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Gurch (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Rjd0060 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose (vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Nufy8 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. east.718 at 00:32, December 3, 2007
  14. Yamanbaiia 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. HELL NO.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. - auburnpilot talk 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Tim Q. Wells 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per Secret. (omg I used per x I'm so evil :]). --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Sean William @ 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose very much per Irpen, though I may or may not be thinking of different incidents. GRBerry 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Per Secret. --Coredesat 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  — master sonT - C 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Your statement does nothing for me. Dramatic exit & return not good. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose- Dureo 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Phil has softened in my view, but not enough yet. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Not last year, not this year, and from what I've seen so far, probably not next year either. Zocky | picture popups 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Mike. He's a good guy, but not yet. Rebecca 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Duk 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Cryptic 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Joe 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. krimpet⟲ 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Húsönd 03:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Bob Mellish 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. — xaosflux Talk 04:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. —Mira 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Spebi 05:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose - Jeeny (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Phil lacks the open-mindedness and impartiality that I look for in potential arbitrators, and I cannot support any candidate whose continued participation in Wikipedia is not unconditional (as opposed to contingent upon being elected). —David Levy 06:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. JayHenry 07:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Contributions from Phil range from the brilliant (when he challenges accepted "truths" in our policies) to the hair raising (when he edit wars with a bureaucrat over an RFA close). A good guy, but there are more well-rounded candidates in the field. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Brimba 07:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. The kind of justification that Phil gave for his reversion of a bureaucrat's close of an RfA did not go too well with me. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Lacks enthusiasm for the project. Shem(talk) 09:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Hell no. Phil Sandifer is the last person I would call on to resolve a dispute. And arbitrators should not be elected based on ultimatums. He can hold his breath all he wants. --Pixelface 09:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong oppose. It's not really nice to condition return to the project by ArbCom membership. While I can understand personal reasons behind it, it's not the way to solve things around here. --★čabrilo★ 10:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Phil_Sandifer&oldid=175453055"