Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Phil Sandifer: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
User27091 (talk | contribs)
3,634 edits
→‎Oppose: +weak oppose
GK (talk | contribs)
2,004 edits
Line 118: Line 118:
#-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
#-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Oppose'''. —[[User:Lantoka|Lantoka]] <sup><small>( [[User_talk:Lantoka|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lantoka|contrib]])</small></sup> 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Oppose'''. —[[User:Lantoka|Lantoka]] <sup><small>( [[User_talk:Lantoka|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lantoka|contrib]])</small></sup> 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. 06:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) [[User:GK|gK]]

Revision as of 06:56, 7 December 2006

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)[reply]
  2. One of the few current arbitrators I approve of. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like his minimalist approach. Lankiveil 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Firm approaches are oft necessary. --Gwern (contribs) 05:17 4 December 2006 (GMT)
  5. Tbeatty 06:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SchmuckyTheCat 08:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  9. Endorse. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No choice: I would trust snowspinner with this position, honestly. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Stompin' Tom 23:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 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)[reply]
  12. 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)[reply]
  13. Support--ragesoss 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. robchurch | talk 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —Nightstallion (?) 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Fred Bauder 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support —CComMack (t–c) 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. --Majorly 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Ligulem 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Titoxd(?!?) 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Grouse 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Coredesat 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. - crz crztalk 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jaranda wat's sup 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hello32020 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Peta 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sarah Ewart 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --RobthTalk 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. —Mira 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Snoutwood (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. KPbIC 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    KazakhPol 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Rebecca 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Xoloz 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. John254 04:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose  Funky Monkey  (talk)  04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Terence Ong 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. OpposeTHB 05:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Too much controversy. semper fi — Moe 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 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's Choice 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Wheel warrior. —Cryptic 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Nufy8 06:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Dylan Lake 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. — CharlotteWebb 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 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)[reply]
  33. Oppose his interpretation of WP:IAR is just wrong.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. —Doug Bell talk 08:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. AniMate 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Dr Debug (Talk) 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Zleitzen 09:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak oppose. – Chacor 09:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. cj | talk 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Jd2718 12:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Shyam (T/C) 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose (based on answers to my questions) Anomo 14:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. TewfikTalk 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. SuperMachine 17:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose no way Dragomiloff 17:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. --Conti|✉ 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose David D. (Talk) 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Michael Snow 23:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. A great editor but wanting ArbCom to make content decisions is just bad. JoshuaZ 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. —Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Demi T/C 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Very strong oppose. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Kaldari 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose GizzaChat © 07:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose per user:Sjakkalle. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. 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)[reply]
  64. Oppose. —Angr 10:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose per user:Sjakkalle - Lincher 11:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Tizio 12:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. flowersofnight (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. 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)[reply]
  69. 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)[reply]
  70. Strong oppose. Andre (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. If this were a vote on his adminship, he'd probably be de-sysopped by now... Scobell302 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. Nishkid64 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Yamaguchi先生 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. GRBerry 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose. Per Taxman. — mark ✎ 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. 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)[reply]
  78. Oppose --Runcorn 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose. --NathanDW 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Weak Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose. 06:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) gK
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Phil_Sandifer&oldid=92649183"