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

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! Shr e shth91 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

    • Stompin' Tom does not have suffrage; he registered at 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic 00:30, 5 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. — Nightst a llion (?) 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
20. Support. skip ( t / c) 09:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
21. 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) reply
22. 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) reply
23. 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. jbolden1517 ^Talk 15:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support per courage to do what is right, not what is popular or convienent. -- Elar a girl ^{Talk| Count} 15:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Weak support. Didn't like answers to my questions but in general I think he'd do OK. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 10:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support -- t A LL I N c 21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
28. — Xyrael / 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support Stirling Newberry 10:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose. Grouse 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Core desat 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. -- Robth ^Talk 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
14. — Mi ra 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

    • KazakhPol does not have suffrage; he registered at 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic 13:44, 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. Ter e nc e Ong 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose THB 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. – Ch acor 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. Tewfik ^Talk 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 Gizza ^{Chat ©} 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. — An gr 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... Scob e ll302 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose. Nishkid 64 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose Yamaguchi先生 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
74. -- Run e 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
83. Oppose per some dubious recent actions. Fram 10:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose-- Brownlee 12:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Firm oppose-- Holdenhurst 13:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Oppose -- Takeel 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Oppose. I don't agree with his judgment in the hypothetical scenario. -- Danaman5 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Trapolator 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Why do this, Phil? You have a lot of good ideas but you one bad boy. Grace Note 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Strong oppose ·  rodii · 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
91. 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) reply
92. Per Taxman, Sjakkalle, and, most especially, Serpent's Choice. Joe 05:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose. ugen64 08:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
94. 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) reply
95. Oppose Candidate wants to turn ArbCom into something it is not intended to be. Alan Pascoe 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Strong Oppose noosph e re 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
97. Strong oppose Kevin Baas ^talk 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
99. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
100. Oppose.  Grue  09:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
101. 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) reply
102. Oppose Eusebeus 12:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
103. Oppose. Jonathunder 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
104. Oppose for not answering all questions, and for position on ArbCom & content. Mango juice ^talk 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
105. Conscious 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
106. Oppose -- Longhair\ ^talk 08:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

     oppose -- Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

     • Cocoaguy does not have suffrage; he registered at 15:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

107. Oppose — Omegatron 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
108. — Centrx→ talk • 07:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
109. Oppose Oskar 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
110. Oppose Getting into content dispute is not what the ArbCom needs right now Lost Kiwi ^(talk)22:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
111. Oppose. - Introvert •  ~ 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
112. Oppose -- Undue weight exclusion of ideas not understood as evinced by candidate's response to SPOV question. -- ScienceApologist 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
113. Weak oppose. the wub "?!" 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
114. -- Kbdank71 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
115. no Derex 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
116. Oppose - Ronline ✉ 07:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

     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) reply

     • 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). — Cryptic 12:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

117. 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. Ian¹³ /t 12:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
118. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
119. 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). — David Levy 15:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
120. Oppose. — Locke Cole • t • c 21:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
121. Oppose with above reasoning. Kiwidude 22:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
122. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply