Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/FT2

message: :Moved per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote by uninvolved user (in turn derived from consensus on election talk pages): "Users are requested to keep additional comments short, if they need to be made at all. Extended comments should made at each candidate's vote talk page".
===Pmanderson===
Strongly oppose I am reluctant to support OTRS members in any case, and FT2's comments on NPOV show that FT2 is committed to the Sympathetic Point of View, which is not our policy. Should not be an Arbitrator; an eye should be kept on him to be sure he is actually supporting policy as an admin. In addition, this comment is a personal attack, and should disqualify even if the description of Dbuckner is perfectly accurate; anyone who handles criticism this badly should not be an arbitrator.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object strongly to this move. Stifling my reasons, especially FT2's misconduct during this vote, is unfair. (I have removed the middle sentence, as perhaps unnecessary.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's policy and consensus of procedure. Daniel 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read that discussion; please don't use consensus so loosely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was consensus. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is   here. The two of you suggested a limit; there was some sentiment in favor of it; there was no discussion of what limit. Splash was correct in advising you to chill; and others agree. I thank you for your continuing restraint; this vote is not immune from WP:REFACTOR.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are all cool. But please see my rebuttal there. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from voting page

message: Strongly oppose I am reluctant to support OTRS members in any case, and FT2's comments on NPOV show that FT2 is committed to the Sympathetic Point of View, which is not our policy. Should not be an Arbitrator; an eye should be kept on him to be sure he is actually supporting policy as an admin. In addition, this comment is a personal attack, and should disqualify even if the description of Dbuckner is perfectly accurate; anyone who handles criticism this badly should not be an arbitrator.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object strongly to this move. Stifling my reasons, especially FT2's misconduct during this vote, is unfair. (I have removed the middle sentence, as perhaps unnecessary.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's policy and consensus of procedure. Daniel 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read that discussion; please don't use consensus so loosely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was consensus. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is   here. The two of you suggested a limit; there was some sentiment in favor of it; there was no discussion of what limit. Splash was correct in advising you to chill; and others agree. I thank you for your continuing restraint; this vote is not immune from WP:REFACTOR.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are all cool. But please see my rebuttal there. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pmanderson