Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/FT2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 162: Line 162:
#Appears adequately able, affirm associate. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
#Appears adequately able, affirm associate. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
#Automatically supporting OTRS members. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
#Automatically supporting OTRS members. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
#To offset dbuckner's below. In my analysis, FT2 has clue. [[User:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">T</span>]]</sup> <span title="Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/FT2">§</span> 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


== Oppose ==
== Oppose ==

Revision as of 18:04, 4 December 2007

Please Note: Extended comments may be moved to the talk page.

FT2

Hi. I'm User:FT2. I've been quietly working on our more difficult cases [1] and helping other administrators and users [2] since 2004/05:
  • I've written around 100 substantive articles (list), and authored the stable wordings/structure of many of our core policy and project pages (list).
  • I undertook my first full mediation case [3] and presented my first substantial arbcom evidence [4] in November 2004, my first full arbcom case in December 2004 [5], followed by involvement in another in January 2005, and a further two warriors later that year, with repeated experience since. Since 2004 and moreso since adminship, I've consistently managed difficult disputes, more virulent warriors, closure of heated or difficult AFDs, further arbcom cases, and problems needing exceptional insight and communication. Throughout, I've continued participating regularly at arbcom.
  • In this arena, I've not only gained respect, but also been commended for some of the best decisions and dispute resolutions in the history of the project: - "possibly the wordiest, best thought through AFD close in the history of the project" [6], and "probably the most comprehensive and balanced dispute resolution I've ever read on Wikipedia" [7]. Even in heated disputes, I am routinely considered fair [8]... even by those I've declined [9], who initially disagreed [10][11] -- and by more than one I've warned or blocked.
  • Behind the scenes, I also do a lot of "second opinion" and escalation/resolution work, in-depth allegation/dispute checking, and drafting analyses and dispute summaries that gain respect even in tough cases [12]. I'm able to say 'no' and explain the reasons [13], non-provokable [14], fair to difficult editors, and evidence-centered in presenting concerns about administrator and arbcom decisions when necessary [15]. I spot important privacy/security issues others might miss [16], and reconsider my stance if needed [17] [18].
  • For further details, please ask.
Arbcom is our way to endorse a panel of trusted and experienced users, to decide our most divisive or exceptional matters. The Committee must therefore 1/ be responsive (major cases often deteriorate rapidly), 2/ earn exceptional respect for its decisions (unlike all other communal decisions, the invitation "anyone can edit" does not apply), 3/ act transparently and with clarity, and 4/ be answerable to the community, not the other way round.
As an administrator, I have been community focussed and a problem-solver, accessible and supportive. As an arbitrator (if appointed) I give my commitment to absolute integrity; to be accountable; to be approachable; and to be fair, insightful and effective.
FT2 (Talk | email) 05:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was too late (Bad internet connection) but I enthusiastically support this candidate. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Mr.Z-man 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support; probably the most even-handed of the candidates. The ability to act calmly and rationally is paramount to a good arbitrator. — Coren (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BLACKKITE 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cla68 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support spryde | talk 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Patient. Thoughtful. Knowledgeable. Clearly highly qualified. Will likely write. (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Anthøny 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support – Clearly has what it takes. —Animum § 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cbrown1023 talk 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Definitely. He's one of the most level-headed administrators I have met on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Dear god yes, would make an excellent member This is a Secret account 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ragesoss 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Of course! - Rjd0060 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Nufy8 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. W.marsh 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  21. Will (aka Wimt) 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Seems ok.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. – Gurch (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Kurykh 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Ρх₥α 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes. - Jehochman Talk 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Bakaman 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. looks great—Random832 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support -- Avi 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. maclean 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. -MBK004 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Very level-headed, honest, and trustworthy. Exactly what we need in an arbitrator. krimpet⟲ 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. sh¤y 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support based on candidate statement and answers to questions. --Coredesat 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. SQLQuery me! 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Calm and rational - hence ++ -- Tawker 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Alexfusco5 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. An excellent candidate -- Manning 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Stephen 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Anarchia 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. ~ priyanath talk 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Cryptic 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Rational and level-headed. Excellent responses to questions. The only issue with selecting him to be an arbitrator is that it's better for people to wonder why FT2 isn't an arbitrator already than for people to wonder why he is one, but I'm sure he'll get over it. -- ArglebargleIV 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Thatcher131 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Rebecca 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Húsönd 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Totally second ArglebargleIV :) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. One of the most rational, ethical people I've ever interacted with on Wikipedia. Picaroon (t) 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Mercury 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. GlassCobra 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strongest Support - FT2's reputation as a mediator precedes him. I have utmost confidence in this candidate. Honest, trustworthy and kind; a natural for the job - Alison ❤ 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Hal peridol 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Rockpocket 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support -Dureo 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Spebi 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. JayHenry 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. JavaTenor 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. You certainly have a thing for boxes. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. --Elonka 05:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. - Jeeny (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) now don't ever block me again. j/k[reply]
  67. I am impressed by the seriousness with which the candidate treats the questions - and I respect his principles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. ~Eliz81(C) 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. WAS 4.250 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. — xDanielx T/C\R 07:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Crockspot 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. The best part is his attitude :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Pi 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) A very helpful man[reply]
  75. Absolutely. An excellent writer and community builder; prepared for the responsibility; open and considerate. John Vandenberg 10:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. I took extra time to read his answers, and was impressed. Shem(talk) 10:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Neil ☎ 10:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. <<-armon->> 11:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Incredibly clueful in most cases. --Vassyana 11:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. FT2/007 has made excellent contributions and is level-headed and serious about this new "job"..and this is what impresses me..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Awadewit | talk 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Kwsn (Ni!) 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Splash - tk 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Good candidate. -- Marcsin | Talk 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Xoloz 13:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support never met this user before but seems reasonable enough.  Grue  13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. PeaceNT 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Johnbod 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Pharaoh of the Wizards 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. --barneca 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Jeffpw 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. the wub "?!" 15:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. KTC 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Mattisse 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Calm, rational, neutral, well thought out in difficult situations such as the recent Anthony Chidiac case, and able to bring resolution to matters with a clear exposition of the facts and interpretation of policy. Orderinchaos 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. A candidate who has more mediation experience than I realised which certainly qualifies this user to be a member of ArbCom. GDonato (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Alæxis¿question? 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. - JodyB talk 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Yes please — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support.--Isotope23 talk 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support AvruchTalk 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. support --Rocksanddirt 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Wizardman 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Spartaz Humbug! 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. MookieZ 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - Modernist 21:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Davewild 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - yes, yes, a thousand times yes! I've worked with FT2 before, and he'll be a terrific addition to the ArbCom. User:Orderinchaos summed it all up very well above. -- Schneelocke 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. --Cactus.man ✍ 21:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. —Ruud 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. --Malcolmxl5 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. <eleland/talkedits> 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support and good luck. —CComMack (t–c) 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Lawrence Cohen 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Shot info 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. --Mathsci 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Strongly, WjBscribe 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Has often helped me better interpret the policies and to better handle dispute. Strong confidence. 1 != 2 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. →AzaToth 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support great portfolio! — Sebastian 23:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Strong support. The most thorough, detailed and extensive analyses of issues, editing patterns, breach of policies etc that I have ever seen on Wiki. (Not just the infamous DPeterson case). Even handed too. Fainites barley 00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. βcommand 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support -- Imperator3733 01:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Strong support - have seen him walk through pages of trolls hurling buckets of garbage and come out calm. I trust him. ♠PMC♠ 01:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. EconomistBR 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. JoshuaZ 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. --A. B. (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Strong support, very thoughtful answers. @pple complain 03:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. support Kingturtle
  136. COGDEN 03:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Captain panda 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Pigman☿ 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Experienced and good judgement --DarkFalls talk 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Dekimasuよ! 05:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support — Jack Merridew 05:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. Jonathunder 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - Despite his run-in with me, I think given the totality of his work, he would make a fine arbitrator. FCYTravis 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. --Kubigula (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Shem(talk) 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Soleil (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. I have not have direct experience with the user but he seems to be right arbitrator material Alex Bakharev 07:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 08:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Cronholm144 09:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. -- lucasbfr talk 10:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support -- Euryalus 10:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support shotwell 12:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. I think that FT2 would make a fine arbitrator. James086Talk | Email 13:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support -- Versageek 15:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support -- Fram 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Bfigura (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. - Zeibura (Talk) 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Appears adequately able, affirm associate. >Radiant< 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Automatically supporting OTRS members. Phil Sandifer 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. To offset dbuckner's below. In my analysis, FT2 has clue. GracenotesT § 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No. Supports spying on "suspect" editors using secret methods and secret evidence. Isarig 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:43, December 3, 2007
  4. Strongly oppose Contributions to WP mostly content-free and pseudo-scientific, and some are very strange indeed. Has shown himself incapable of dealing with obvious trolls by his mistaken conception of 'even handedness'. edward (buckner) 08:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Edivorce 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Ripberger 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Atropos 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. (my reason).-Yamanbaiia 12:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/FT2&oldid=175744837"