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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:16, 3 December 2007

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

FT2

Registered: July 2004;
Admin: January 2007 (prior rfa withdrawn at 80%, June 2006);
OTRS: September 2007;
Real life info: 40 ± 2 years old. Working with secure, sensitive information (VP level); and mentoring;^{(disclosure info)}
Wiki contribution areas: See user page.

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]

FT2 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Questions for the candidate
Support or Oppose this candidate

I was too late (Bad internet connection) but I enthusiastically support this candidate. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Mr.Z-man 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
BLACKKITE 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support spryde | talk 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Patient. Thoughtful. Knowledgeable. Clearly highly qualified. Will likely write. (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anthøny 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Charles P._(Mirv) 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Clearly has what it takes. —Animum § 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cbrown1023 talk 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. He's one of the most level-headed administrators I have met on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear god yes, would make an excellent member This is a Secret ^account 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ragesoss 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! - Rjd0060 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nufy8 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
W.marsh 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
Will (aka Wimt) 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
– Gurch (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kurykh 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yamanbaiia 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ρろーх₥αあるふぁ 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~ Riana ⁂ 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baka man 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
looks great—Random832 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- drini ^[meta:]_[commons:] 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avi 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
maclean 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very level-headed, honest, and trustworthy. Exactly what we need in an arbitrator. krimpet⟲ 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sh¤y 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support based on candidate statement and answers to questions. --Core desat 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SQL ^{Query me!} 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm and rational - hence ++ -- Tawker 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alexfusco5 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent candidate -- Manning 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Step hen 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchia 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~ priyanath talk 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Thatcher131 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Húsönd 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally second ArglebargleIV :) Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most rational, ethical people I've ever interacted with on Wikipedia. Picaroon (t) 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GlassCobra 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 #One of the most rational, ethical people I've ever interacted with on Wikipedia. [[User:Picaroon|Picaroon]] [[User talk:Picaroon|(t)]] 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 # [[User:Mercury|<strong><font color="#8B7B8B" face="Verdana">M<font color="black">er<font color="black">cury</font></font></font></strong>]] 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
+# [[User:GlassCobra|Glass]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|Cobra]]''' 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 == Oppose ==