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 continuedparticipatingregularly 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].
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.
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]
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]
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]
Pi 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) A very helpful man[reply]
Absolutely. An excellent writer and community builder; prepared for the responsibility; open and considerate. John Vandenberg 10:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took extra time to read his answers, and was impressed. Shem(talk) 10:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly clueful in most cases. --Vassyana 11:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Support Porcupine (prickle me! ·contribs· status) 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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. Fainitesbarley 00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
Automatically supporting OTRS members. Phil Sandifer 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To offset dbuckner's below. In my analysis, FT2 has clue. GracenotesT§ 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic Support If Edward's right on the talk page, then the publicity will be great; if he's wrong, you seem like a compassionate, hard working admin. Alice.S 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Support I have had excellent experiences working with this user on metric expansion of space. Emblematic of the best sort of Wikipedia collaborators. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. :-) --Conti|✉ 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We need someone who intricately understands NPOV. Looks like we found him. Antelantalk 05:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support in spite of Yamanbaiia's absurd and libelous witch hunt. Grow up, the candidate is knowledgeable and trustworthy. VanTuckytalk 06:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems capable. One of the opposers has... Too much time on their hands. And not in a good way. Grandmasterka 06:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very level headed. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Skinwalker (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admire the writing of WP:SECRET, and am in awe of the clarity of intellect. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good answers, very level-headed, fair-minded editor with an excellent track record in disputes. Dreadstar† 18:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good personality for arbcom, impressive breadth of experience. --Fang Ailitalk 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After reviewing FT2's contributions, I find him to be a superior candidate and eminently qualified. — Hex(❝?!❞) 00:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support `'Míkka>t 05:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Answers to pointed questions from Dbuckner show level-headedness and clarity of thought. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some of his taste in topics may be a bit squiffy, but so what? His answer to Father Goose shows a good grasp of the balance needed between privacy (of the accused AND the accuser) and the need for transparency. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FT2 has considerable experience dealing with the kinds of difficult and contentious issues particular to wikipedia. -- Shunpiker (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support takes down trolls. John Nevard (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John Nevard does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support FT2 understands that we are here to write an encyclopedia and ArbCom handles disputes so that article writers can collaborate harmoniously. His determination to craft remedies that have article writers' interests at heart, commitment to communication and ability to handle problematic users will make him an excellent arbitrator. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you doubt for a second that an editor can be both a policy wonk and a heavy content contributor, look no further than FT2. szyslak 07:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The candidate isn't one whom I was immediately inclined to support—even as I had a very positive understanding of FT2, the answers to the questions did not, at first, resolve certain concerns that I might have had—but with further reflection I've become convinced that he will do a stellar job on ArbCom, and I'm quite happy that he will, it appears, be elected. Joe 07:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom is a terrible, awful, soul-destroying burden. I feel that this user will be able to survive it, and as such I regretfully support. DS (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peta (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steele the Wolf (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Has taught me a lot about Wikipedia and is always helpful and fair when it comes to resolving issues and conflicts.[reply]
Oppose -- SECisek 19:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. In addition, this comment is a personal attack, and should disqualify even if the description of Dbuckner is factuallly accurate (for all I know it is); anyone who handles criticism this badly should not be an arbitrator. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as I'm not a fan of Wikispies or their enablers. BobTheTomato (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)--Switching to abstain. In reviewing this candidacy, I'm not sure exactly what led me to believe FT2 was as I described him. May switch to support at a later time. [reply]