Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/FT2

WP:AC2007
WP:ACE2007

2007 Election status

Nominations are closed.
Voting has closed. (ended 16 December 2007, 23:59 UTC)
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new Arbitration Committee members.

FT2[edit]

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Admin: January 2007 (prior rfa withdrawn at 80%, June 2006);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[edit]

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]
Ρх₥α 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]
Hús ö nd 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]
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]
Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hal peridol 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rockpocket 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Dureo 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spebi 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JayHenry 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly have a thing for boxes. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--El on ka 05:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeeny ^(talk) 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) now don't ever block me again. j/k[reply]
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]
~Eliz81^(C) 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAS 4.250 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crockspot 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best part is his attitude :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:43, 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]
Neil ☎ 10:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<<-armon->> 11:11, 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..--Comet styles 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit | talk 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kwsn (Ni!) 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Splash - tk 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good candidate. -- Marcsin |^Talk 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Xoloz 13:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support never met this user before but seems reasonable enough. Grue 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PeaceNT 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh of the Wizards 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--barneca 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffpw 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the wub "?!" 15:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KTC 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse 15:45, 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]
Alæxis_¿question? 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - JodyB_talk 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Avruch ^Talk 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support --Rocksanddirt 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MookieZ 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Modernist 21:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild 21:16, 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]
--Cactus.man ✍ 21:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Ruud 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Malcolmxl5 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<eleland/talkedits> 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and good luck. —CComMack (t–c) 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence Cohen 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shot info 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Mathsci 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly, WjBscribe 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has often helped me better interpret the policies and to better handle dispute. Strong confidence. 1 != 2 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kittybrewster ☎ 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
_→AzaToth 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great portfolio! — Sebastian 23:42, 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. Fainites ^barley 00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
β^_command 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Imperator3733 01:47, 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. ♠P M C♠ 01:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EconomistBR 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JoshuaZ 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. ^(talk) 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, very thoughtful answers. @pple complain 03:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support Kingturtle
COGDEN 03:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Captain panda 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pigman☿ 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced and good judgement --D_arkF_alls ^talk 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasu よ! 05:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jack Merridew 05:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jonathunder 05:19, 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]
--Kubigula (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Shem^(talk) 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soleil (talk) 07:26, 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]
Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 08:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 09:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- lucasbfr ^talk 10:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Euryalus 10:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support shotwell 12:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that FT2 would make a fine arbitrator. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Versa geek 15:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fram 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bfigura ^(talk) 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Zeibura ^(Talk) 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears adequately able, affirm associate. >Radiant< 17:20, 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. Gracenotes^T § 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 Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Rudget _{contributions} 19:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Postlethwaite 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 3 cheers for topics that are "very strange indeed"! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mbisanz (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. :-) --Conti|✉ 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Viriditas 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Y not? 03:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--MPerel 03:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Support. We need someone who intricately understands NPOV. Looks like we found him. Ante lan ^talk 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. VanTucky ^talk 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. Grand master ka 06:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very level headed. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Doc^g 08:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. R. Baley (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alex Middleton (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good answers and good profile. docboat (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support semper fictilis 15:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Don't really know FT2 well, but Dbuckner won me over. --CBD 15:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:51, 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 Aili ^talk 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 FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dessources (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Sidaway 16:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Seems to know his onions.[reply]
Terence (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Homestarmy (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No convincing reason to oppose. Acalamari 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Law Lord (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WebHamster 23:26, 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]
Wimstead (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brusegadi (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWetman (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) (I seem to have inadvertently missed FT2 on my first pass, 5 December).[reply]
Support -- SiobhanHansa 13:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:42, 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 - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Graham87 06:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BorgQueen (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TimidGuy (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yury Tarasievich (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NF24^{(radio me!)} 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chrislintott (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Most helpful.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Mercer does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Showers (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Yes, please. --\/\/slack (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 05:16, 10 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 --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vagary (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - careful, well considered approach and experience in many controversial areas. Warofdreams talk 18:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Bethling ^(Talk) 09:34, 11 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. Bacchiad (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slrubenstein 12:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Akhilleus (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as if it were really necessary at this point. Eaglizard (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportPeanutter67 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support wbfergus^Talk 21:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for past interactions and experiences with this user. Voice-of-All 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ling.Nut (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support John Carter (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Maxim_(talk) 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, strongly. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support on experience grounds alone, and attitude. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grandmaster (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haukur (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Muchness (talk) 23:59, 15 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]
Support - llywrch (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —Whig (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very thoughtful. Martinp (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Vintagekits (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support harlock_jds (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:25, 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]
Woody (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Aude (talk) 22:21, 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]
Support Garion96 (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt. – Steel 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Supports spying on "suspect" editors using secret methods and secret evidence. Isarig 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dorftrottel I talk I 05:43, December 3, 2007
Withdraw to avoid conflict of interest. edward (buckner) (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Mcginnly | Natter 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ral 315 — (Voting) 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edivorce 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ripberger 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Atropos 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(my reason).-Yamanbaiia 12:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 20:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Xdenizen (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Snow (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Haber (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Parham (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GRBerry 21:20, 5 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]
Oppose per my comments on the talk page.--Father Goose (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catchpole (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--cj | talk 08:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Septentrionalis.--Bedivere (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe next year? --健次(derumi)^talk 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - too many words William M. Connolley (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 01:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Luqman Skye (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike R (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Silvestris (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Per separation of powers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]