Given the uncertainty over the selection/election process, a state of affairs that effectively renders these candidacies meaningless, I have decided to withdraw for the moment. If and when clarity is restored, I may reverse this decision.
Filiocht |
The kettle's on09:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)reply
I've been around since about July 2003, one way or the other, and became an admin around the end of that year. Anyone with an interest in the more obscure corners of 20th century literature may have seen some of my edits.
I have no position on the performance of the existing ArbCom, and nothing I say should be taken as implicit criticism. I run on a simple platform. I would aim to follow the following basic principles:
Equality of respect: the same standards of behaviour should be extended to and expected of all users. Being an admin gives me no rights that are not also extended to non-admins, I deserve no more leeway than someone who has been here for 3 months. Of course, I exclude the real newcomers, who should never be bitten.
Talking is better than blocking, discussing is better than voting. In the last resort, blocking/banning is better than letting one person drain the time, energy and goodwill of the many.
We're here to build an
encyclopaedia, not a playground.
Support. I only hope the string is long enough that arbcom duties will not diminish this editor's truly impressive contributions.
Jonathunder02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A great package: good answers to the questions, good attitude, consistently level-headed, assumes good faith...
Rje13:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - "Equality of respect. ... Talking is better than blocking." (yea!) perhaps you could teach Phroziac a little wikietiquette.
r b-j02:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A model Wikipedian whose judgment I respect more than my own, and whose support of this project's best and noblest ideals are part of the reason I keep coming back to this place.
Jwrosenzweig06:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). In addition, Filiocht strikes me as particularly thoughtful, and hence will make good judgements, and re-introduce the much missed principle of consensus. --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft18:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support because we absolutely need you as an arbitrator. Nothing short of a return to a focus on Wikilove and AGF while dealing with those editors that do not edit in good faith can solve Wikipedia's ills. Filiocht is clearly our best shot at that. -
TaxmanTalk14:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, with the greatest pleasure. If a vote may be said to be unneeded, this one is; nevertheless I'm so very glad to be able to do my bit for so peerless a candidate. I remember how, ironically, Filiocht momentarily pulled out some months ago. It is WP's fortune that much has changed.
encephalon19:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Candidate statement too vague on arbitration to case an informed vote on their merits as an arbitrator. Without information: oppose.
Fifelfoo00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose actually, I have nothing at all against this user becoming arbitrator...the vote is just way too one-sided. If it gets close maybe I'll come in and change it :)
ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I have no doubt that Filiocht wouldn't be a bad Arbitrator, but that doesn't mean he'd be a good one. Also, it would be a shame to lose one of the most prolific contributors of Featured content.
Ingoolemotalk17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Given the uncertainty over the selection/election process, a state of affairs that effectively renders these candidacies meaningless, I have decided to withdraw for the moment. If and when clarity is restored, I may reverse this decision.
Filiocht |
The kettle's on09:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)reply
I've been around since about July 2003, one way or the other, and became an admin around the end of that year. Anyone with an interest in the more obscure corners of 20th century literature may have seen some of my edits.
I have no position on the performance of the existing ArbCom, and nothing I say should be taken as implicit criticism. I run on a simple platform. I would aim to follow the following basic principles:
Equality of respect: the same standards of behaviour should be extended to and expected of all users. Being an admin gives me no rights that are not also extended to non-admins, I deserve no more leeway than someone who has been here for 3 months. Of course, I exclude the real newcomers, who should never be bitten.
Talking is better than blocking, discussing is better than voting. In the last resort, blocking/banning is better than letting one person drain the time, energy and goodwill of the many.
We're here to build an
encyclopaedia, not a playground.
Support. I only hope the string is long enough that arbcom duties will not diminish this editor's truly impressive contributions.
Jonathunder02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A great package: good answers to the questions, good attitude, consistently level-headed, assumes good faith...
Rje13:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - "Equality of respect. ... Talking is better than blocking." (yea!) perhaps you could teach Phroziac a little wikietiquette.
r b-j02:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A model Wikipedian whose judgment I respect more than my own, and whose support of this project's best and noblest ideals are part of the reason I keep coming back to this place.
Jwrosenzweig06:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). In addition, Filiocht strikes me as particularly thoughtful, and hence will make good judgements, and re-introduce the much missed principle of consensus. --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft18:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support because we absolutely need you as an arbitrator. Nothing short of a return to a focus on Wikilove and AGF while dealing with those editors that do not edit in good faith can solve Wikipedia's ills. Filiocht is clearly our best shot at that. -
TaxmanTalk14:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, with the greatest pleasure. If a vote may be said to be unneeded, this one is; nevertheless I'm so very glad to be able to do my bit for so peerless a candidate. I remember how, ironically, Filiocht momentarily pulled out some months ago. It is WP's fortune that much has changed.
encephalon19:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Candidate statement too vague on arbitration to case an informed vote on their merits as an arbitrator. Without information: oppose.
Fifelfoo00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose actually, I have nothing at all against this user becoming arbitrator...the vote is just way too one-sided. If it gets close maybe I'll come in and change it :)
ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I have no doubt that Filiocht wouldn't be a bad Arbitrator, but that doesn't mean he'd be a good one. Also, it would be a shame to lose one of the most prolific contributors of Featured content.
Ingoolemotalk17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply