Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/David Fuchs

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

David Fuchs

For those who know me not, I am David Fuchs. I've been a member here since 2005, an active contributor since 2006, and an administrator since May of 2007. Well then, let's be short and to the point. I think the dear ole' ArbCom is pretty much fine, but it needs to be more active. It seems to me whenever I look over at the ArbCom pages, half the members are inactive, and cases are pouring in. Not good.

I've "done" dispute resolution, being the one in the dispute and out; back when I was a newbie, I got into a protracted content dispute with another editor; as far as I know, my persistence only succeeded in alienating the other user to the point of leaving Wikipedia. That's always bothered me, and I think it's shaped my focus since- if a more experienced editor had pulled me aside, the whole debacle could have been avoided. I was also a member of the now-defunct

keeps cool
. But then, there are *those* kinds of issues, and that's why we've got Das Oberteil- ArbCom.

As an ArbCom member I would remain active in other areas of the Wiki, as I feel it is important for a Committee member to stay involved and aware of issues and to head off conflicts on noticeboards before they escalate to the point of needing the formal involvement of the Committee. Similarly, I feel that it's important for a member of ArbCom to look over a case thoroughly and attempt some reconciliation or resolution by other methods before actually accepting the case. In short, I feel that I will be able to do all of the above, and promise to do so to the best of my ability. David Fuchs (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cla68 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wiki experience is no substitute for confidence in doing a great job. Monsieurdl 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  — master sonT - C 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shanes 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Gurch (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Captain panda 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. maclean 01:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't quite understand why he's "inexperienced". Looks like a perfectly good candidate to me.
    masterka 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. SQLQuery me! 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Wiki-resume isn't as extensive as some other candidates, but I think he'd do fine. — TKD::Talk 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. ·
    AndonicO Talk 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Son of the Defender 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. ♠TomasBat 03:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Level-headed; would hate to lose him as an article writer, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Like Alkivar, I think there to be a good bit wrong with ArbCom at present (although for reasons very different from his), but I see this candidate as one who should bring some very fine qualities, toward positive change, to the Committee. Joe 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --B 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Everyking 04:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. My interactions with David have shown me that he can come to logical and fair conclusions in content disputes which shows promise for deciding on arbcom rulings. I doubt that he lacks the experience necessary. James086Talk | Email 06:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. ~ UBeR 07:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. JayHenry 07:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Davewild 08:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. "Inexperienced"..No way !!..he is calm cool and collected..perfect for Arbcom...--Cometstyles 12:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31.  Grue  13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. the wub "?!" 13:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per the candidate's statement (and especially answers to questions) demonstrating precisely the right attitude for the job. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Seems qualified. — Rudget contributions 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Civil and trustworthy. Acalamari 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. support --Rocksanddirt 18:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Sensible user. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Bakaman 19:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. supportRuneWiki777 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Sounds good. -- Schneelocke 21:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Reywas92Talk 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. EconomistBR 01:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Rockpocket 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. @pple complain 03:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. --A. B. (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Reasonable. User:Krator (t c) 11:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, perfectly sufficient experience, good attitude. Dan100 (Talk) 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. An experienced and talented editor. If he doesn't make it this year, I look forward to seeing his candidacy at the next ArbCom election. — Satori Son 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Karanacs (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Epbr123 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. No problems. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Viriditas 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support,Stepp-Wulf (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  56. Support
    talk 05:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  57. Support. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support docboat (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support ➥the Epopt (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, looks like a good candidate Keeper | 76 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Agree with most of his answers to questions. Don't see any civility issues. Dedicated to the 'pedia. --Fang Aili talk 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support.
    Dreadstar † 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  64. Support he is active wikipedian and hence deserves my support
    talk) 16:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  65. Support Homestarmy (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Tony Sidaway 18:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Another good chap.[reply]
  67. Wizardman 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support AgneCheese/Wine 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Redstarsldr (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User does not have suffrage Nick (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support `'Míkka>t 05:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support.
    cool stuff) 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  72. Brusegadi (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support.--BozMo talk 10:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Walkerma (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong support. The strong support is for his answer to Irpen's last question: that Arbitration policy should be determined by the community. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support--D-Boy (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support KleenupKrew (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support'thank you/ Astuishin (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. radio me!) 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  81. Support FlashSheridan (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Showers (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support --\/\/slack (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - long history of activity in consensus building, evidence of learning from experience. Warofdreams talk 18:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support as a good editor and a good admin. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong support for high-quality edits and evidence of fairness
    talk) 07:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  87. Support -- The Bethling(Talk) 09:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support -- even if the system is broken, you still need a fair judge. Mindraker (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support: a calm and modest manifesto. 45ossington (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support JJ Williams (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Strong support. Seems like a level-headed character. Bacchiad (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support: as per Mindraker Leaderofearth (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support A clear thinker who understands the social aspects of the project. What else do we need? KissL 12:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Potential Arbitrator -Pika ten10 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support wbfergus Talk 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support (good to see some other intelligent supporters here) David Lauder (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support --Hillock65 (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support: Christchurch (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Karl2620 (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support I have decided I generally like the answers to a variety of questions and his position on issues. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Philcha (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. --
    talk) 23:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Oppose

  1. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tim Q. Wells 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chaz Beckett 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too inexperienced This is a Secret account 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. anyone who thinks the arbcom as it stands is fine doesnt get my support.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. east.718 at 00:33, December 3, 2007
  7. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --
    U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Oppose -- Avi 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Inexperienced as of yet. --
    desat 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Alexfusco5 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Too new. Maybe next year. Zocky | picture popups 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Not enough experience, wasn't impressed with his actionsduring his time with the
    WP:AMA. Rebecca 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. Húsönd 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mercury 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. KTC 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose -Dureo 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Spebi 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  22. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose--MONGO 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. - Crockspot 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. ☎ 10:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  28. --Vassyana 11:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Answers to the questions show some inexperience. He may well be ready next year, though. Xoloz 13:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Per Xoloz, inexperience concerns, however could be ready next year.
    Addhoc 13:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  31. I like the direction he seems to espouse, but more experience and a longer record would be nice. Shem(talk) 14:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - Mattisse 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Edivorce 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - Jeeny (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Ripberger 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. The line " I think the dear ole' ArbCom is pretty much fine" sez it all. If he thinks it's fine, he's not for me. --Pleasantville 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Shot info 23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. WjBscribe 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. — Sebastian 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose ×Meegs 01:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Sorry, need more experience. bibliomaniac15 05:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Nothing personal.
    Atropos 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  45. Oppose --DHeyward 06:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose - not experienced enough for an arbitrator, good luck next year Alex Bakharev 07:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. John Vandenberg 10:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  48. Oppose -- No. Doesn't seem to have enough understanding of the issues surrounding science/pseudoscience controversies.
    talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  49. Michael Snow (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. talk) 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  51. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose.Wetman (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  55. Oppose per evasive answer to NPOV/SPOV question. Skinwalker (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Terence (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. —
    If you've written a quality article... 15:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  60. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. BobTheTomato (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose, sorry Zagalejo^^^ 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose, disagree with some answers. Antelan talk 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose - Maybe next year? --健次(derumi)talk 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Mike R (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose - inexperience and the AMA cause me concern. Risker (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. Inexperienced, dishwater dull, status quo candidate. Gives weak , or non, answers to questions. Go ask the Wizard for some courage, brains and experience, then come back and see us next year. Striking rude comments. The candidate's heart seems in the right place, but, sorry, I still cannot support at this time.--
    talk) 23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oppose Only edits video game pages - maxpower37
    Less than 150 mainspace edits before November 1st, can't vote Secret account 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose per Pleasantville, ALKIVAR, and others. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose, not convincing enough. I share the concerns that some answers show inexperience. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Maxim(talk) 00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose appreciate his enthusiasm and interest, however experience is lacking. JERRY talk contribs 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose lacking in experience. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose TewfikTalk 17:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. --Vintagekits (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose BigDunc (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose Alex Pankratov (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/David_Fuchs&oldid=1087298971"