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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 58: Line 58:
# - [[User:Crockspot|Crockspot]] 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# - [[User:Crockspot|Crockspot]] 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<span style="color:black">Nearly Headless Nick</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<span style="color:black; vertical-align:super; font-size:90%; font-weight:bold" title="Contributions">{C}</span>]] 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<span style="color:black">Nearly Headless Nick</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<span style="color:black; vertical-align:super; font-size:90%; font-weight:bold" title="Contributions">{C}</span>]] 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#--[[User:Mcginnly|Mcginnly]] | [[User talk:Mcginnly|Natter]] 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:55, 3 December 2007

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

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 Association of Members' Advocates, and I learned several important things from my months there; one, the more layers of bureaucracy you add to the dispute resolution process, the slower it grinds; and that if you've got long queues of grievances and conflicts and don't get to them, things tend to bubble over and escalate more than they need to. In 90% of disputes on this fine wiki, I've found you can defuse situations by simply calmly talking to each editor; most issues don't even need dispute resolution if you have at least one person who 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. Grandmasterka 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. ⇒SWATJester 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. I like the direction he seems to espouse. Shem(talk) 09:25, 3 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. --Coredesat 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 actions during 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/David_Fuchs&oldid=175450608"