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

• David Fuchs ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Questions for the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

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 son ^{T - 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. Grand master ka 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
11. SQL ^{Query 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. James086 ^{Talk | 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...-- Comet styles 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. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
38. Baka man 19:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
39. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
40. support RuneWiki ⁷⁷⁷ 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
41. Support - Sounds good. -- Schneelocke 21:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
42. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
43. EconomistBR 01:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
44. Rockpocke t 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, Je t Lover ( 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 VanTucky ^talk 05:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
57. Support. —— Martin^phi ☎ 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 pruthvi ( 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 Agne ^Cheese/ ^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. Titoxd^{( ?!? - 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. NF24^{( 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 Luqman Skye ( 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? K issL 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. -- Son ( talk) 23:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

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. -- Core desat 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Alex fus co5 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. Hús ö nd 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. Neil  ☎ 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. Ral 315 — ( 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. WjB scribe 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 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. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
49. Michael Snow ( talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
50. Mbisanz ( 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. — An gr ^{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. Ante lan ^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.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( 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 Tewfik ^Talk 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