Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/SirFozzie

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Use third-level headers for new sections.
- Example: === Heading title ===.
Unsure about the election process?
- Please review the election rules.
Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions?
- Please notify an election volunteer.

When would you make further enquiries?

Age, sex, location, educational background. These can all become relevant to how qualified an editor is to defend themselves. They can also affect how easily an editor will take rejection. My suspicion is that many hardened vandals began with little or no take on what it means to be neutral or open. Supplication? Imagination of how others feel? Difficult qualities, even for adults, and especially when imagination of how others feel is all you really hav--in a digital medium no less. Do you like IRC? How would you open a phone channel? 00:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.170.70 (talk)

Edit Analysis

A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worries

SirFozzie recently took part in trying to start a rather ridiculous arb case([1]) against User:David Gerard (related to User:Giano II). Together with not answering the questions about vested contributors, it makes me worried that he starts drama or is joining arbcom to serve his in-clique rather than the whole community. (Comment base entirely on those two facts, no comment about his other work) --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was ridiculous was the actions that DG took. There was no discussion with anyone who might have known more privately. (on the checkuser mailing list, for example). There was no discussion publicly, either and it's well known that Giano/DG have butted heads over the function of IRC. I state that no administrator should take an action that they know to be controversial without prior discussion and consensus. Is there any doubt in ANYONE's mind, that David Gerard (specifically DG in this case) blocking Giano for a joke account that was widely known amongs many Arbs and other checkusers was going to be controversial? And as for Giano and I being part of the same clique, are you quite aware of the amount of times Giano has slagged me off for telling him he's wrong (hell, I even blocked him when he was a bit too far over the top?). Hope this helps explain the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that ArbCom is moving away from the pointless in-clique quarrels and is focusing on taking care of the ethnic and other real disputes instead. It would be sad if it goes back to the bad old days of the past few years.

It's only controversial because people make drama about it. It seems to me that DG didn't know that the sock was a joke account, he just had a vague suspicion that it was Giano's sock before he got the new information. I also saw several cases of the sock being used inappropriately. Giano could just have been unblocked and DG told he was wrong. Or Giano could have accepted that he did something wrong, taking his very short block, and learnt something from it. Either would have caused less drama and not taken up ArbCom's time.

It's good that you are not in a clique with Giano. I don't keep track of the wikidrama normally; I only took a look because of this election. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you go back to the original statement by DG blocking Giano, he stated that he had known that the two were related in 2006 and even had a long drawnout discussion with Bishonen about it. That was the part that made me quite dubious about the whole thing. SirFozzie (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comments

LessHeard vanU As I do not believe in a system where my support may be rendered ineffective by the considerations of Jimbo and the existing ArbCom I shall only be supporting Risker; however, had my vote potential been not been constrained by the apparatus employed I would have supported this candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments From the Candidate: from vote page

weak support I like some things he's suggested at WP:AE, such as in a dispute between User:HighKing and User:TharkunColl,he was very even-handed. However, I will strongly want to see recusals or ruthless attempts at impartiality if any cases or requests for arbitration involved wikifriends of his or other Wikipedia Review contributors. We don't need the backing up of friends/the politically favoured that's been suspected of the current arbcom. Sticky Parkin 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't usually speak (Don't wish to try to sway people unless they ask my views on something), but this should go without saying. Anyone that I have strong feelings about, pro or con, is an automatic recuse from me. An Arbitrator must be impartial in word and deed. SirFozzie (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the "Vote every six or eight months thing" I see I've gotten some opposes based on this. Let me set the record straight on this, that was in a "Throw everything against the wall, and see what sticks", free wheeling enviroment in a RFC. I'm completely not wedded to it at all. I just want to make sure that we're doing what's possible to make sure all the Arbitrators are applying their utmost to their jobs, and it just followed naturally to a three tranche, 18-24 month term period. If folks want to go to a 2 tranche, 24 month term (keep elections to yearly), that's perfectly fine to me. I'm more into reducing burnout then making sure we have to go through this over and over and over and.. well you get the point, right? SirFozzie (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If clarification and guidance aren't needed on this topic, then I don't know when it is!

I hope this is the right place for this. Remove if not. You make this statement on your election notice:

In several cases I've been in front of ArbCom, there was a sense of the community that they wished ArbCom would help provide guidance in a case, on what evidence that they wanted to see, which was not forthcoming.

And then you make this statement on a recent RfA

I do not endorse this, while this is somewhat related to one of the key disputes of The Troubles (exactly what the Ireland article should point to, the island, the Republic of Ireland, so on and so forth). There was a Requested Move discussion that is the root of this. You notice that there is no diffs of user conduct in the request for Arbitration, only a demand that ArbCom provide an answer to what the Ireland article should point to. I would recommend that instead of yet again fighting over these issues in Arbitration and attempting to bring it here to win a content dispute by brute (ArbCom) force, that they go back and not come back until they get it right.

You are aware of how long this particular dispute is ongoing (4 years), the countless edit wars, blocks, AN/I dramas, etc, etc, etc. Am I interpreting you correctly when you say that ArbCom should only be for user behaviour issues, and should not attempt to give guidence or clarifications on any other issues? Why not? Is this not a perfectly good example of where clarification and guidance is needed? --HighKing (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is not, cannot. and should not be in the business of dictating what content should be. If you notice, in my oppose, I not so subtly hint that if there are folks who are acting as a roadblock to consensus, and breaking Wikipedia's rules regarding discussions and consensus, that there is a reason to post diffs of the behavior and ask ArbCom to look at that, and then let the discussion re-engage there. I know that there was some technical means to try to get an idea to what people were looking for when they plug in the word Ireland (It was discussed on the Foundation-L list, and apparently is actively being discussed on a Wikipedia technical list).

When I noted that ArbCom wasn't providing clarification, it was in the midst of an ArbCom case about a user who had lied about their identity in order to push an unbalanced Point of View across numerous financial related articles. We provided information on why these users were related, and why they had a conflict of interest. That's a lot different from a "Help, we can't agree on this, make the decision for us!".

ArbCom is charged with maintaining an environment where the community can decide for themselves what it's content should be, within the context of Wikipedia's policies. If there are people violating Wikipedia's policies to keep that consensus from forming, they can look at what's needed to improve the environment. But by Wikipedia's policies, they can't substitute THEIR judgment for the community's when it comes to what the enviroment is supposed to produce.

Hope this explains why I opposed the ArbCom case being opened as a content dispute rather than a user conduct dispute. SirFozzie (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your response, and in the context of my specific point, am I correct that you are saying very clearly that ArbCom should not issue a ruling or judgement on content disputes - only policy, and the interpretation of policy. Kinda like a supreme court of policy? --HighKing (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounda about right. I would add violations of those policies to boot. SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I disagree btw, but thanks for the clarification. Good luck with the ArbCom - looks like you'll make it too. --HighKing (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]