Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/SirFozzie

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Larno Man (talk | contribs) at 02:17, 2 December 2008 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SirFozzie

The last year has been a rough one for the Arbitration Committee. Several tough cases have come before ArbCom, and they'll be the first to admit that missteps have been made. There need to be new blood and new ideas on the Arbitration Committee, and I think that I am a good candidate to bring both to Wikipedia's last step in dispute resolution.

First, I must make a preemptive pledge. The Arbitration Committee has had a high percentage of burnout, since its inception. It takes a lot out of anyone who has to necessarily be knee deep in every major conflict on the encyclopedia. There are items being proposed that would revamp the number of users on the Arbitration Committee, as well as the length of time in a term. I have made a proposal that seemed to get good community support, that would limit ArbCom terms to two years. I will hold myself to those terms: If elected, I will inform Jimbo that I wish my "tranche" to end in December 2010, and will either finish my post at that time, or run for re-election at that time.

The Arbitration Commitee has generally served Wikipedia well, but as more and more "old-hands" on the committee have succumbed to burnout and battle fatigue, there's been stutters, a sense that sometimes, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. There's also been a sense that ArbCom has become a bit more like a deity sitting on high, taking pleadings from petitioners, and then issuing proclamations from above. 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.

I see a more open Arbitration Committee coming. One more accountable to its users that elect it. One making wiser decisions.

Due to pure turnover, the Arbitration Committee IS changing. Now we, the users of Wikipedia have our own charge. The arbitrators that we elect, over the next two or three years, will greatly influence how ArbCom in turn influences the encyclopedia. It's in your hands. Elect the candidates that you think will be able to influence the encyclopedia the best way.

Support

  1. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HiDrNick! 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Black Kite 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ouststanding contributions including being a key player in pushing for a resolution of the Mantanmoreland fiasco. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mantanmoreland case... sounds familiar. Good work there. Cool Hand Luke 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support. Among many excellent candidates SirFozzie stands out. Through two years of interaction he has demonstrated consistent integrity and willingness to handle tough situations. Only one candidate this year earns my strong support and Fozzie's it. We need more people on the Committee who take the bull by the horns. DurovaCharge! 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ priyanath talk 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weakly, per rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support GTD 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Tom B (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. iridescent 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Sam Blab 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. kurykh 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. krimpet✽ 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support: User has just great judgment and a fine ability to reach across opposing view points and pull people together. Fossie is exactly the type of person I would like to see on arbcom. In general I trust his judgement, but in particular his input to the troubles about the troubles was exempalary. This is an approachable, considered and balanced editor. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I like Fozzie and I think he does great work. Some temperament issues in the past give me pause, but hopefully he will keep a tight rein on himself while serving on the committee. Avruch T 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. We need more critical thinkers like him. Mike H. Fierce! 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. User has great judgement skills and is highly outspoken, basically what's needed from an arbitrator ..--Cometstyles 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. iMatthew 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, Durova sums it up. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Sir Strawberry. All you need is the Quixote lance. SBHarris 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --MPerel 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Willingness to stick by his principles and call bullshit as needed is needed. This would be a great fit for Wikipedia. rootology (C)(T) 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. CIreland (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Burner0718 Wutsapnin? 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support--Toffile (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Synchronism (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support for the same reasons as given by Durova (above). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, especially for his work in making The Troubles less troublesome. This is exactly the kind of WP experience that will benefit him as an arb. General good judgement IMO. Brilliantine (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support لennavecia 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - would be an excellent addition to the Committee Fritzpoll (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. — neuro(talk) 10:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Horologium (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Absoloutely per Durova. ViridaeTalk 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support. MookieZ (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=82&t=21083&hl=&view=findpost&p=143319 I'm a man of my word. Sceptre (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. --Kbdank71 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. --A NobodyMy talk 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. 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)[reply]
  56. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Synergy 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Has done good work in tough areas. Here's my major concern: too willing to see (ID)cabalism not only where it does exist, but also where it clearly doesn't exist and is simply employed as a thought-terminating cliche. You're a critical thinker - just be sure to apply that across the board. I'd also suggest, if elected, that you carefully and prospectively define a scope of recusal, given involvement in some previous disputes. All of that said, I think SirFozzie's qualities outweigh the negatives, and so I'll support - not without reservations, but on balance I think you'd be good for the Committee. MastCell Talk 20:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I think so, yes. Support. AGK 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Yup--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Seems to have some mediatorial (<-- new word) experience; that's nice. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Goods answers just outweigh concerns. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - but only because he blocked me indefinitely without any justification and never apologised. I admire chutzpah. (In moderation). Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Ya betcha. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Tactical !vote, no strong feelings on candidate although their participation at Wikipedia Review shows an ability for critical thinking, and is a virtue rather than the crime the kool-aid drinkers below make it out to be. Skomorokh 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support...Modernist (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. The Mantanmoreland case clinched it for me. Dr. eXtreme 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support--Caspian blue 01:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support I trust this user. AniMate 01:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Voyaging(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose this user makes it clear day after day that he is not out for the best interest of Wikipedia nor for developing an encyclopedia. Such power could only be a hindrance to Wikipedia if placed with this individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mr.Z-man 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Steven Walling (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Majorly talk 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - immature. Crum375 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Mixwell!Talk 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. A little too much drama history for my taste. AgneCheese/Wine 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Atmoz (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. RockManQReview me 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Immature, too interested in wikipolitics, and somewhat lacking in sympathy and kindness towards those who are not in his own group of friends. ElinorD (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Prodego talk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Talking about "SPOV versus NPOV wars" is the wrong idea of the role of science on Wikipedia. Treating it as a "war" undermines neutral science, and therefore Wikipedia's educational purpose. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I was on the fence, several of the opposers here concern me, and while I can agree with reducing the term to 24 months, with a maximum of one additional term maybe, ... "Elections every six or eight months" is major turn off. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Keeps his finger on the trigger much too often. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Sarah 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Rebecca (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    TorstenGuise (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak oppose - this was a tough one for me. I think it boils down to: there are other people who would be much better suited. Maybe next year. // roux   editor review10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Too wikipolitical --B (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Too involved in drama. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong opposeOrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Per SandyGeorgia's analysis, three times as many edits at AN as to the top five articles edited. Also too prone to initiating conflict; concerns over partiality (per ElinorD above). Finally, Wikipedia policy and enforcement should be discussed and formulated on-site, not discussed and formulated at an external site and then ported here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong oppose Does not have a level head. --Patrick (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Pcap ping 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Tiptoety talk 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. ArbCom people should grasp the nettle. I don't like the way he fudged Rspeer's question re scientific consensus."Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Weak Oppose per John Vandenberg. Decent positions and level-headed enough, but elections that often would be an extreme waste of time. GlassCobra 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/SirFozzie&oldid=255336529"