Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SirFozzie

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

SirFozzie

[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 17:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC) at (58/8/2); Scheduled end time 16:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie (talk · contribs) - I've interacted with SirFozzie several times, mostly on issues related to community bans and clearing out vandals and socks. One of the more dedicated users I've had a chance to deal with--and someone who deserves the tools. Blueboy96 16:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination, and welcome any and all questions and will endeavor to answer them fully. SirFozzie 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Two parts. One is the unavoidable scut work that Wikipedia requires, clearing backlogs in AIV/deletion categories as well as continuing recent changes patrol to catch vandalism "at the source", before it can sink under the radar. The 2nd part is the vandal fighting work. I have some experience with that already, thanks to my work at the Community Noticeboard and in working with some experienced admins.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have worked with the Pro Wrestling Project on dispute resolution with regards to articles and sourcing. A vandal had targeted many wrestling articles, stripping out valid information from the articles, and then nominating the articles for speedy deletion. I have also done informal mediation during talk page disputes on several articles that prevented edit wars from turning out worse then they have.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have had to deal with one of Wikipedia's most active vandals for pretty much my entire time here on Wikipedia, and I have gone through the various Dispute Resolution steps (Mediation Cabal, Third Opinion, Request for Comment, etcetera) with the user in his various incarnations. I've come up with four rules to deal with the stress that comes with being in an edit conflict.
1) Get an outside opinion to look at your work. Sometimes, you cannot see the forest for the trees, and the tendency to dig your heels in can become overwhelming. A second set of eyes and a friendly warning is always good to say "Maybe you're a little off base there".. and pull you back to safer ground.
2) Avoid the fence of 3RR. When it comes to true edit conflicts and not just reverting a banned user or outright vandalism, if you're reverting more than once, you better have taken it to the talk page.
3) "It has to be right, but it doesn't has to be right Right NOW." Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, so taking the time to discuss any changes you want to make and a willingness to LISTEN to other viewpoints will save you so much grief.
4) Having a sense of humor about things can reduce your stress level considerably. If you can't laugh, because you're so angry over an edit war? It's time to stand up, get away from the computer for a bit, and de-stress.
4. (optional question by Blueboy96) If you become an admin, how would you enforce WP:BLP, especially on sensitive articles?
A:If the article is about a living person, then my view is that information being added to an article has two requirements.
1)It must be verifiable (IE, if someone challenges it and removes it, BEFORE you re-add it, you better be able to cite it to a verifiable source that passes the test to be a Reliable Source. Wikipedia has a moral imperative to limit itself to hard facts in articles, because speculation, innuendo and the like can do so much harm to be intolerable. Look at John Seigenthaler, to see what one vandal who slips under the BLP radar can do to a man's reputation, not to mention Wikipedia's credibility to the public. Just like Joe Friday was rumored to have said (but never did, on the old Dragnet show): "Just the facts".
2)It must be Notable. More than just notable, it must be relevant to the article. We're trying to be an encyclopedia, not a biographer. For example, for sports players, we don't need day-by-day or month-by-month results, like "Joe Shlobotnick hit .245 in May of 1956". Is it verifiable? Yes. But is it Notable and Relevant? No. SirFozzie 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. What do you think about Category:Administrators open to recall? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:I think it's a good thing. One of the most common things that we say it "Earning the mop is no big deal", but you need something just short of dynamite (or an ArbCom case) to remove someone from administrator's status. I can understand how a lot of folks would not be willing to be on such a list, because it can be seen as a restriction against taking unpopular (but needed) administrative actions.
However, Administrators that I admire, like Durova and Phaedriel have pledged themselves as open to recall, and have been able to do their jobs fully and without restriction. If I am granted the mop, I will place myself in that category as well. SirFozzie 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SirFozzie before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Support The nominee is the most significant editor in curbing the actions of serial vandal JB196. Fair minded and with a thorough knowledge of policy. I have had completely opposing views to the nominee before and have have found his comments altogether polite and logical. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support as nominator. One of the most knowledgeable nonadmins here. Give him the mop!--Blueboy96 23:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support -A very good editor but he has very low mainspace edits which could be a hindrance but overall he is most-trustworthy and should get those tools that people talk about..hehe.. --Cometstyles 00:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Not only is SirFozzie one of our most tenacious defenders against ban-evading sockpuppetry, he is also in my experience unfailingly polite, level-headed and helpful when dealing with other users. He's a thoroughly clueful editor with an extremely strong case for needing the mop; in my book that makes him a model candidate. --YFB ¿ 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gosh, this is a most pleasant surprise! Support, yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum! Phaedriel - 00:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - seems to be all fine. Answers to questions are satisfactory, and the user seems to have a good grasp of policy. Couldn't detect a single uncivil comment. Although he has not made a lot of contributions, SirFozzie is a respected editor, and I see no reason to assume he'd abuse the bit. SalaSkan 00:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I was sure I checked your logs the other day and found you were an admin, oh well, certainy a great candidate, pops up with great comments in all the right areas. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Edit count isn't too big of a deal. --Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Will make a fine admin. Good luck!:)--James, La gloria è a dio 00:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support based on contributions. I found some good edits while digging through his contribution history. Here he does a great job of dealing with an article dispute on Talk:Sports club -- an anonymous POV-pusher started by angrily accusing SirFozzie of vandalism, and SirFozzie just cheerfully talked through WP policy until the same anon was thanking him for helping. He also upholds BLP but is suitably cautious about how to apply it. His edit history also showed me how tirelessly he cleans up after the sockpuppeteer JB196. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Good experience with the policy end of things, and I've seen nothing but civility from him. Mop wisely! KrakatoaKatie 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This is probably the first time I have actually supported someone who doesn't have that many mainspace contributions (I had to use editcountitis to put it in perspective). Usually my reasoning for opposing a candidate with low mainspace contributions comes from the fact that mainspace editing helps you prepare in dealing with potential future conflicts. From what I see, SirFozzie has been involved in many disputes, and handled himself in a professional manner. He's also shown a need for the tools, and in the way he has been handling JB196, I think he could definitely use the admin tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. His work dealing with JB196 has been impressive, and I can forsee a definite benefit to the project if SF gets the tools. Daniel 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Spport. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Civil editor, has a good grasp on policies, and has made sufficient edits across Wikipedia. Will be a perfect admin. Happy editing and good luck! GeneralIroh (Leave a message after the beep if you gotta problem.) 02:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - great vandal fighter & proven track record - Alison ☺ 02:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. SupportAll my interactions with SirFozzie have been positive.Proabivouac 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC) I struck my support. All my interactions with SirFozzie have been positive, but BLP is non-negotiable.Proabivouac 06:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC) There's no problem here; I should have asked questions first. Strong support.Proabivouac 14:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 04:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Solid editor who's shown he can deal with challenging situations. Can be trusted with the tools. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support anyone offering to fight you know who... Good worker, interactions have been positive. Riana ⁂ 04:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Yeah...I like the user. Seems to be a good idea. Jmlk17 06:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, looks good. --Aquillion 08:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Peacent 09:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Seems like this user would make a fine admin. Only thing giving me pause is the BLP issue raised below. —Gaff ταλκ 10:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, no problems here. --Tone 10:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No real reason to oppose. Moreschi Talk 11:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support seems like a contributive, decent editor and would make a really good admin ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 12:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support The edits are very low. However, this user has proven their value in an area that is especially troubling. I see no reason to oppose and many reasons to support. JodyB talk 13:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Anyone patient enough to fight JB196's continuous sockpupeteering and vandalism and still remain standing has the material needed for adminship. Good contributor as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support It is a pleasure to voice my support to this user. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Always diplomatic, and the tools will be handy for dealing with JB196 and the like. One Night In Hackney303 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
  32. Support Along with ONIH and myself, SirFozzie has spent many months now dealing with JB196 all while keeping a level head. –– Lid(Talk) 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Sure. —Anas talk? 17:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support great editor:).Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Candidate has been instrumental in fighting vandalism. BH (T|C) 17:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Weak support He is a fine editor, but has too little edits. RuneWiki777 17:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - We need more admins, and anyone willing to help with backlogs is welcome. User seems to have enough understanding of the tools per answer to q1. WaltonAssistance! 19:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I was the administrator who helped SirFozzie et. al. resolve the JB196 sockpuppetry case. Actually I recently recommended to SirFozzie that he wait and get more overall experience (especially in main space) before asking for the tools. He certainly does have a talent for complex investigations, which is an area that needs more active mops. DurovaCharge! 20:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - This user is ready for the tools. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, looks good. TimV.B.{critic & speak} 23:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - good guy. Very calm, cool, and collected in situationsBBPscar 00:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC) - sorry. Sock of JB196 - Alison ☺ 00:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I have seen this user around many times and I am pleased to support. Acalamari 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support good sock-hunter choice for admin. --Fire Star 火星 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I have confidence in this user with the times I have come across his work. Knows the ropes and will help well with the backlog. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 04:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak Support His contribs tells us that he is dedicated to helping out Wikipedia (especially with the getting rid of socks). Only thing that might not be good is the low edit count. -- Hdt83 Chat 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Editor knows the policies, knows the tools, no reason to suggest that the tools will be misused. PGWG 13:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support - Have worked with this editor on several different things and am impressed as how well they handle difficult situations (sock puppets) and other areas of this project. This editor would be an asset to the administrator team here on WP. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, definitely a good user. Corvus cornix 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I agree with the supporters and their reasons. Captain panda 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. SupportNot a huge number of mainspace edits, but very reliable over many months. I support.UTAFA 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. SupportAnonEMouse (squeak) 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support-He knows what he is doing, and I have no complaints. I can't wait till he becomes an admin!Politics rule 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support will be good admin --rogerd 21:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support- Great editor. Eddie 21:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per Davewild. --wpktsfs (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support The candidate is an editor whom I have generally held in high regard and whose sound judgment, deliberative disposition, and civil demeanor I think to suit him well for adminship, and so I was predisposed to support here but was a bit troubled by SirFozzie's answer to question four which, his contributions to the quasi-contrary notwithstanding, I understood as advocating a construction of BLP inconsistent with that for which a consensus exists. I am convinced now, though, that SirFozzie's understanding of BLP is quite right (to-wit, and pace Dmcdevit, et al., of BLP as a nuanced policy that need not be pursued at the expense of the community discussion that serves always to apply and interpret policy), and I am quite confident that he properly conceives of adminship as a ministerial pursuit in which one acts only to determine for what course of action a consensus of the community lies and then to effect such consensus (not, for instance, to susbstitute his views about what BLP ought to say for those of the community writ large), such that I feel quite comfortable concluding that the net effect on the project of SF's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 05:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support knows what he's doing, will be an excellent admin. Darrenhusted 12:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

It very much pains me to do this, but I must oppose per this thread, unless and until I am assured that SirFozzie will uphold or at least not hinder the upholding of the very strictest standards (regardless of how he feels about them,) in which case I shall gladly restore my support.Proabivouac 06:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a brief summary of why you are opposing based on this discussion? I'm not getting it... —Gaff ταλκ 07:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: Unsourced or poorly-sourced material must be removed from Biographies of Living Persons.Proabivouac 07:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No...I get what BLP is about. I just don't get why you are the sole editor opposing adminship based upon this discussion. There must be something here that you feel quite strongly about, but reading the discussion after the fact, its not entirely clear what. —Gaff ταλκ 09:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at SirFozzie's statement toward the end of the thread, it doesn't sound like he won't hinder the enforcement of BLP. I'm not saying this only as the nominator. As a journalist by training, I have no tolerance for libel, and I feel that we need to guard WMF's exposure to liability particularly conservatively on this issue.--Blueboy96 11:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied on Proabivouac's talk page, and explained the situation that the conversation came from. I do not oppose BLP, in any way, shape, or form. In the discussion in question, I was looking for clarity in the situation that I found myself in. Once it was provided, I went along with it. BLP is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia, and if not applied rigorously to information being added to Wikipedia, can cause irrepairable harm to its subject. Hopefully this has answered your concerns, but if you like I can discuss this further? SirFozzie 12:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the discussion with a fresh eye, I agree with you. You're right, I'm wrong. Back to support, and even stronger for it. Thanks for your response.Proabivouac 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose, for his part in perpetuating Votes for Banning, and holding all of the misguided notions that go along with such a position. That includes promoting the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator) are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans [1] [2] [3], an insistence on "formalizing" bans, even for users already indefinitely blocked, for them to be official, as here, personal attacks like [4] [5], and out-and-out process-wonking, saying, several times, things like: "Unfortunately, there are folks who follow what Jimbo says (that any unsourced material must go from an article) despite what the policy itself says." Dmcdevit·t 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Dmcdevit, concerns regarding his interpretation of WP:BLP (see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 7) and shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality during disputes with other users. There is also a peripheral concern regarding votestacking from other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling in this nomination and other debates, which although I do not hold personally against the nominee still find to be highly problematic. Sorry, but I must oppose at this time. Burntsauce 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment about "votestacking" by members of WP:PW is disgraceful and an insult to the nominee to suggest he would participate in such a thing. From what I can see there are only two WP:PW members who have voted to support the nominee (including myself), so this counts as yet another landmark in Burntsauce's Wikipedia history of bullying, assuming bad faith and creating controversy for the sake of it. Also - shoot-first-then-ask-questions-later mentality...?? Clearly this "contributor" (I use that term in the loosest sense) is more interested in smearing the reputation of someone who has opposed his all-powerful, admin-overruling viewpoints in the past. Bad faith comment by a user with a grudge, this should be struck from the record. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, largely along the lines of what Dmcdevit, and also somewhat in agreement with Burntsauce. This comment in particular leads me to question SirFozzie's judgement, because it shows a disturbing overadherence to process, and VFB contributions further reinforce my worry that he puts process over product. Several comments in the aforementioned BLP archive suggest the candidate thinks consensus is all that matters when it comes to biographies of living persons, while our policy on that very subject makes it clear this is not so. I am therefore uncomfortable with this user being an admin. Picaroon (Talk) 02:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be an excellent reason to oppose, and I'd join you, save for the fact that, judging from this discussion, it appears that SirFozzie agreed to be set straight on this well before this RfA (read the whole thread.)Proabivouac 05:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I still dont think this user understands WP:BLP.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Dmcdevit, Burntsauce and Picaroon. —AldeBaer 23:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per desenting voters. He has insulted lots of users, doesn't understand policy, and all in all, is a total jerk. Biggspowd 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment "a total jerk", is this what you consider civil? Darrenhusted 16:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose What Dmcdevit said. Kamryn Matika 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, reluctantly but firmly, per Dmcdevit's reasoning over VFB and apparent process-wonkery (for a non-existent process at that). A few more months and come back. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, for now I'm still thinking this one over. Dmcdevit's concerns are very, very valid ones. However, these are lessons that must be learned and I assume that Sir Fozzie has learned from these oppositions. I am the user responsible for American Brit's community ban, just a couple weeks prior to the Community Noticeboard's foundation. The bannation process left a very bad taste in my mouth, for the reasons that Dmcdevit outlined. A few regulars agree and within a day it was done. Now, it is my belief that American Brit deserved to be banned but it deserved a discussion. We are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit at any time, for free, and redistribute the said material as long as attribution is given. Blocks and bans are not tossaway measures, even if you know it is a kid on a school computer making a funny ha-ha. It has ramifications as to the purpose of this project. Call me cheesy for taking that seriously, but I do. That is core, and so it gives me worries as to the user's ability to block based on Q1 and Dmcdevit's concerns.
    As for BLP, Proabivouac rightly points out that Sir Fozzie admitted he was mistaken. I've butted heads over BLP before but that was considering given general facts of life and pop culture. I've still a few namespaces to go in reading here. I'll probably remain neutral, but we'll see. Keegantalk 05:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have concern about the BLP handling/understanding. I sincerely hope SirFozzie examines BLP and the issues involved carefully, with an eye to common sense and "do no harm", along with a good dose of applying V tenaciously to BLP articles, rather than the process-centered approach I have seen in some of the edits. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SirFozzie&oldid=1257769300"