Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/Sir Joseph

Content vs. Conduct
Thank you for volunteering your time for ArbCom. You are clearly an experienced contributor to Wikipedia. You write in your candidate statement: "I have noticed that of the past few Arbcom cases, I would have to say most were conduct issues and not content issues.". The Arbitration Policy describes the scope of the Committee as "primarily for serious conduct disputes" (emphasis mine)(Scope_and_responsibilities), and further states: ''"The Committee does not rule on content..." (#Policy_and_precedent) Your statement gives me the impression that you are not familiar with this basic tenet of the ArbCom, which is of concern in evaluating your suitability for this important role. Your reference to the "past few" cases makes me wonder if the "past few" that you read are also the "only few" that you've reviewed. --Evilphoenix Talk 03:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You'd be very wrong with your impression. Most of the Arbcom DS issues are content issues, such as gun control, American politics, Israel-Palestinian issues, India-Pakistan. These are areas where there is conduct issues, but it's primarily a content issue where no past method of resolving content issues worked, such as DR or 3O and we then have longstanding edit-wars or just not getting anywhere. As such, DS is put in place and we have 1RR or consensus required before edits, etc. Which is not the same as edits in the general area where we have major civility issues. You might also want to look at Arbcom archives, in cases, in procedings and amendment requests to see that I've participated in many Arbcom discussions and I'm not someone who is just jumping in to this without knowing a little bit of what Arbcom does. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And to clarify a bit further, even when we have conduct issues with regards to the topics I mentioned, those are conduct issues inside a topic. And as such, DS applies to those topics and conduct issues can be dealt with Arbcom remedies. What I think we as a community needs to focus on is general incivility in the whole editing arena. Being told to "f-off" is not a good thing. The most recent cases that I recall, were oftentimes conduct issues within general Wiki, or admins not treating "civilians" with respect, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The sentence I questioned you on might read entirely differently to folks more current on AC proceedings than I am. I'll go look for your edits in the AC archives. Evilphoenix Talk 04:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a slight clarification. And I do hope you will see that my comments are often how we need to enforce civility and admins need to be held accountable when questioned on actions. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Question: Should the above section be moved to the Questions page? – it wasn't expressed as a direct question, but was clearly a challenge to the candidate that called for, and received, a reply Noyster (talk),  12:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. I didnt really want to place it as a question, it was more of a commentary on his wording in his statement than anything. Also, placing it here would give anyone, not just the candidate, the chance to tell me if I was wrong. Evilphoenix Talk 00:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think so. I'm not that familiar with how this all works but I'm trying to review the Statements, Questions, and Discussion for each candidate, and this kind of exchange is generally on the Questions page. I find the Statement and Questions help me evaluate whether I have an opinion on a candidate's views, and then the Discussion page is usually either blank or tells me if they're about to get banned or have a slew of endorsements. The tone of the question therefore has more weight here, and I think the response is perhaps less likely to be seen? Thomas Craven (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Question
After removing this question and his answer //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Candidates/Sir_Joseph/Questions&diff=813716775&oldid=813715248 I think this candidate should consider withdrawing from the election. The purpose of the questions is for the entire community to review the answers when deciding which candidates to vote for. Answering the question and then removing that answer and the question without discussion is not acceptable or civil behavior during a community election (and has been opposed by the editor who posted the question.) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I answered his question. It's not a place for conversations which is why I reverted his discussion.Sir Joseph (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing you removed was the link to the discussion where you say I am trying to AGF but it's hard to not think that there is a bias among people who are opposing the mention on the front page. - this happened on June 14 2017. It is also not an isolated incident - I don't think anyone who has to recuse themselves from ARBPIA should be an Arbiter, since this is one of the areas that we most need uninvolved and trustworthy editors to monitor and vote on proposals and set editing restrictions. In your answer to the question you say If I said your editing was biased, then it most likely was, at least according to me. Like Stormy clouds I find this answer largely unsatisfactory. The question was about an In the News posting proposal, not editing, and the accusation of bias was not just against Stormy clouds but all the editors who disagreed with you and opposed posting (at least nine editors). Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Question has been reinstated and will remain so unless the co-ordinators,, , , decide to reverse said decision. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)