User talk:SirFozzie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please sign (~~~~) before you save. Beware SineBot!

For my Talk Page Watchers and anyone else interested...[edit]

My thoughts on three years as an arbitrator (simultaneously the longest three years of my life, and three years that have just flown by) have been posted to my user page. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with you that the politicization of ArbCom is a dangerous, dangerous trend. I think you generally did a good job as an arbitrator. (I disliked some of your decisions, but whatever....) Anyway, good luck. I always have respect for almost all of those willing to serve on ArbCom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like MBisanz talk 18:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your service. --Rschen7754 19:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your work over the years on the Committee. When you first ran, I accepted that we didn't always see eye-to-eye on specific issues, but I trusted your integrity and good judgement to outweigh any issue-specific concerns. You've always validated that trust. I've consistently been impressed by your thoughtfulness and care in handling cases, even when we've arrived at different conclusions. I've voted for you every time you've been up for election, and I've never regretted it. Anyhow, thanks again for your service, and enjoy your downtime. Cheers. :) MastCell Talk 19:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for your contributions on the committee. We have also occasionally disagreed, but during your tenure I came to respect you and your neutrality and judgment. Youreallycan 19:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't. Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all, even Malleus, for your comments. SirFozzie (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC) one time we were at great odds with each other but I grew to appreciate your courage and dedication as well as your calm demeanor. If you decided to volunteer for the worst job on the website again, you would have my support.--MONGO 11:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, MONGO.. it's appreciated. As for the calm demeanor, it's due to the efforts of my friends and fellow arbs, who have been my sounding boards, and more than once have been the brunt of frustration with others (that's why I say I completely understand what Elen did, despite the fact I strenuously disagree with the manner in which she did it). SirFozzie (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
As you stated in point "D"...we are all human. Best wishes.--MONGO 12:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for three hard years, David. I regret I won't have the opportunity to work with you again, unless do as I did and take leave of your senses long enough to run again after a year away.  :-) — Coren (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


That you are leaving the committee, pretty much one of the good guys.

To ensure you leave on a high note, you might like to reword the comment you left with your accept vote on the Schuminweb case, as it stands it portrays you as a decidedly biased party, not, I'm sure, an impression you intended to convey.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC).

Thanks Rich, considering the go-rounds we've had, that means a good deal to me. I will look at the comment, I meant my comment to say that it wouldn't be prejudicial to a full case, only that they wouldn't be allowed to use their administrative tools without first going through the case (and if they are leaving, it would be best to remove the tools, to prevent someone accessing the account and using them. I'm running out the door now, but I will take another look at it, and make that clear tonight when I get home. Happy holidays! SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware we had had "go-rounds" - still can't think where, except that you said, out of the blue and with no foundation that I didn't check stuff - I don't think I responded to that, and there were many far worse accusations being thrown around at the time. Thanks anyway for clarifying your wording in the SchuminWeb case. Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC).

Curious question[edit]

I was looking through the ArbCom archives one day and saw that you filed a lot of cases before you joined ArbCom. How many were you a party to? --Rschen7754 18:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, let's see, I can think of three that I was a filing party for. The Troubles, R.fiend, and Mantanmoreland... I can't think of any that I didn't file that I was a party to.. SirFozzie (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


There is a "Dilazak" case on the page that is going to have to be removed, because it is rather inappropriate and isn't really a matter for Arbitration.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hello SirFozzie! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, and thank you, TGU.. and indeed Merry Christmas to all my TPW :) SirFozzie (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays[edit]

Happy holidays![edit]

Evergreens covered in snow in Nebraska.jpg Happy Holidays!
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I will be updating the Patrick M. Byrne article and would like your support[edit]

His article seems famous on Wikipedia and a high point of controversy, I would like your support, thank you.Bhalluka (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


You are not citing the restriction Fram is referring to. Rich Farmbrough, 10:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

I came here for a whole 'nother reason[edit]

...but then discovered your term as an arb had come to an end. Please accept my thanks for the wise, calm way you handled that role, and for all your other contributions to making this project prosper and grow. You remain a role model for me, as a wiki-editor. I will always count it as a felicitous, if unintentional, error that, in the WOP arbitration, another admin referred to you as David and it caused momentary confusion about whether his comment were directed to you or to me. For at least a moment in time, someone thought I was SirFozzie. Yay. David in DC (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, SirFozzie. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 10:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ed, I got it, let me think about it for a bit... SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. If you can give me a reply by Sunday morning (UTC), that would be ideal, but take as long as you need. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick poke on this! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey. As much as I would like to, right now I don't have the energy to write more then occasionally, and this job really requires a full timer, so I'll decline, unfortunately. SirFozzie (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
That's fine—thank you very much for giving it careful thought. User:Neotarf has written a report for us out of the blue and has expressed interest in taking on the regular role, so please feel free to pitch in if and/or when you have time. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


don't complain. You get all of the glory and none of the work!

(Context upon request, if not obvious)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh. ;) SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


when you get a second. — Ched :  ?  20:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ched, I replied. SirFozzie (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

AE comment[edit]

Are you suggesting that I am assuming bad faith about KC? I don't think bad faith is necessary to explain KC's actions nor do I think that she is acting in bad faith. What I think is that she is engaging in haphazard and disruptive editing without engaging with editors much before or after the fact and that can be done in good faith.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it unusual how suddenly MastCell shut down the discussion at AE, only a few hours after your comment? Discussion amongst admins there was ongoing about whether the matter should be taken to Arbcom, and the last two comments (yours and Sanstein's) both suggested that it should. I recently challenged MastCell about whether his admin actions in the race and intelligence topic were a violation of WP:INVOLVED, so now I wonder whether he tried to shut down the discussion before it can be taken to Arbcom because he wants to avoid his own conduct being examined. (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

(This is Akuri posting while logged out.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

TDA: I'm saying more that I have a concern that considering the very contentious history in this area, that people are more likely to react badly to people with a different viewpoint, just because there's been so much battling in the area. And Akuri, I don't see any problems here, we (as AE admins) don't need to necessarily bring the case before ArbCom, that ability belongs to any registered editor with a case to plead. I'd think the Committee would take the consensus at AE into consideration when determining whether to accept a case or not. And to be honest, the close by MastCell was well within the consensus established by several AE administrators in that discussions. SirFozzie (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
As I said in Sandstein's user talk, I definitely think a case is needed. But both The Devil's Advocate and Mathsci have told me that if I request arbitration any time soon, it will be looked on unfavourably because I haven't had an account for very long yet. That's why if other admins (you and Sandstein) also think it is needed, I wish one of you could make the request. Is that something you could do? (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
If you read my comment, I'm not sure that it is the right step right now.. if things continue down this path, I see it, but right now, from my experience on the committee, I'm not sure a case would be accepted. SirFozzie (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Two of the admins said there was no basis for action because it was "just two reverts" ignoring the nature of the reverts and ignoring the fact that I and BH noted that this was just on top of numerous other reverts she has made on the article. I didn't mention all of them in the little evidence section because I thought it would be seen as stale to focus so much on stuff from February. Still, I did point to those reverts in my statement so it is inexplicable to me why any admin would think that I was only upset about two edits unless they didn't actually read my statement.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Premature closing of MathSci's RfE against D.Lazard by Future Perfect at Sunrise?[edit]

I wish to notify you of a discussion that you were involved in.[1] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, AQFK.. I have commented there. SirFozzie (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


I corrected two little formatting typos on your decline of User:Apteva's unblock request. Hope you didn't mind. Mkdwtalk 22:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Tenmei → Enkyo2[edit]

Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 15:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


I agree completely with your thoughts on Commons. However, my powers are even less than yours so my opinion is worth less than 2 cents. Oh well...the only way to fix Commons is for enough editors from here to go there and clean up the disaster. The WMF seems helpless so until the policies are put in place to straighten the mess there out, it will probably continue to fester. I've thought about what the best course of action would be but the stupid notions of its art or its educational always arise.--MONGO 23:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I spent some time thinking about it, the only way to have an effect is to starve it of the "good" material. If you upload stuff to EN-WP of good, educational value, make sure to tag it with keep local. They're using stuff like the great restorations and other such truly worthy material as a smoke screen to take these low-quality, low-educational, high-prurient value uploads in. Starve them of the good material and let them choke on what they have. Then convince the WMF of that. SirFozzie (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It's probably just a core group at Commons, numbering maybe less than 20 editors that are deciding such things. If indeed many of these images and files are going up for deletion and being kept on the flimsiest of reasons, then 20 new editors should tip the balance scale back to sanity.--MONGO 11:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you're both underscoring the fact that the open-editing model requires a certain critical mass of editors to provide some stability. Projects with sparse participation are vulnerable to being hijacked by small groups of extremists, which I think is what's happened at Commons. The same thing happened to Wikiversity when Abd and Moulton took it over and ran it into the ground with their half-baked pretensions. And it's more or less what happened in many areas of Citizendium, where (for instance) someone rightly removed from Wikipedia as a POV-pusher would establish themselves as an "expert" and write their heterodox agenda into the relevant Citizendium articles without any pushback.

Following this train of thought, then, Wikipedia is in real trouble. Our community of active, clueful editors has already shrunk substantially, to the point that I and others have simply abandoned a number of outlying topics to the wolves. In the face of entrenched, obsessive agenda-driven editors, the only way to ensure that Wikipedia's content policies are respected is to rely on support from outside, clueful editors. We've always treated such editors as an endlessly renewable resource, but they're not. And as their numbers dwindle away, we're not that far off from suffering the fate of Wikiversity, Commons, or Citizendium. MastCell Talk 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Now, that's a dismal thought. :-( KillerChihuahua 20:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Now that you're no longer an arb, have you thought about getting involved in other Wikimedia projects? Since you've survived one of the hardest jobs anywhere on Wikimedia, I'm sure you could do some good editing other places too :) --Rschen7754 23:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've honestly thought about it, but unfortunately, I know where my skills are at, and where they're not. I couldn't do things like Durova did, spending tens if not hundreds of hours on a meticulous restoration (which is the good of Commons). I see that they have decided to let a slavish adherence to the rules overwhelm common sense on Commons. A shame. SirFozzie (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I mean in other places, like Meta, or Wikidata </plug>. There's plenty of policy questions to be addressed globally, especially those affecting all wikis. --Rschen7754 01:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know much about Commons, altho I was happy that Jimbo deleted much of the pornography and sexualized drawings of children a while back. However, according to the Daily Dot it's still an amateur porn site. I suspect this has more to do with a youthful 'free culture' ideology than a slavish adherence to rules. Maybe as the members get older they will become more discriminating. Anyway, your statement (which I only saw through stalking MC) inspired me to get look at some of the deletion discussions and I even voted to delete one profiled by the Daily Dot. Unfortunately, I'm in love with words, and that's never going to change, so I'm no help. Plus it sounds like a truly sprawling mess. In originally commenting, I had thought to say that if a truly small group controls the site, you should be able to rally a group of sensible people to take it back (tho I don't know about the canvassing rules over there). But after some thought it's clear that's like organizing a herd of cats. II | (t - c) 06:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
No canvassing needed: all you do is do some work over at another wiki, don't get blocked, participate in discussions, and then run once you've looked at old RFAs and figure out what is needed to pass. With the exception of the German Wikipedia, everywhere else's RFA is much easier than ours. (For the record, I'm not condoning the other extreme known as hat collecting where people run for adminship at lots of wikis and then never use the tools...) --Rschen7754 08:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
If no canvassing is needed, why are we having this conversation? It sounds like the problem will fix itself. Reality check: like it or not, there seems to be a group organized in this situation. There's a reason that people form voluntary associations and why these types of groups (political parties, corporations, nonprofits, or even WikiProjects to some degree) have the influence and effectiveness they do. Anyway, the type of canvassing I'm talking about is what SirFozzie did when he called attention to the issue. As for myself, I'm not going to try to patch a sinking ship by myself without a broader strategy or commitment of support, but I'll weigh in with some common sense if it reaches my attention. It sounds like Commons should be asked to solicit opinions from a wider pool. II | (t - c) 09:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lately, I've been thinking the best stategy is to ignore Commons: a term I'm obviously borrowing from the essay Ignore Meta (I've considered writing a similar essay about Commons). Your idea seems to be a little more along the lines of boycotting Commons rather than just ignoring it. Is that a fair assessment? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Re footie rant on user page[edit]

And the vandalism here survived for about 14 hours. Unfortunate but hardly the end of the world as we know know it - perhaps just as well it was so easy to spot. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


Can you link me to the place where I can file that request? I know it's not likely they'll accept it, but I still want to give it a try.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case SirFozzie (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pakistan Cricket Board may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • was named consisting of acting chairman [[Najam Sethi]]‚ [[Shahryar Khan]], two former players ([[Zaheer Abbas]] and [[Haroon Rasheed]], and former team manager [[Naved Cheema]]. <ref>http://www.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, SirFozzie. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 10:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Rschen7754 10:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you help me with something?[edit]

Could use some suggestions and edits on a little guide I'm trying to put together in an effort to get higher quality AE requests.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Added some things, and some basic formatting. Let me know what you think. (postdated sig SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC))
Good additions. I'm wondering if I should add something about avoiding alphabet soup, but that seems to be a pet peeve of mine. Of course, maybe helping people file AE requests is actually a bad idea in the first place! Any other thoughts?--Tznkai (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a reminder that the first thing you should do before filing an AE request is to make sure you have clean hands in the issue :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll see if anything comes to mind before unleashing the hounds at WT:AE--Tznkai (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SV Wilhelmshaven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Plate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Development at AE[edit]

Just thought that you might want to follow up on the change to GHCool request. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The 4th Dimension[edit]

Nearly a month ago, you made the critical mistake of writing "(Of course, we're probably dealing with the fourth dimension if we're getting a four edged sword)".

Of course, it's completely possible to have a four-edged sword here in the third dimension - a square sword (or perhaps rotated 45 degrees to make a diamond-shape) would have four edges.

(pedantry? on Wikipedia!? it's more likely than we think...) Daret Masampullmor (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


Sir, in response to this: did you look at my Bruckner symphony example? The normal process is: if a template is to be deleted, first it is replaced in all linked articles, then deleted, - nothing changes for the reader. I fail to see a problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion[edit]

A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


Dear SirFozzie,

I have been reading he ArbCom decisions on a certain user- let us call him Fich Rambrough- after a long time. I think you came to the right decision. I am not picking you out specially but I can hardly reply to all admins etc. His automation tools were a pain, I pointed them out severally and I had many heated discussions.

It came to my attention recently, since I do a lot of work at WP:RFD as a humble editor who does not want admin, that he was sticking his oar in there. RfD is more intelligent thhan you may imagine, since it requires people who have enormous breadth of experience but are very shallow (that's for others to do!) so we do the gnoming and other good editors do the work; still there was this tendency I see in Fich Rambrough to disrupt, whereas occasionally I might translate an article or tie something up or suggest a different target by doing my homework first, sometimes by checking references and sometimes just because I am cool and I know what I am talking about, which is OK on a discussion page but of course at an article I would have to do WP:RS etc.

What was sadly missing was e.g. I created {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} along the lines of {{Infobox French commune}}, but apparently according to Fich Rambrough we were not allowed to have specialized infoboxes (since when?) and they should all be {{Infobox settlement}}, and his bot ran all over them, despite my stopping it. This kind of destructivism is not wanted. He is a good editor when he puts his mind to it. I am a good programmer when I put my mind to it. (That is why I only have to work half the year and the rest of the time relax and edit Wikipedia.) Let him edit and not program. You all at ArbCom were quite right. Si Trew (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)