User talk:SirFozzie

Foz is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia when his medical issues have cleared up

If you're looking for my archived Talk

1

2

3

4

5

New section

Having to put up with.... [1]

Having had to put up with such a colossal quantity of utter nonsense from you the last few weeks Domer, I thought I needed to chill with some relaxing jokes. MarkThomas 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a joke, all I can do is pull a quote from Queen Victoria.. "We are not amused.". Comments like that are more likely to cause editwars, not end them. SirFozzie 19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you speaking now as a neutral admin SirFozzie, or wearing your well-known pro-Irish editor hat? Just curious. MarkThomas 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gaimhreadhan blocked

... for harassment of User:Brixton Busters having been final warned yesterday. Sorry, but it's not acceptable behaviour. Just thought you should know - Alison ☺ 19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. SirFozzie 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User MarkThomas

Hi. I saw your comment in the Cromwell page and wondered "who's that...haven't I seen that name before?", so I came here to have a look. I see that - as an admin - you've been heavily involved in recent disputes/issues on British and Irish pages and might be familiar with the above user. I've been experiencing "problems" with this user and am getting really annoyed with what I experience as frequent deletion/mischaracterisation of references, accusations of POV, igniring reference to persist in editing in his own POV, talk page comments that accuse me of things that never happened or of making edits that I didn't make. I took about a two month break recently but almost as soon as I came back experienced the same problems again. I put some examples up on [2] but I have no idea if that will have any impact. I guess that I'm asking for advice on what to do about this. I've tried stepping back for a couple of months but it didn't have any effect. Hughsheehy 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to the genocide debate and Hughsheehy's repeated edits surrounding the question of Cromwell being a genocidalist, which is a minority view in academic history, but one that Hughsheehy obviously has very strong views about himself - he resents this rather obvious point being publicly stated, which is the heart of the grave offence I commit in his eyes.

I've just read through the Wikiquette material and the accusations there profoundly conceal and misrepresent the facts. Hughsheehy is not in general someone who likes to engage in collaborative editing. When I first went to the Oliver Cromwell article, there were a number of exceptionally POV statements that were unreferenced or badly referenced about him in the intro which I corrected. I was then met with what amounted to a barrage of accusation and harassment from Hughsheehy. When I resisted this, he added numerous references to revised (and slightly less POV) versions of the contested sentences. When the validity of some of these new "references" which were to say the least academically weak (one for example was a quote from a childrens tutorial on the BBC website) were challenged by me, I got further accusations and blanket reverts. Now many other editors have come to the article and systematically critiqued Hughsheehy's references and the statements themselves. I made several more minor edits to the contested sentences, one of which has stuck. It is my opinion that Hughsheehy resents this and is hoping to paint me as the offending party. Note the recent threat of libel against WP:LEGAL he made on my talk page. MarkThomas 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that MarkThomas picks that specific reference [3] (which he deleted) as an example. It's from the UK National Archives and is teaching material for English A Level History. Also, it was never a citation for anything about genocide, as it doesn't mention it. It mentions that Cromwell is hated in Ireland. MarkThomas deleted this ref and one from a 1900 biography of Cromwell as being POV, before later arguing that there were too many references on that point because "nobody contests it". As for the "several more minor edits" on the genocide topic, these included him describing a series of references as being from "Irish historians" (and thus probably irredeemably POV), despite the fact that the citations include Polish historians of genocide and British University lecturers/professors...and yes, I reverted that edit. Hughsheehy 09:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the concept of a content dispute Hugh? That's what this is. It's not vandalism. It's not aggression. It's not libel. It's your views and other people's. It's about interpretation of references, suitability of content, explanations, context, delivery, etc, etc. Accusations are utterly pointless. MarkThomas 09:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute. It's a behaviour dispute.

I'm not going to add more to SirFozzie's page. It seems he's away for a couple of days and I don't want to clog his page. I've asked him for help and I've asked for support on the Wikiquette page in dealing with your incivility. I hope some improvement in my WP experience will come from asking for support. Hughsheehy 11:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hughsheehy.. if you have problems with MarkThomas's edit behavior, there's two ways you can seek relief. The normal way is to open a Request for Comment on MarkThomas's behavior. The other way that's open now is there is an active Arbitration case in which MarkThomas is part of.. under Great Irish Famine. Either way, you can submit your evidence there. Please note under either method though, MarkThomas has just as much right to bring up your edits (I haven't read the situation, other then responding to one comment Mark made when it was brought to my attention). Hope this answers your question.. SirFozzie 12:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're back! I have problems with MarkThomas edit behaviour but also problems with his semi-continuous accusations of POV editing, accusations of making edits i never made, etc. I'll move/copy my refs from the Wikiquette page to an RFC on MarkThomas. I don't see what I have to do with an ArbCom on Great Irish famine (the irish potato famine i guess), but will refer there too if you believe it's appropriate. I can survive MarkThomas bringing up my edits. If insisting on references is bad then I'm guilty. Hughsheehy 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so long as you realise I will show blow-by-blow edits where I make a small revert and suggest a discussion and that you might possibly have an "opinion" and then you go straight to my talk page and accuse me of breaking every rule in the book, then that's fine. Will you be joining in with your usual impartial remarks SirFozz? MarkThomas 13:07, 26 July 2007 (U

(deindenting), no.. as soon as I can realistically wrap up my obligations to what I already have on my plate, I am quitting the whole set of arguments, because I am tired of day in and day out, the snide comments, the constant wars and the constant insinuations. Congratulations, you have worn me down, you and Domer and VK (who you notice I cannot condone), and the whole nine fucking yards of it. I never want to see another article on Ireland, Northern Ireland or anything around it. SirFozzie 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see this expressed, but i know what you mean. I've put my RFC at [4] Hughsheehy 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the nub of it is that Hugh doesn't like me to say that he has "opinions". If this is correct, for the sake of some much-neeed peace and quiet I am happy to state that Hughsheehy has no opinions. However, typically in the past whenever I've admitted any shortcomings, he has responded by (a) demanding more apologies in more places and (b) re-doubling the attacks against me in more places, which is what he's doing now - I did apologise in talk Ollie Cromwell but he came back and demanded further apologies. He's a hard man to have a debate with! MarkThomas 12:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vk blocked

Hello SirFozzie. I have blocked Vintagekits for 31 hours, for reasons explained here. The tipping point was this edit which I think is a sad but telling example of why Vk is ultimately unwilling or unable to work as a collaborative editor on Anglo-Irish issues. I was very close to indef blocking him for this, because he has been told too many times already that those sorts of comments are unnacceptable and clearly the message is not getting through. I have a lot of respect for the manner in which you have attempted to negotiate a very difficult path in guiding warring editors, but with regards to Vk, I really feel as if all avenues have been exhausted. If you disagree with this block I am open to discussion, either on wiki or privately. Thanks. Rockpocket 01:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I indef blocked him and took it to AN (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_Review_-_Vintagekits) in response to the personal and sectarian abuse, and the further threat of meatpuppetry (which I consider credible due to his history). Your input would be welcome. To be honest, I'm past giving Vk chances, and - short of leaving him indef blocked - would only support a ban from editing Republican related articles. Rockpocket 02:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to endorse the indefblock to be honest. In some ways, VK was getting better, but this is beyond the pale. Absolutely and completely no way back after that. I'm just disappointed my good faith was thrown in my face. SirFozzie 12:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I, Major Bonkers, award you the Special Barnstar for showing utmost good faith and dealing with an extraordinarily difficult situation very well. (Don't go - we need your help - God how we need your help!) Major Bonkers (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fozzie, I understand how it feels to assume good faith and get it shoved iny oru face and abused! dont let it get you down, editors with your leve of willingness to Assume Good Faith are few and far in between! Thanks for your help. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Don't let this put you off tackling difficult editors or assuming good faith in the future. --John 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foz, you so earned this barnstar, plus more. You're doing an awesome job right now. It's incredibly dirty work and largely unappreciated by many involved but you're still in there. - Alison ☺ 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tyrenius 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, I am not disagreeing with the block, it's more the indef block. Gladly I'm in the charmed position where I don't have to make such calls. Otherwise it's just another "voice" lost to Wikipedia. And what does my opinion matter anyway ;) GH 20:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also may I add, and I know I'll be target practice, for some, after this. Since the BRITISH involvement on Irish history pages, it has become noticeable to me the Exodus of Irish editors. Unfortunately you guys have made a mess. How it's going to be resolved will take time, and who will do it, who knows. I know some brilliant Irish editors, but they are now in the past. And while I'm here, there is much work to be done on the English and Scottish pages too. Happy editing. GH 09:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Adoption Request

Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for that, take care, Regards --Domer48 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potato Famine ArbCom

Hail, SirFozzie!

Are you still involved in Irish issues or have you made good your threat to leave?

I just wonder whether the present ArbCom is really necessary or desirable. Insofar as it is being used to criticise MarkThomas, that might be better dealt with by an RfC. I notice there is no actual description of the nature of the controversy (which, as I see it, is about adding the 'conspiracy' version of the famine's history to the article). Insofar as the ArbCom case refers to one party involved an edit war, it strikes me as a situation of 'six of one and half-a-dozen of the other', both sides being guilty of WP:DISRUPT naughtiness.

Given recent history, which I dare say has removed a good deal of the stress in the situation, I suggest that it might be better to let bygones be bygones? The alternative is for me to post these thoughts on the ArbCom page, but frankly I'd rather avoid the labour!--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It started out Major Bonkers as an attempt by me to complain on WP:ANI about the conduct of Domer48 in persistently labelling my edits "bad faith" in his comments and then posting a huge diatribe to Talk:Great Irish Famine against me relabelling them all "bad faith". This was then taken away from WP:ANI by SirFozzie to an Arbcom. It didn't really warrant that, but the Arbcom if you look at it is coming to the conclusion that Sarah777 also deserves a ban, although quite unjustifiably only 30 days compared to my 90, and slightly missing the point that much of the "trouble" was caused by Domer48, although Sarah777 played a highly provocative role. The background is that I was determinedly opposing a fairly extreme and unsupported POV in that aricle, for which I am apparently to be severely punished. It's true that I made some attacking remarks during that period, under very considerable pressure. If cancelling the Arbcom means I don't get the 90 day ban, I'm for it! :-) But what's happened isn't really fair. It's very difficult to go up against the Irish editorial group in these articles, they are very good at battling and have admins to support them. My opinion is that the entire group of Britain-related articles are now under severe POV challenge. This can be seen for example on British Isles where Hughsheehy is currently planning a major rewrite containing many highly tendentious statements about the history of Britain; he knows he can do this because any attempts to counter it by British-minded editors such as myself are likely to be "got under control" by the Irish admins in pretty short order. MarkThomas 14:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real quick, because I've been ill since the Thursday Night (a situation exacerbated by a combination of what's happened here, and real life (work-related stress), and I need to try to get back to sleep). I don't see any reason to short circuit the ArbCom.

In fact, I think the ArbCom is one of the best things to happen here. Both sides are wrong (in different ways) on this issue, and maybe having multiple people sanctioned officially by ArbCom will help pound it through folks that what's going on is not working and cannot work.

I will continue to try to monitor things, but unless things start really flaring up, I've been recommended by three admins who I know and trust (both here and off-WP) to try to disengage for a bit, and try to do other things so I don't burn out completely. Rockpocket agreed to try to step in for me for a couple weeks, and once I kinda recharge my batteries to deal with being a mediator, I'll step back in.

Good luck to all.. as I said.. I don't WANT to see folks get blocked, or see things going to ArbCom, or what have you. I want all the editors to work together (to the extent possible) on making the articles better.

Signed, David Yellope SirFozzie 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear, SirFozzie, I trust you mediation skills, wish other editors are as constructive as you have been. I understand the pressure when being stuck in the middle! GH 19:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism email

Hi Foz, I see you're a bit stressed & over worked at the moment so if you don't get to my email don't worry about it--Cailil ^talk 20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll take a bit of time, but I'll do my best, Cailil :) SirFozzie 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CEM dead?

Since you have now archived this and this and the subsequent section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SirFozzie/Archive_5#The_undersigned_conscientious_editors_consent_to_Community_Enforceable_Mediation, I consider that my self-denying recusal from editing articles with an Irish theme is now ended.

It's a pity that your idea didn't fly - it certainly wasn't from lack of effort on my part and with good will from all sides I think it could have helped us make a better encyclopaedia...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)}talk • 23:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is premature to say the least. The problem hasn't suddenly gone away, you know. Even if the section is archived, the idea remains a good one I think. --John 23:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that there is a continuing problem and it would be better to seek a structural mechanism to ameliorate the problem. However, what I've read here about SirFozzie being both tired and disillusioned, coupled with his archival of the list of editors that subscribed to this idea, infer his opinion. If I'm corrected by him and the relevant archived material re-appears in the active discussion area, I will be delighted. All the best!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)}talk • 23:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's going to be at least several weeks before I have the ability and strength to even try to get involved in this more then quick look ins. A recent trip to my docs didn't go quite as well as I was hoping.. nothing quite awful, but it's one of those things where I need to watch myself so it doesn't GET to be awful. I strongly urge you all (all being as narrow or as expansive as you wish) to come up with a solution on how to deal with it, or else one will probably be solved for all. Good luck. SirFozzie 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. :( Hope it's nothing too serious, Foz. Get well soon & come back to us when you're ready. I'll keep watch where I can - Alison ☺ 20:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My best wishes, SirFozzie!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)}talk • 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]