User talk:SirFozzie

Archive Index

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar-Sep Oct-December 2010 Jan-Mar Apr-May May-July Aug-Dec 2011 Up Through August 2011-12 Aug '11-Dec '12 2013-16 2013-Jan '16 2016-20 Then to now

Vacation

Hi folks: Please note for the next two weeks or so, my editing will be pretty much non-existent, as I'm taking a vacation. If you need to reach me, emailing me may be quicker. I've instructed the clerks to put me inactive on any new cases that come in till I get back. SirFozzie (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And.... I'm back. Gonna take some time to get back up to speed, however. Thanks :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

You have some. Jehochman ^Talk 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

Could you re-enable WMC's talk page access? Also, I think we should clarify he can fiddle with comments on his own talk page. The sanction should apply to every other page. Jehochman ^Talk

WMC

Cannot edit own talk page? [1] ? You sure? Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Noticed your alteration of the block, just wanted to make sure that you intended the settings to be account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page. (My reading of your comments on Sandstein's talk page suggests otherwise; thought it would be easier to drop you this note than to dig through all your contribs to figure out if you changed your mind somewhere else). Guettarda (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the catch. I hate that "Check box to allow default activity" when we should be checking the box if its something outside of the norm (like disabling talk page access) SirFozzie (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha Ha. Complex stuff clearly! :P Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• grumbles*... :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to mention that when you said, "if I put the block back to the original 48 hours and re-enabled WMC's access to his talk page under the following conditions", I assumed "under the ... conditions" to mean that you would first ask William M. Connolley whether he would abide by the conditions of his restriction and then, if he agreed, scale back the block. My agreement did not extend to what you did, i.e., simply reduce the block and ask him to abide by his restriction. I'll not ask you to undo what you did, but think that this manner of proceeding is not consistent with a predictable and effective enforcement of sanctions.  Sandstein  04:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Here William M. Connolley explicitly rejects your conditions. In view of this and your comment here, where you say that "if he refuses, and continues to be Point-y, then obviously it's a necessary step to stop the disruption," I ask you to reinstate my block and talk page access removal in the event that William M. Connolley continues to edit others' comments on his talk page (as indeed he has done again), or to confirm that you have no objection against me doing so. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann problems

SirFozzie, I'm getting increasingly worried at the vitriolic attitude of some of the participants on Michael E. Mann (a CC BLP) and I have a strong feeling that the article is about to become yet another scene of edit warring. I've been under repeated attack since yesterday for fixing an obvious factual error by another editor - which she hasn't acknowledged - and the dispute has spread to other completely unrelated articles, apparently in retaliation. Could I suggest that - as with the Monckton article - the Mann article should be protected for a period to head off further trouble? That is probably the simplest way of defusing this situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view, it has been ChrisO who has been problematic on several articles. While others have taken a step back, he has been particularly aggressive in the last few weeks. ATren (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, whenever ChrisO is editing a CC article, it ends up being protected because ChrisO cannot edit collaboratively and will edit war to get his way. That failing, he starts forum shopping to enlist support. He's tried to make his case on the talk page and was overruled by consensus. He took it to BLP noticeboard and failed to get the response he was looking for. He resorted again to edit warring and talk page wikilawyering and was again overruled by consensus, so now he appeals directly to a recused ArbCom member. And this is all just the latest in the Mann article but its a pattern he has engaged in repeatedly on other CC articles lately. Minor4th 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could say Minor4th is incorrect. But twice in the last couple of days I have come very close to issuing a block for tendentious edit warring on Chris's part. I think Jimbo had it right when he commented on perception. Chris gives every appearance of being agenda driven. So while I wish I could say it, I cannot. Minor4th and ATren are correct. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this sniping by partisans is at all helpful and it's not remotely accurate concerning the Mann article. The issue in question has nothing to do with any recent BLP discussions, so Minor4th's claim is just plain wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So what's the issue du jour if it's not the BLP issue? Minor4th 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this was your talk page - I don't appreciate comments from the peanut gallery when I'm trying to discuss an issue with the owner of the page. If I wanted your input I would have asked you, so kindly go away. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL Are you banishing me from SirFozzie's talk page? If you're going to mention me, I'm going to respond, even if it's on someone else's talk page. Please try to deal with it or don't mention me, k? Minor4th 00:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: "the peanut gallery" is pejorative. Please refactor that comment. This is a well watched page (just like mine) and that means lots of folk comment. I sometimes don't appreciate comments from third parties on my talk page... but it's my place, not the third party, to point that out. If you want to speak to SirFozzie privately, I suggest you email him and ask for a commitment not to disclose your convo. Otherwise, it's a wiki. We do things publicly. Deal. And stop with the apparent powertripping. ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

pointy

Isn't this a repeat violation. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, just let it go. This method of responding to people isn't something that WMC is doing to piss people off; it's just how he responds. Read the comments section in his blog, for example. It's a trivial matter, and harping on this makes one just as guilty of dramacreating as WMC. If you ignore it, then the drama goes away, and then the goal of a hypothetical block is accomplished anyway without actually requiring a block! NW (Talk) 18:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

NW, So if I chose to respond by dropping the "f" bomb in all of my comments, that would be acceptable also? He can learn to follow the same process that the everyone else has to follow - or pay the piper. SirF, I apologize for responding here, but it was his editing of my comments that started the current CC/RFE that ended up with the current block. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to offer the string of good faith (yes, he calls what I said trolling, but, I just consider the source here). He did remove what I said, if not the time stamp. I'm not going to be the one sanctioning him for it. (he was and is allowed to remove statements from his talk page) He's been made aware that the sanction still applies. We'll see if he wants to color within the lines, or if he cannot edit constructively under those terms. SirFozzie (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. I see he left some of my post. He should know better. Block on its way. SirFozzie (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think thats a good move, at least until the CC arbcom decision is unveiled. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Doh, you took the bait. Per WP:ROPE you should have given him a chance to do something harmful to the encyclopedia. Shame, you giving him what he wanted. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Doh, that's what they've done - given him WP:ROPE and he used it. What he did was and is harmful. Look at the consensus on the issue by uninvolved editors and admins on the ANI - overwhelmingly in support of sanctions. GregJackP Boomer! 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, if this were the first time he's edited comments, letting it go (even the pointy stuff) might be advisable. But this is the continuation of a long term pattern of disruption. He pointedly violated a sanction, which itself was a renewal of a previous sanction, which in turn was imposed after a lengthy pattern of behavior. Personally, I've seen him refactor/remove comments in content disputes for at least a year, probably more, both on his talk pages and elsewhere. Frequently, those behaviors needlessly inflamed tensions in what is already a very highly contentious topic area. Sanctions have not stopped that disruption, so blocks are in order. This is what we would do to any other editor, so why should WMC be any different? ATren (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

As far as I can see you originally brought this arbcom case so you must have seen the Arb comments like "Let's face it. Blocking Giano is the administrative equivalent of touching the third rail. Few admins survive unscathed, and there is inevitably drama. Therefore the decision to block Giano or any other high profile editor should take into consideration opportunities for alternate actions (e.g., deleting the offending edit, discussing at AN or AN/I, giving a warning), whether the benefits of blocking outweigh the drama that will result from the perspective of the community at large, and holding Giano to the same standards as other blocked longterm editors (not a higher or unrealistic one), who as a group have a propensity to spout off on their talk pages. In particular, the escalating blocks were poorly considered. Risker (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)". Do you think this is relevant to your indef block of WMC? The irony of WMC turning into Giano mind you is delicious. --BozMo talk 20:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As to your last sentence, the irony is so thick you cannot cut it with a fork and knife. As for the other substance: As I stated on the ANI notice (I just reposted it, it got lost in the shuffle).. (...)I have blocked him indefinitely. Please note, this is not an "indefinite as in forever" block, this is an "indefinite until he puts down the stick and backs away from the horse" block. (....) If someone can get through to him and get him to agree to cut it out, go ahead and unblock him at that time. If he's willing to actually abide by the restriction, he can be unblocked now. He has apparently decided that it would better serve his purposes to continue to act in that way. The way to deal with sanctions you disagree with is to discuss with the community/Committee. The wrong way is to state that since you disagree with the sanction, you have the right to ignore the sanction. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This should not be a big deal at all. The "sentence" ends whenever WMC decides it ends. He holds the key and can unlock himself whenever he chooses. He has to choose which holds more value to him: making a point and creating controversy, or editing the encyclopedia. That is apparently not the simple choice that it would appear to be for most editors. And by the way, I think Risker's assessment is wrong. It's never a good idea to let a bully hold a whole community hostage. Minor4th 21:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC) sorry for butting in ....

Knowing William, he won't do that. He is right on the issue from any reasonable POV and thus won't waste any efforts arguing that formally. I think that's the right approach as it will lead to Wikipedia correcting this error, which is good for everyone. Count Iblis (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He is right on the issue from any reasonable POV -- assumes facts not in evidence. Or a flawed evaluation of "reasonable". No reasonable point of view about policy sanctions repeated disruption, regardless of contributor value... no free passes. ++Lar: t/c 01:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume CI means the blocks were technically wrong, which they undoubtedly were (his talk page is not subject to CC sanctions, so the first block was out and if we accept established editors swearing blue murder on their talk page after a block we certainly accept them being a bit childish in other ways) however it has got to the point where in my view no one (including me) has the energy to defend him, mainly because this is a completely avoidable Wikidrama and personally I hold him as the Prima Dona. I do not doubt he is in the right, technically. He is usually in the right, technically. He has to learn being in the right is not enough. --BozMo talk 11:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

IIRC Bozmo I plainly stated that 2over0, without even going to the enforcement board or through an enforcement request, couldn't ban me from user talk pages since user talk pages weren't under the scope of the CC enforcement. This was an argument that WMC had made before and which you agreed with, but rejected when I used it, and yet you are now saying is technically correct again. Of course, in my case I get a draconian 6 month ban plus another 3 months for speaking on Lar's talk page, to you in fact, and a rather Stazi-esque "thought police" type of block that had nothing to do with civility, refactoring or any such nonsense - 2over0 basically just told me to shut up. But then again, you've stated I'm the most annoying editor on wikipedia - perhaps you should've recused if you felt that way? TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the fact that I happen to find you more irritating than I happen to find anyone else is of much relevance. I get irritated rather rarely and not very deeply. As elsewhere, I do not see any value added in going through the series of line by line errors in what you write above, sorry. Better if you work out the differences yourself. --BozMo talk 16:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh you don't think such strong personal feelings are relevent? Good to know, as for my "errors" they are documented in my evidence [2] and following the links (esp. the first one) backs up what I've said pretty nicely. You are more than welcome to correct my errors though - perhaps you can borrow Doc Brown's Delorean for the task? TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You have added three more... my feelings about you are not particularly strong, not personal and as you might realise on reflection are about you, not about me. As I say I do not see any added value going beyond that, you will learn better thinking it through yourself. --BozMo talk 17:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it'd be better if I went to RfE, ask to have my restriction limited to the scope given to the CC sanctions and showed the many admins and editors on ANI who agree that the sanctions don't apply to user pages - Jenochman and just said there is consensus that is the way the rules are interpreted. I can then watch in utter amazement as those many editors and admins vanish in the wind or change their mind. Shall I waste my time in the attempt? TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• What's especially relevant here is that I convinced WMC to voluntarily recuse from all CC editing until the case closed.[3] His opponents then followed him to other places, and then lobbied for administrative sanctions. Regrettably, a few uninvolved admins proved pliable, and now we have the current situation. Add to this an ArbCom suffering from a case of the slows, and it's quite the recipe for disaster. Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Which "opponents" followed him, and to where did they follow him? ATren (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's one: [4]. As I said, administrators should not allow themselves to be used in a dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, the polite notification that WMC had pointedly violated a sanction for the third time after a long list of uninvolved admins had commented in support of the original sanctions -- now that's a good example of the ubiquitous "opponent harassment" WMC is always subject to, yes indeed! In fact, let's just say it about everything he's done, every blight on WMC's record is the fault of his pesky "opponents" -- his civility sanction, his 1RR restriction, his comment-editing restriction, his lengthy block log, his article ban on Fred Singer -- he'd have none of it if it weren't for those darn kids! ;-) ATren (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And he voluntarily choose not to abide by that recusal [5] and linkspammed his friends blog a bit [6]. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For discussion

Do you think the following is relevant to current events? Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is a apt description of what WMC et all have been doing to anyone they deem a "skeptic" for years now. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(removing picture links) Not particularly. Especially since I was the one who reduced the block and reenabled talk page access in the first place. Oh, and stated that if WMC agreed not to do it while it gets rationally discussed, he'd be unblocked immediately. Or suggested I was not opposed to unblocking him for the purpose of participating in the case. People over there are ascribing motives to me that quite frankly, exist only in their own head (also, the amount of "gloating" I tend to see from editors who have placed themselves in opposition to WMC is unseemly and needs to cease). SirFozzie (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The more apt question is, SirFozzie, do you mind being compared to a dog? :-) ATren (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To mangle a popular aphorism: "On Wikipedia, everyone compares you to a dog". SirFozzie (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In Mother Russia wikipedia edits you! (is that original?) TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dogs are quite likable. SirFozzie, my point is that WMC has been hounded, goaded and harassed. His behavior would probably improve greatly with support and counseling, rather than tasering. Once we realize that WP:GS/CC did not apply to the The Wordsmith's block, we should erase the entire sorry situation. The original block was not valid, so everything that came after should be undone. WMC should be reminded of his voluntary pledge to stay out of CC until ArbCom rules, and the swarm of editors trying to bring him down should be reminded to stop gloating, and moreover, should be blocked themselves if they persist in hounding WMC. Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think just as much as houndED', goadED and harassED, the other part: houndING, goadING and harassING. I'm not saying anyone comes out of this CC situation looking particularly well (including you and I, if I'm going to be brutally honest). It's a Two-way street. If he wants to be unblocked, it's simple. Just agree not to edit other people's comments. No pointy disruption. It all follows from there. SirFozzie (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, since my centijimbo rating has probably gone up, I'd suggest everyone mosey over to the General Discussion CC page. I've posed some questions on the future of this area, and how General Sanctions enforcement goes (specifically, does it have the same inviolability as AE actions). I would like to see what EVERYONE thinks. SirFozzie (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You have 8.7 centijimbos. (I'm at 14.9.) You've still got a ways to go before you can claim to be a drama monger. Jehochman ^Talk 16:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank God for that, Jehochman ;) But seriously, I'm interested in your response to the questions I posed. The parties and the people who got sucked in along the way need to figure out if General Sanctions are still going to be needed after the ArbCom case, ends (assuming of course, there is an end point, and not just the heat death of the universe), and very specifically, how General Sanctions are supposed to be enforced. SirFozzie (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to end up in a protracted debate over the details and what not, nor am I going to restate what I have already said at the ANI. That said, I will bring your attention the possibility that part of the answer was already provided in July. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well dont look now, but he's unblocked without having agreed to not edit other's comments. I'm halfway thinking of bringing a new ANI requesting the community to support a restriction on him against editing other editors' comments in any wiki space other than archiving entire threads on his user page. There is really no question that is what was intended by his 6 month sanction that recently ended as well as the consensus obtained on the CC enforcement discussion that Wordsmith notified him about. What irks me is not so much thay the block is lifted for administrative minutiae, but because any other editor would have been handled differently and William himself thumbs his nose at process when it suits his agenda. (And please, let's not anyone pretend that this is not an agenda-driven efitor. ) To wit, summarily deleting comments from new users he doesnt like and tagging them as scibaby socks after a single edit -- without submitting any evidence at SPI, without a checkuser or any discussion whatsoever. It matters because one side's ideology is repressed without process and the other side is able to circumvent enforcement by relying on technical loopholes in process. Ive given only one small example, but it is much more pervasive. The overall effect does in fact affect the quality of the encyclopedia. The CC articles are a Wikipedia anathema in their nearly comic departure from NPOV. Allowing William to escape consequences while silencing and over enforcing actions against his would-be idealogical adversaries -- that is why we've had 5 years of extreme drama and now an ArbCom case that is frankly going to be hard pressed to do anything far reaching enough to improve the problems. Sorry for soapbox, but I hate to see Wiki gamed and manipulated for a net disastrous result. I wouldnt mind if the entire CC topic area were incubated and started anew. Minor4th 18:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion, Minor4th? Don't do it. As I say elsewhere, there's been enough sturm und drang about this issue that people shouldn't ratchet it up any higher. Obviously, I don't agree with Atama's action, but I'm not going to contest it. I acted as an administrator (not as an Arb) here, the action's been overturned, and we go on. The PD will come (eventually :)), and people will move on from there. Just be patient. SirFozzie (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Scibaby socks, is WMC enjoined from removing Scibaby edits - which will necessarily include talk page comments from time to time? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

He's not enjoined from REMOVING posts, even on his talk page. Just editing them. Never was enjoined from removing posts. SirFozzie (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my understanding too. Just wanted to clarify this lest his legion of admirers (ahem) start jumping on him next time he undoes a Scibaby edit. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why arbcom is the only body which can effectively deal with an editor like WMC. Even when it's clearly inappropriate behavior, his supporters will spin the situation and eventually get another admin to overturn it. Even the argument that it was a bad sanction (which is taken as fact as the basis for unblocking) is highly dubious, since the sanction itself was worded unambiguously, and at least one other editor has been sanctioned for user talk page behavior (TGL). So what is the result? The community challenged an editor on a very basic point of civility, but when push came to shove, the community blinked. And now that editor is emboldened to further engage in such pointy disruption in the future. And SirFozzie and TWS will now surely be labeled as part of the "anti-WMC admin faction", along with Lar, LHvU, Tedder, ArnoldReinhold, etc, as well as the arbs who voted to take away his admin bit. That's the tactic I've seen played over and over, and admins will never be able to stop it, it has to be arbcom. Unfortunately, I don't think they will. ATren (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Patience, young padawan.. I do not know what is in the PD, or when it will be up, but I suggest that a bit of patience would probably serve you well. No sense in saying 'Oh, no one will handle it' until you see it. SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Talking about dogs, has anyone here seen this program on National Geographic Channel? Count Iblis (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Not sure if you have my user talk on your watchlist or not, so this is just a heads up to say that I have replied to you. NW (Talk) 18:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Premature unprotection?

FYI, your 1 month protection of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has expired. I believe your intention was to leave it protected until the case was over, so you might want to take a look at this. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton

I've no dog in the CC fight, but I'm concerned by this BLP. There are elements of OR, and selective quotations here. Frankly, he may be a nutter, but that doesn't excuse a hatchet job. The article is protected, and to remove that is likely to cause an edit war. It is good to freeze the article until arbcom has finished, but freezing a BLP at a version that's IMO piss poor isn't so good. I don't want to get into a content fight, but I'm wondering about invoking admin discretion and editing through protection to do an aggressive stubbing until the close of the case. Rather than get into a line-by-line argument, I'd be removing most of the CC material on the grounds that no material is better than BLP material that's open to question. Thoughts?--Scott Mac 19:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The CC material is waaaaaaay too long, for the usual reasons. We don't need a blow-by-blow account. I agree that it would be better to sh*tcan the whole section and start over, but someone other than SirFozzie should do it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to do it. I'm just covering my ass.--Scott Mac 19:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. If any of the science club/cabal/faction/whatever-Lar-is-calling-us-this-week gripes, send them to me. You're on your own with the WR/contrarian coalition. ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have his back with the all editors are equal / NPOV / BLP / follow-the-rules group (referred to by Boris as WR/contrarian, lol, ;p). BLP vios need to be redacted. (Sorry Boris, couldn't resist :D) GregJackP Boomer! 20:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem! It might be better if each faction/whatever chose their own name. I think "The Beatles" has a nice ring to it but someone told me that's already been used in the real world. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I stubbed it. Now I go hide somewhere.--Scott Mac 21:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This promises to be entertaining. Pass the popcorn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I just broke out a bottle of single malt, and intend to cheer on the team.... GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Soon and Baliunas controversy by WMC

I've placed a RPP at the RPP notice board, but thought it might be more appropriate to bring it to your attention. I've notified a couple of other ArbCom members also. I don't have a preference for which version is protected, if we can stop the unnecessary drama. If this is out of line, please let me know on my talk page, I'm not trying to stir the pot. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The contributions history shows that in the past couple of days WMC has made two edits and you have made three (in both cases treating consecutive edits as one per WP:EW). Given those facts, if he's edit warring why aren't you? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WMC is the one trying to remove properly sourced information and Greg is trying to restore it by doing things like searching for and adding additional sources. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, haven't we gone through this before? Getting involved in conflicts in the middle of an arbitration case is generally considered a bad thing? Since several editors have asked me to treat the area as involved, at least while the case is running, I'm going to not act on the request myself. I generally think that it should be protected, but that's my personal opinion only. SirFozzie (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, WMC has nothing to lose, since he knows that he's probably facing at a minimum a topic ban anyway. It appears that, besides me, there are several editors working to expand several of the CC articles using new information being published recently in response to and in the wake of the Climategate incident. Hopefully, there won't be much too much blanking or reverting of the reliably sourced content that will be added. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why has Bold, Revert, Discuss gone completely out the window? You added material, WMC felt it was undue weight and reverted, and GJP began an edit war rather than wait to see the discussion conclude. That's terrible editing. 96.233.51.201 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, because that the area has gone from BRD to BREA? (Bold, Revert, Endless Arguments?). I do agree it points to a breakdown of basic civility and "The Way Things Should Work"... SirFozzie (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Unilaterally deleting a bloc of material that is sourced reliably and that had been built and recently posted by three different editors (me, Dave Souza, and Greg) and then announcing on the talk page basically that your opinion is the one that matters is a very confrontational approach to BRD, IMO. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

@IP, please get your facts straight. Cla68 and Dave Souza added information to the article. WMC removed it, including the cite. I restored the material, found 3 additional reliable sources, and noted that on the talkpage. Two of the three editors commenting on it indicated the material should stay. WMC removes it again, and I revert him and request page protection. @Boris, check your count again. You aren't really counting the minor edit (changing "was" to "were" - plural tense) as a revert are you? That it happened to be the last edit before WMC removed material makes your mistake understandable, but it was a day before and not connected to this issue. GregJackP Boomer! 23:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, correction is acknowledged. So your argument is that you made the same number of reverts as the person you're accusing of edit warring? Given that fact, if he's guilty why aren't you? Having said that, I think the article should be protected. People (on both "sides") just can't leave well enough alone. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with whatever it is classified as, so long as the page is protected. GregJackP Boomer! 01:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mail

You have new messages

Hello, SirFozzie. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. — Cailil ^talk 16:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Speed of Light Amendment

Can we please poke the other aRBS WITH A STICK SO WE CAN GET THIS AMENDMENT VOTE OVER WITH?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the caps. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you still alive? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I've been turned into a ravenous zombie, and I've been wandering around Wikipedia, looking for tasty brains to eat.. Unforunately, no luck so far. ((Ok, seriously, I did bring up with the other arbs that the Amendment page needs to be looked at, I think everyone is so focused on the CC thing that we're all mentally blasted. I was thinking of having them archive the specific one you're asking about in the next couple of days if there's nothing else.)) SirFozzie (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nam, nam, nam... A Zombie 01:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me thanks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• There's something on ANI which may be relevant to this.
• Also SirFozzie, after making a few edits on Kirill's talk, I asked you a question there in relation to the thing from which y'all are "mentally blasted". :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can sincerely say that Jimbo's email saying, basically "Hey guys, what's up with this" was not the impetus for the change in the topic bans. *sighs* and I think I'm going to have to say something on Count's page. And I've answered your question on Kirill's page. Are we having fun yet? *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we always? :) The ANI came in two parts; the first part you've told Count about - the second part was the thread he opened about Tisane which you may need to uncollapse (to read) given that I hatted it due to the concerns being expressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page about the email. About the AN/I threads, well, I think it should be clear that it wasn't me who hijacked the thread about Tisane and started to rant about other things. There seems to be a perception that I'm some sort of bogeyman who advocates on behalf of dangerous persons. I'll confess right here that in the distant past I've also "advocated" on the behalf of User:Rbj and User:Wikifan12345. By some huge concidence, today Wikifan12345 is discussed at AN/I. Perhaps because I was pissed off about the other AN/I treads, I left this rebuke for the Admins. But at least I did largely stay on topic. Count Iblis (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread

Please see this ANI thread. I seem to recall you saying that you would deal with this situation - am I mistaken? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't remember saying anything on it, but I'll take a look. SirFozzie (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SirFozzie. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.
Message added 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Added to my comments there. SirFozzie (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please...

read and respond to your email. Thanks. ATren (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done so, as thoroughly as I can. SirFozzie (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Guidance requested

Soon after the topic ban of User:Ferahgo the Assassin (1:07, 7 October), an experienced editor has registered a new account as Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (7:50, 10 October) and commenced high volume editing of several articles under the scope of the recent ArbComm case, using a form of WP:CPUSH. I suspect that this user may be one of the users topic banned, but I couldn't really guess which one. Or it could be just some new editor. I'm not sure of the best way of approaching this problem. I've considered (1) filing some sort of check-user, (2) filing an ANI, (3) filing an arbcomm enforcement request, and (4) just let the situation develop and see if things get better. I'm just not sure of the best way to proceed at this point. Thanks for any advice you may have. aprock (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend a SPI or something sdimilar. SirFozzie (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you'll smile at this too?

[7] I can only imagine... Risker (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Darn it Risker, I wanted to go to Cancun! *grins* I've proposed an out-of-the-box thought on how to bring folks back in (I had the germ of it in my mind, but Count's non-serious proposal made it crystalize in my mind), for when the Committee has the unenviable task of hearing the appeals of these topic bans... SirFozzie (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please answer my question at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo_2/Workshop#Stevertigo_.28previous_sanctions.29? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied. SirFozzie (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom clarification request FYI

Just so you know, the reason I put this request in is that as soon as we settle this whole Weston Price thing, I intend to start going through all of the 200+ pages that mention Barrett and QuackWatch, as well as the others I mentioned, and begin editing them to reflect the consensus we develop on Price (which currently looks to be a diminution of Barrett's status as I suggested in the clarification). That is going to get me dragged through ANI a couple of dozen times on accusations that I am 'Pushing a fringe POV' or some such, when all I am trying to do is create consistency and balance on the project. More likely than not, it will end up right back there at a clarification request, except with a lot more hot-under-the-collar editors queueing up for a chance to call me bad names.

Don't get me wrong, I can deal with that (some days on wikipedia it feels like it is my lot in life to get dragged through ANI on spurious issues). I was just hoping to settle it in advance, with a bit of forethought, and without all the unnecessary drama-trauma. buhwhaddayagonnado... --Ludwigs2 18:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think it makes sense to address sourcing on a case-by-case basis, instead of trying to shoehorn a consensus on one article's sourcing onto 200+ others? MastCell ^Talk 05:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

When the sourcing problem is the programmatic elevation of the source to 'expert' (an unjustified assertion of prominence for the purpose of promulgating a particular viewpoint), then why should I argue it on a case-by-case basis? I mean, I obviously won't argue on pages where Barrett (et al) haven't been misused this way, but on every page where the misuse exists I'll be making the same reasoned argument against the same unreasoned response (me: Barrett <or whichever skeptical source>has no particular scientific standing or expertise to make this claim in this way with this authority; someone else: yes he does; & repeat). I can do that 200+ times, despite the fact that it's already gotten boring, but why should I make the same argument 200 times against the same resistance, when I can make the argument once, get it resolved, and get the editing done. believe it or not, I do have better ways I could spend all that time rather than having to rebuild the frigging wheel on every single article, and it would be a whole lot more pleasant all around to get the issue settled once and for all up front.

I mean, I understand... it's likely, in fact, that I understand the social and political system on wikipedia better than the vast majority of people on project - understanding stuff like that is what I do for a living. Wikipedia politics prioritizes avoidance: a large proportion of decisions on wikipedia are made by creating a context in which it's just too much of an annoyance to oppose a particular result, so that editors (potential agents of change) avoid the issue. No comment on how bad that is as a decision-making process, but it's a system I can work in at need. I just wish it were a bit more of an intelligent system, and I keep trying approaches like this designed to create some structured avenues for intelligent, proactive decision-making. One of these days I'll stumble on something that works (maybe anyway...), but apparently not today. --Ludwigs2 06:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that since Stephen Barrett is among the living you also have the specter of WP:BLP being used as an all purpose censorship hammer to squelch any meaningful discussion of Barrett's expertise which has been the situation with the Weston Price article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwigs: But these cases really are different. I can think of articles where Barrett probably has no business being cited (where better sources are legion). And I can think of articles where Barrett is by far the best of the cited sources. As long as Wikipedia retains articles on forms of quackery so obscure as to be virtually unknown outside a small circle of True Believers, sources like Barrett who catalog such curiosities will be useful at least some of the time as sources. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

@MastCell: I'm not sure what your point is. No one (well, certainly not me, anyway) is suggesting that Barrett be removed as a source completely. My request was to clarify that Barrett is (at best) a journalistic source offering a particular perspective, not an authoritative scientific voice presenting mainstream scientific opinion. He is often used (and vigorously defended) as the latter without any particular recourse to reason or sourcing. The effect on most pages would be minimal, centered on reassessing what claims can and cannot be made reliably using Barrett -mostly toning down heavy-handed editorializing and unjustified claims of rejection or condemnation. Each page is (obviously) different, but the issue (where it occurs) is always precisely the same: having to argue that a particular skeptical source is reliable as a representation of a particular POV, but not as a representation of the mainstream scientific perspective.

Honestly, I am consistently perplexed by the resistance I get to these kinds of suggestions. This seems like a clearcut wp:RS/wp:WEIGHT issue to me. And yes, I do understand there's still a lot of leftover wp:BATTLEGROUND mentality playing out on fringe issues, so that maybe there's an excuse for people being high-strung. But I don't much care - it's exactly that battleground mentality that I'm trying to circumvent by making this request, because it's a pain in the a$$ to deal with, and has no value for the encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger ^talk 05:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rogue administrators

I am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments: User talk:BadBabysitter. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take that with a grain of salt, as A) My phone # is not generally known, and B) my email has always been open. I will review the block, however, I must warn you that MuzeMike looks to be very sure of the checkuser findings, but I will follow up. SirFozzie (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus building

I know I'm not seen as the most co-operative Wikipedian. However, I'm beginning to wonder if there's any possibility of exploring common ground and seeing if there's any way to build coalition behind some modest agreements. I've set out my thoughts at User:Scott MacDonald/Pragmatic BLP. I'm thinking to invite some thinking people who radically disagree with me, and see what's possible. Do you think this has any merit?--Scott Mac 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

RfAr by Communicat

Are there any points in my RfAr post that are unclear? Are there any points in Communicat's posts that you feel I have not addressed properly? I don't what to just restate what I said before, which is what Communicat's edits today appear to me. Thank you Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we're waiting on seeing what, if anything, the community does with Communicat before going further. We're kind of in a wait and see pattern. SirFozzie (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Was that necessary?

This. The usual EEML suspects turn up weekly to request some change or clarification, CC is shaping up to be the same. Why pick on PHG? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The feeling of the Committee (as you can see from the voting so far) is that it was, that there was going to be further issues in that area. I would suspect that if EEML does continue down that path, it's going to either be stopped by them, or forcibly stopped FOR them, and I'm hopeful that the motions in Climate Change will stop further wikilawyering. SirFozzie (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Motion

Rather sad I think... [8]. What is the point however of including "Hellenistic India" in this motion? Would you mind removing it? I guess also a narrower "Intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire" would be more appropriate... Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 23:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have no objection to removing the "Hellenistic India" time period from the amendment, since it is not related to the Crusades and the Mongols. There were definitely problems with PHG's editing in that topic area in the past, but I have not heard of any more recent issues. --Elonka 14:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Since both sides agree on the Hellenistic India side, I saw no problem with removing it. SirFozzie (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SirFrozzie, I truely appreciate! I also do a lot of work on the Middle-Ages, the Renaissance and Asian subjects (literally 100s of articles [9]), and often the simple appearance of the word "Crusade" or "Mongol" in an article blocks me from contributing to it (like... History of Japan, History of China etc...). Would it be possible to adjust the restrictions to precisely "articles related to interraction between the Crusaders and the Mongols", which is really the crux of the matter we've been discussing?? Thank you Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Eroberer

"Also, please show any attempts to use Dispute resolution before this level."
As you wish, I have a strong intuition it will end up at this level. I can't say more, or I will be accused of an attack on Eroberer.--Campoftheamericas (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you rollback a non-vandalism edit?

I did click on the option but did not mean to change anything, I though it would show me why it was rolled back.My BAD, If I need to do anything to change it please let me know.ESMcL 01:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)--ESMcL 01:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Co-drafting

Why not, right? I mean, it's not like either of us will have anything else arbitration-related to do in the next couple of weeks.... :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It'll make a nice refreshing change (tongue-in-cheek) :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections

Dear SirFozzie, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Sven Manguard _Talk 01:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hello, SirFozzie, I've commented on two minor aspects of your candidacy here. You might also take note of the thread on disclosure of past accounts. Best, Skomorokh 09:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for the note. I have used the tools (not as much as others, but have used checkuser and oversight, and unless the procedure changes, would keep them should I fail to be re-elected. As for the other bit, I will state clearly that this is the only account I've used (although I think a better place to do that would be in the questions, rather in the statement itself. SirFozzie (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• You haven't done the necessary opt-ins for parts of your edit count figures. Please do so. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi John.. thanks for your note, could you tell me how to do that please? SirFozzie (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow the links from the "count" button on your nom. Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Secret/Arbcom

My grammar was really off when I said that comment, it's a support. Secret ^account 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal from Brews's advocate

I think that restricting Brews to his own user space will work. There are quite a few topics on which Brews had been invited to work in the past. There were no problems there. I think he has worked with AWickert before on some geology articles without trouble. That can just as well be done from his own userspace. AWickert would then copy whatever Brews has produced on his usper space. This is not that different from scientists writing articles together via email communication. This should work ok. for articles that are not heavily edited, which is the case for the math and physics articles Brews has contributed to (with a few exceptions, of course). Count Iblis (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Count: After thinking it over, I generally have no problem with it, it's been done before (see the motion passed on the Ottava Rima case for details). Awickert would need to generally take responsibility for those edits, etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I please request during that interim if something like that gets passed can we please stop people from howling for Brews head? It isn't mentioned often but that has as much a negative effect on this as advocacy for brews does. I am one hundred percent willing to voluntarily abstain from commenting on things regarding this during this period if I at least feel like there's a level playing ground. That's literally the only reason I got involved with this mess in the first place. I want this to be over but sweeping "wiki's dust" under a siteban is premature. Sometimes the "right side" can be wrong too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sorry about that, I missed the transclusion aspect. I was trying to vandalise the list of candidates, not specifically your statement. Bishonen | talk 01:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

No problem, Bish. Hope all is good with you, and you've kept Mighty Zilla and her progeny suitably entertained? :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Teaching them the basics of vandalism at the moment... never know when that may come in handy. Well, Bishzilla herself already knew all about it, of course. Good luck with your own... effort. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

User: Spartan

I've already talked to arbitration committee member Shell Kinney but she has not responded to my second response. I'm currently looking at all avenues for unblockage so if you're not busy I'd really appreciate speaking with someone, anyone, about it. Thanks, Kevin 96.50.86.207 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)