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

Rfar

Hi, minor quibble here, but you mention "RfA" in your statement, and to the best of my knowledge, RfA refers to WP:RFA whereas Rfar is generally used to refer to WP:RFAR. You may wish to edit your statement to avoid confusion. Its a minor thing, and of course there is context which indicates which you meant, bu t it might be worth the effort so as not to risk confusing anyone - Rfar is a confusing enough place at the best of times. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

cool, I'll do it, KC.. thanks for the heads up :) The last time I did that, I joked that anyone who runs for RfA should go through a RfArb first, suddenly it doesn't sound so crazy :P :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you hate it when your jokes turn prophetic and wrong? :-( KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just hate RfAr right now.--Tznkai (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You and me both. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How about we just get them to mass desysop all of us? It'd be a nice twist in this crazy mess.--Tznkai (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The minute I find out you nominated a sock created in direct violation of a ArbCom ban, of an ArbCom de-sysopped admin, to stand for Rfa, or supported same in full knowledge of who they were, I will ask for you to be de-sysopped also, Tzn. As you have displayed no such tendencies to toss your ethics out the window in favor of nepotism, I have no choice but to support your remaining with the tools. I am sorry I cannot accommodate you on this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist

You may be intersted in a recent discussion here: [1]. I cannot sort out if this is a topic ban violation on the heels of the most recent warning or not.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I added that diff to the RfE page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lapsed_Pacifist GainLine ♠ _♥ 09:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you do close that, please keep an eye on the communist/authoratarian articles that he bebaves the exact same way. He gets topic banned and moves on to the next topic to do the same thing.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/I Did Not Raise My Girl To Be A Voter

Could you have another look at this? I've uploaded an edit. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 11:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Davies

Yes, I would wait until it is actually published somewhere other than Twitter. It'll make it's way into the formal press before too long anyway. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

IP

Have you seen the latest offering from the IP you blocked here. BigDunc 08:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended, and let's see if I can figure out if that's a static IP, or if there's a range to block. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Eek, now the IP is letting us know about his fantasies. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi, I appreciate your message.

However I can't accept that I was edit warring. First on teh page move. How can a page be moved unilaterally without any consensus on the whim of one editor?.

Secondly, I have been very carefully trying to maintain a npov lede. And have provided numerous sources, only to have a group of people revert it without any explantion. This is the same group of people who ahve been trying to maintain a pov version of this article for several years now.

How can the article be developed if they are allowed to veto any changes? Jdorney (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A rose, by any other name...

You meant BigDunc, not Domer, right? --John (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Object

See HalfShadow's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rlevse. I saw the conversation has moved to your page, and posted a comment there. Appreciate the notice :) SirFozzie (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

G'day Sir Fozz

I noticed that you're brave / foolish enough to stick your hand up for the Arbcom this year - I'm planning on doing some short audio interviews with as many candidates as I can manage as part of the WikiVoices project, so am hoping that you might be interested in having a 15 / 20 minute chat at a moment of your convenience? - I'll be using Skype to make and record the conversation, and my ID is 'Privatemusings' - I can happily call you on a landline or cell / mobile, but perhaps you are also on Skype, and don't mind sharing your ID with me? - the slowish start to nominations might give me a bit of a head start this year, so if you're up for it, lets find a suitable time, and give it a go! - maybe the best next step is for you to indicate some times you might be able to be available, or ask any questions you might have? Hope you're good, and good luck! Privatemusings (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I Work really strange hours, PM.. so shoot me an email and we'll try to work out a time where I'm available and we can discuss things. SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff, Fozz :-) - email sent. Privatemusings (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Content and ArbCom

Hi, SirFozzie. After seeing your answer to the first question I wrote here, particularly the part about how the only case you knew in which AC had tried to set up discussions was the Ireland naming dispute, I wanted to point you to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which was also initiated by the Committee. Would it be possible for you to comment on the the possibility of AC using further solutions similar to this? It's information I'd need to be able to decide on my vote. (I know, more questions...) For my purposes, it's fine if you just write it here; you only need bother putting it at your question page if you think it's good for others to see it too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are as follows. It needs to be a controlled environment, and attempts to inflame the volatility of the situation need to be relentlessly stamped out. The second a content discussion becomes a conduct discussion.. the chances for a successful resolution drop greatly. It seems to have helped somewhat in the Macedonian situation, but with a lots of fits and starts, and it doesn't stop all the issues, but maybe it's not completely not worthwhile. I'd need to see evidence that the parties are willing and able to enter such a binding mediation before it happens, and make it clear that if they DO enter it, then the results WILL be binding.

Thanks for the additional question.. I will be copying this over! SirFozzie (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived Threads at RfE

Hello. A request for enforcement that you commented on was auto-archived by a bot here. Whats the procedure now? LP has clearly breached ArbCom remedies. Can this be theread be restored? GainLine ♠ _♥ 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reopened it, and asked Tznkai to look at it. SirFozzie (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that now. I see that RfE may be leaning towards decline which is worrying considering LPs track record, number of times they broke the remedy and speed they have reverted to typical behaviour GainLine ♠ _♥ 09:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I do agree, but to be honest, the amount of time that's passed makes it more punishment instead of preventative, which is what we try to avoid. However, you may wish to bring an ANI section urging a community indefblock or ban if he continues, as an adjunct to the AE report (as I suggested), next time such an action occurs. SirFozzie (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, I'll bear that in mind. Thanks GainLine ♠ _♥ 10:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions

As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles amendment statement

"below would work" - should that be "below would not work" ?

Also, you haven't said much about whether you think that the proposed discretionary sanctions would be helpful. Also, should the discretionary sanctions replace the current sanctions, or be in addition to them? It seems you are saying the current 1RR sanctions shouldn't be removed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean that the only way it could be considered a success is that the AE volume would drop dramatically.. as they all head back to ANI yet again. The new sanction would supersede the old ones, I would believe... and I do think that something, anything needs to be in place to keep the fires from burning.. whether that's continued enforcement of the current sanctions, Elonka's newly proposed ssanction, or a full fledged Troubles 2 case. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fozzie, with all due respect, don't you think you should recuse yourself from any further involvment in the area of "troubles related" articles? Your record is not good and you appear unable to apologise for even your most outrageous bad blocks. Ask yourself this: "Am I helping to improve the project by staying involved where I have a poor history and am seriously compromised?". As you say yourself, improving the project must be the primary aim of an Admin, most especially an Admin seeking to become a member of Arbcom. I understand that personal pride can sometimes make it difficult for any of us to reappraise our mistakes; in your case it appears to demonstrate a blind-spot that really we can't afford to have in an Arbcom member. Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, I have brought up every single action I have taken that even had the hint of controversy about them to ANI. Each and every time that I have brought up my actions, the community consensus has been that I have used my administrator abilities appropriately (again, [2], for example). The fact that YOU do not like them, or believe them to be part of some vast Anglophonic conspiracy devoted to keeping editors like you suppressed does not mean that they were not correct and/or needed. SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Fozzie, in the case of your block it was simply an example of appalling judgment if it wasn't a part of some "vast conspiracy" (as you trivialise my concerns regarding systematic bias (aka community consensus); another indication of your inability to grasp concepts essential to supporting WP:NPOV. I really think you are not suitable for Arbcom and wonder why you are motivated to seek such a position? I sense no inclination to learn from interaction; to learn from your mistakes. Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a serious question for you, Sarah, with regards to this. Is there any admin whose active involvement in this area you haven't considered to be "seriously compromised"? The reason I ask is because as far as I can tell, pretty much every administrative action in this area relating to an editor who is Irish or expressed a viewpoint that you share, has been noisily denounced by you. This leaves me drawing one of two conclusions: either no Irish editor has ever violated our policies and in every case the admin has shown poor judgment, or else your perspective on this issue is not a neutral one. Which would you suggest is most likely? Rockpocket 23:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Each time I have made a mistake, Sarah, I have learned from it (except I keep saying Dunc sometimes when I mean Domer). Unfortunately, doesn't look like the same can be said for others... If you think that community consensus=systemic bias, it makes me wonder why you stay, because it sounds like a herculean job that even he would rather clean the Aegean Stables again then try to change that.. SirFozzie (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Rock - you exclude the effects of systematic bias; there are a few Admins who appear neutral, but remember my main problem with Fozzie is that he made an atrocious decision and shows no signs of appreciating that fact. His rather defensive attempts at continued justification of the indefensible are the main reason for my concerns about his fitness for Arbcom. SirFoz; it is indeed an immense task, however I am not a shrinking violet and somebody has to try to defend WP:NPOV. Also remember, that 90% of my editing is in areas unrelated to the issues under discussion. Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Never said you were a one-issue editor Sarah, just that you have a strong viewpoint in the area in question and that leads to problems for you. And I think the community looking at the action, saying "Yes, this was a needed and necessary step" is a pretty good defense. Again, I understand that you disagree with my actions there, and that's your right. And no, I would never compare you to a shrinking violet. *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Heck Fozzie, the area where you made that humongously bad block wasn't "troubles related" - not even by Enonka's ever expanding definition! Sarah777 (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Amendment wording

SirFozzie, hi, I was a bit confused by your most recent statement regarding the Discretionary Sanctions amendment, and wanted to touch base with you on this. I'm definitely open to re-wording the existing amendment. However, I was never regarding the amendment as something to replace the community sanctions, but instead to expand the case's sanctions. Do you see a conflict between the wording of my amendment, and the community sanctions? If so, we can definitely wordsmith a bit. --Elonka 00:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem that I see (and it's already happened) is that there are numerous different sanctions, and sometimes it is unclear as to which sanction is being applied, and the restrictions that it entails (remember the difference between 1RR/day article sanctions and 1RR/week editor sanction?). I want to streamline it. I want to make it clear to all what will be involved. However, dropping the 1RR cold turkey will be chaotic, and I want to avoid that as well. So seeing how discretionary sanctions will work over a month's time, then opening a discussion will be useful to see where we are at, and whether continuing the community sanctions, modifying them, or eliminating them would be best. SirFozzie (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. My feeling is that doing it piecemeal like that would likely end up with more confusion. As you've seen, trying to get community consensus on these matters is not an easy task! So I'd rather that we got the wording right the first time, and then not tweak it unless it absolutely needs tweaking. Is the 1RR/day issue the main one for you? If so, we could simply add another clause to the existing amendment, such as "It is noted that the community has also authorized a 1RR/day restriction on all articles within the topic area. This restriction can be enforced by any administrator without warning, and is not related to this case or new discretionary sanctions amendment." Would that address your concerns? --Elonka 01:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly an option. I'll take that under consideration (just so I'm sure that we're on the same page, the editor probation (ie, 1RR/week) sanction would be superseded by the discretionary sanctions (which of course, can be 1RR/week should the administrator choose), and the 1RR/day restriction on articles in the topic area stay? SirFozzie (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd figured that the 1RR/week probation would still be an option, and wouldn't need to be formally superseded. That way anyone currently under probation would remain under probation, until those expired naturally. But yes, the 1RR/day restriction would stick around. That's a community restriction, which should be kept separate from the discretionary sanctions. The community restriction is actually much more strict, since it can be implemented at anytime, without any warning. So I don't think it would be appropriate for the amendment to water it down. The amendment should focus strictly on authorizing new discretionary sanctions. --Elonka 01:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Poke

Take a look at what i've written on the OR case workshop, its a general approach at community and arbitration bans. Not done yet of course, but see if I've already fallen off the rails?--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Meanwhile, you may want to check out the amendment section on RfArb.. could use a sanity check on that as well (especially because you work on AE cases) SirFozzie (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Commented a couple times in general, I'm currently at the point where I'll take any change.--Tznkai (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement

Hi SirFozzie, I'm pleased to see your nomination.

I am listed as an election coordinator. Sorry to be a bore, but ... your statement comes in at 445 words when the display is pasted into Word. The limit is clearly stated as 400 words.

Would you mind trimming as a priority? Tony (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will trim slightly. SirFozzie (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; but it still comes in at 404 when I paste the display into Word. On a personal note, I appreciate that you've clearly been following the discussions about reform. But I'm not supposed to be too partisan as an election coordinator, damn it. PS Typo in (B) ".they". Tony (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hi. You mentioned at the RfE for Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that perhaps something should be done at ANI. How would you go about setting this in motion? I really feel that there has been no sign of improvement and the remedies are failing to have any effect. Particularly, the creation of the article on Afri and resumption of edit warring as well as some of the other edits that are in breach of the first RfAR. GainLine ♠ _♥ 16:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd just open a new section over at ANI, requesting more eyes to see if we need to step outside the arbcom sanctions, and look at a community sanction of Lapsed Pacifist. List out the reasons you think it's useful/necessary (stay calm and succinct, but list as much as you feel that people need to know. If you need to, explain that I suggested that it was a good idea (use this diff), and I will TRY to keep an eye on the issue (I've come down with some kind of flu bug, so my time here on WP is really limited right now.. so no promises however) SirFozzie (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. That's done now. Best of luck with the flu. GainLine ♠ _♥ 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that fell off twice, I'm hesitant to restore it for a third time. Thoughts? GainLine ♠ _♥ 11:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Options

RE: [3] I am looking for options here. There are some sensitive concerns about how Jack Merridew's behavior was dealt with. Is an open arbitration case an option?

I know that White Cat commented on Jim Wales page out of utter frustration about how editors were ignoring the case of Jack Merridew's multiple socks, which helped people finally take action. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_39#Five_year_long_harassment_of_White_Cat Maybe that is an option.

Ikip (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

See Risker's comment for the place for the discussion.. if you have information that is sensitive and/or private, you can certainly contact the Arbitration Committee via email and get them the information? SirFozzie (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sensitive in this context does not mean private, my apologies for not being clear. It means repeated ignored pleas for help treated as they were with White Cat for five years before this. Ikip (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

RfArb question

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question at the arbcom elections page. It must be quite tiresome to answer all these questions. Perhaps there should be some oversight to reduce repetitive or pointless (or pointed) questions. (My questions, of course, are incisive and necessary... ;-) Regards - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Boris.. Actually, some of the questions required a lot of thought and I couldn't resort to sound bite answers, which is exactly what an ArbCom member should be doing... And besides, I'm at that in-between state right now where I'm too sick to go out, but also too sick of sleeping off the bug. *laughs*, so.. what else am I supposed to do? I'm just glad I was able to catch up on all the questions before the US Holiday later this week, with the end of the questions period happening so shortly after, I'm hoping I can go into the Thanksgiving break witha clear conscience ;) SirFozzie (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

More auto-archiving

Hello. This was auto-archived over at ANI. There doesn't seem to be much happening at RfE either. LP has continued to edit and looks like they've breached their topic ban again. Is there much likelihood that anything more will be done? GainLine ♠ _♥ 16:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd bring it back up at AE. Doesn't look like AN/ANI's going to handle it at this point. *sighs* SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The RfE was archived too. I've brought this up so many times that I'm kind of hesitant to bring something up yet again, especially with the poor history between myself and LP. It all just looks like a free reign to violate topic bans and is kind of disillusioning. GainLine ♠ _♥ 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me ...

... or has the standard for anon trolls really gone down of late? - Allie ^❤ 08:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC) ...wait. They have standards? SirFozzie (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

inbound troll warning

a post on b might cause some problems but nothing that wikipedia can't handle. I am going to watch your talkpage for vandalism in the meantime :) andyzweb (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like it didn't come to much, but it's always good to have more talk page watchers prevent things from getting bad. SirFozzie (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but..

From Ikip

Ikip.. I know you have strong feelings towards Jack's continued participation on WP. But you're not doing yourself any good (at least in my opinion) with your behavior with the latest areas. Your actions are focusing the attention on YOU, not what you feel the behavior of JM is. It might be better to disengage here. I know you feel strongly, but it might be best if you stepped back from this area. SirFozzie (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

that is exactly what those editors who disagree with me want, to put the focus on me. I have tried my damnedest to keep it away from me, but I obviously failed. Are you referring to ANI? Yeah, well, when a topic ban is in the works for yourself, i think the worst thing you can do is walk away. Good advice though. sigh.Ikip (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When tempers are their worst, that is the worst possible time to be editing. I have personal experience with that, myself, and I'm going to pass on the advice that was given to me when I was in the same position. Stand up, walk away from the computer, spend at least 12 hours (it was suggested 48 hours to me when I was ultra-steamed, but each person is different) doing other stuff that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Wikipedia. It's time to decompress. I have archived both ANI sections, and I hope that they stay archived. I'll post this to your talk page as well, to make sure it's seen. SirFozzie (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, I am walking away from the computer. I don't want to make any promises on how long which may later bite me in the ass (editors quoting my promise, and me breaking it). I would ask you too block me for two days, as many admins have (check my edit history)...this is okay to do, and it is up to you....

YOU ARE 100% CORRECT. I am not helping things at this point.

I would honestly settle for Jack Merridew simply stopping following A Nobody at this point, period. The Mr. Coleman and Dae issues are over now.

Ikip (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I don't see any reason to block you. Enjoy your break, however long it is :) SirFozzie (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Award

		Home-Made Barnstar
		I can't believe you haven't got one of these yet. Always on-point, always fair and thoughtful, you are a model admin. Keep up the good work and keep being you. John (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John. Much appreciated :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I second that. And good luck on the election, you've got my vote. Rockpocket 18:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks RP. I will admit, the curious side of me wants to know how I'm doing in the current ArbCom election, but so far, I've managed to lock it away with the cautionary tale of what it did to the cat.. *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jazz hands

Hey Fozzie, you're a friendly admin as I recall so here's a question. Do you think it would be fair to semi protect Jazz hands? I rewrote it when it was nominated for deletion, and only now I see that it's a pretty constant source of vandalism that apparently nobody but myself is watching. I'd rather not be keeping tabs on the article, but that will almost certainly mean it sits vandalized (which gives me a smidge of guilt since I made sure it was kept). Thanks for any help. Mackan79 (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mackan. Looking at the level of edits, I don't quite think it qualifies for long term semi-protection. I will throw it on my watch list, however.. to try to lower the burden on ya :) SirFozzie (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I thought I'd seen some vandalism that had remained for some time, is all. Looking again, it may not be that bad. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

An account to keep an eye on

[4] I'm notifying Cool Hand Luke and Lar also. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cla. I'll keep an eye out. SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Chris Henry

I agree. However the way it was worded, it basically repeated the same information. I believe WP states that the lead should be a brief summary of the article, so after people read the lead, it'll make them want to read more of the article. I believe it looks better now. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 17:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Assuming the appointments turn out as expected, I look forward to working with you. Steve Smith (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats. Good to see you made it this time! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, after more than one try people were bound to punish your persistence with a seat. Welcome! — Coren ^(talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the great and well deserved showing in the election! I look forward to seeing your work with the Committee this upcoming year. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your congratulations and commisserations :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Don't know you, Sir, but I noticed we shared a couple of stars when I was surveying the candidates ... You have a few more in the middle than I do, but our top and bottom ones are the same.:-) Congratulations ... Cheers. Fortitude! (Pondering work-load with that last word. Let it never weigh you down.) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  Until you changed the bottom one. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations indeed, Foz :) More sanity comes to ArbCom. Good to see you on there .... - Alison ^❤ 18:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, Allie, I don't believe anyone sane runs for ArbCom. But it's the right kind of insanity.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, SirFozzie. Please see MBisanz's advice here. Tony (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I will have to get out (if I can, I still have a pretty big digging job to do) to a place with a copier tommorrow. SirFozzie (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good luck with the Giano 17 case. *snerk* 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Congrats!ArbCom will be all the better for having you GainLine ♠ _♥ 13:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremepuff222

Hi, Xeno and I are strongly considering unblocking once the bits are removed (he's posted at meta) and once Creme promises no more nonsense, which he has kinda already done but it wouldn't hurt to have him do it again. Could you weigh in at the user's talk page? Congratulations on the election, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, SirFozzie. You have new messages at Delicious carbuncle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Time for celebrating is over...

off to work you go!
Congratulations :-) FloNight♥♥♥♥

• Hop to it, lad! :) - Alison ^❤ 06:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hop! Hop! Hop! SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Risker, and merry christmas, happy new year, happy hannuakah, and Wonderful Winter! (geez, I really must be filled with the holiday spirit, for me to put the words wonderful and winter together...) SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Rockall

I note your edit to the Rockall article. Your edit states that Rockall has "native name = Rockabarra". If this is true then you need to alter the Rockabarra article, which states "The name confusingly has also been used to refer to Rockall,". How can there be a "native name" without "natives"? ClemMcGann (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no value content on the article, I was just reverting a banned user who frequently sockpuppets in those articles SirFozzie (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hallo old friend

		The Distinguished Hive Mind Member Barnstar
		Congratulations on earning a distinguished spot on Hive Mind, you must be doing something right! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.

Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Same to you and yours Dunc, thanks :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! And thank you for your job as a member of the ArbCom the last few years. I know how much work you put into it :) SirFozzie (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Q:

Are you subscribed to clerks-l? If not, which address do you want to be subscribed at? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was added :) Thanks though for asking. SirFozzie (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer

Hi Fozz have you see the latest offerings of Misortie against Domer such as calling him a fuckwit and a twat and putting a speedy deletion tag on his user page this is blatant trolling. BigDunc 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also calling him a cunt here. Not being paranoid but it is amazing that no one spots these attacks. BigDunc 11:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just got up. Didn't appreciate being called a troll myself, but let me see what is going on SirFozzie (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the editor has apologized and disengaged. Let's see if it sticks. I did put my two cents on their talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough the editor apologised and civility blocks are not my thing but I get 2 week block for saying someone was a "fucking fantasist" when they lied about me yet this editor can call another editor a cunt, fuckwit and a twat and you just say aggression was met with aggression, these double standards have got to stop. I wonder what would have happened had I called someone that or if Domer had? BigDunc 19:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, SirFozzie, and thank you for your recent oversight to the page Bill Hayes (actor) As you can see here, an abuse filter blocked the brunt of the attack. I was wondering if you could provide me with a description of how the edits that did make it through got around the filter? Thanks. Triplestop x3 17:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Sent you an email. SirFozzie (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please think about this longer

I hope you don't mind that I'm writing here, but I think what I said at Wikipedia talk:Administrators is likely to be buried in responses very quickly. While I greatly appreciate what you're doing, I think you're moving much too fast on this, and it's not clear, to me at least, the scope of the problem you're trying to address. It seems like what you're doing is going to greatly expand what can be considered wheel-warring, which is going to be extremely drama-inducing. Once and only once in my nearly 4 years as an admin was I accused of wheel-warring, and it was because I had taken what I thought was a routine maintenance action on a page that, unbeknownst to me, was the subject of previous controversial action. It was very disconcerting to have that term, which is about the dirtiest word there is around here, appear on my talk page. I really want to urge you in the strongest possible terms not to make it harder to do the routine work most of spend our time on. Don't forget, you arbcom folks spend all your time looking at controversial actions (and trust me, I know that we're all in your debt for that). But as someone who deals with the routine stuff, where lasting controversy appears incredibly rarely, I really think the system may be a lot less broken than you think. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have thought about it for many months, actually. Yes, a great majority of the actions that are taken by administrators are in no way, shape or form controversial. What I'm trying to stop is instances where a block was taken based on discussion, etcetera, and someone comes charging in says "No. I don't agree with you or the discussion, so I'm going to undo the action." I hope there's a way to balance the two. Actions like the one I describe above let disputes fester on and grow worse and worse. SirFozzie (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're obviously right about that. I would have absolutely no problem with what you're proposing if it were limited to blocks and included some kind of room to adjust block length. It's deletions and protections where I think things get complicated; in this change, it's the unqualified word "actions" that's the problem. Chick Bowen 06:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Zenne, another Wikipéire sock?

Can you take a look at this user, Zenne? Wikipéire socks have been targeting the Iceland (supermarket) page recently, changing "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland", and therefore the page was semi-protected for a month on the 10 December, at my request. A few hours after the protection expired earlier on today, this new user, on their first edit, changed Republic of Ireland to Ireland, and cited "changes in the manual of style", so this user doesn't seem like a newcomer.

Can you have a look at this? --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not a new user, irrespective of what's happened on the page before, the edit is based on new consensus formed by the update of WP:IMOS. Wikipedia shouldn't lose out because an editor doesn't like a policy.Zenne (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not because I don't like any policy, I'm just doing it because he/she is a banned user. IMOS states nothing in favour of using simply Ireland in this article anyway. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 21:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It does. It indicates that the piped version always be used in the introduction of articles. Please read the new consensus version which now affects this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenne (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet account. SirFozzie (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 22:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

3rd viscount monckton of brenchley

This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've received this request, but not sure that ARbCom is the best way to handle this, but I will look into it a bit. SirFozzie (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP drive

Sign me up for a formal BLP drive. Since the end of December I started spending sometime on articles in the BLP category showing no references. The situation is more of less the same as the last time I looked 6 months ago with the biggest challenge being BLP articles about people from non-English speaking countries. So, for the work to be successful we need people that are proficient in several languages to help.

We have too many articles about athletes and politicians with no sources in English to verify the information. These are generated from a list or roster with only foreign language sources available. Usually, I can confirm that they are not a hoax article but have no way of verifying the information is about one person and not a blend of several people with similar names. So they pass notability guidelines but can't be easily improved. :-(

In general, many of the BLP tagged as unreferenced do have at least one or two sources on the page somewhere that show that they are real people, and only need clean up to bring them up to my minimum standard. If there are no sources available, then I prod them.

A good place for people to start is with their own early articles. I'm working on few of mine that are below my standard. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear, Flo.. I don't know how/when we're going to get this off the ground, but it might be one of several issues we need to look at here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this more. I think a cross wiki multi-language BLP drive across all Wikimedia projects would have the best chance for success. Something that lasts for the whole first quarter of 2010 with the goal of getting every BLP article sourced that does not have references to support the reason for notability and basic content. This would include all types of WMF projects. Banner announcements and updates about the progress... Something like this could have an impact. I'll write something up and see if we can get enough interest to push it forward. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 05:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Keep me updated. I can think of others who would be interested in such a BLP drive! SirFozzie (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentor/Padawan

Hi. I remember a while ago you helped me out with something and wanted to know if you're taking on students/padawans of the wikipedia arts. andyzweb (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not right now, being an Arbitrator does take a lot of my time up, but I'm always willing to answer questions, if you don't mind a slight delay before I answer them! SirFozzie (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

In edit summaries, please distinguish between "re-signing" and "resigning," or you are going to scare someone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that edit summary startled the heck out of me! --Elonka 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

er, oops? (laughs) sorry all! :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Misty Willows

Is this case before Arbcom? Based on Risker's notation, I assume Someone emailed Arbcom and the issue is before the committee. If so, I would like to see the discussion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is being handled privately as there is material we cannot reveal due to the privacy policy. (checkuser, etcetera). As soon as we can say more, we will. SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, wanted to verify, If you can, please let me know when it iss public. keep up the good work :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you oversighted my blocking rationale. Should I have used something different in the initial block? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I oversighted it. Basically, there was a clear accusation of a criminal act in the block rationale. In future, it's best not to say things like that, especially when the account has been connected to a RL identity - Alison ^❤ 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I obviously can't see it now, but I thought I had written "allegations of..." in the rationale, trying to balance the concerns you raised with the importance of giving a clear and unambiguous block reason that wouldn't be undone without appropriate consultation. What would have been the ideal thing to say for an initial block in such circumstances? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You actually hadn't, but yeah - something like what Fozzie put, and it should be related to WP policy. Certainly not suggestions of criminal activity! - Alison ^❤ 04:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tsk, shame on me for acting too hastily. Thanks for the feedback, but here's hoping I don't have another opportunity to actually put it to use! :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. The whole situation is problematic, and our hands are really tied. If the person IS what they say they are, we have a whole can of worms. and if it's NOT who they say they are, that's a whole different can of worms. In either case, we get worms :P SirFozzie (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

topic ban clarification

I was asked to help bring the article Nobel prize up to GA or FA status and I happily agreed. However, this being Paranoid Times, I wanted to make sure the article, or some sub section of it, was in fact not covered by the topic ban. Per comments here [5] and what seems to me like plain common sense it wouldn't be. But it's better to be 100%. Or is this non-trivial enough to make a formal request for clarification? Thank you.radek (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My first thought is that it wouldn't be covered, but I'd like to remind you that depending on what the edits ennumerate, the article may not be covered under the topic ban but edits (if they in general would fall under the topic area) may. Just my ultra very quick .02 on the issue. SirFozzie (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.radek (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Status

Hi. You stated here (on the 5th) that you were going to be inactive on all upcoming cases, but it appears you are active on a number of Arb related matters. Would you like your status to be updated? Tiptoety ^talk 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Um.. read that again? "I will be going active on all new cases, and the Tothwolf case. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)" SirFozzie (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am embarrassed now. I read it as "inactive." Sorry to bother you, Tiptoety ^talk 08:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha, Tiptoety made an error! I knew it would happen eventually. *tee, hee* KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tee hee? I've never seen such language from the Puppy before. What's next, "neener neener"? :D (grins and ducks) SirFozzie (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

*sad* I was afraid the humor wouldn't come across, and thought that would make it clear I was giving a sideways compliment in what was intended to be a humorous fashion... but now I'm being *mocked* by Fozzie! *walks off forlornly, crying bitterly* KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Awww damnit, I can't resist sad puppy eyes. *gives the puppy a cookie* SirFozzie (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy puppy!!! :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure that WMC is the problem here

Indeed. So wuold you kindly explain why you're supporting sanctions against me?

This looks like arbcomm at it worst. Abd has been blocked for [6] which is nothing to do with me. You're shooting the messenger William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying it would be for the best if he stopped mentioing you and you him (that way keeping him from saying "he's started it and I can't talk back" SirFozzie (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems a thin justification for sanctionning me. I think I'm being sanctionned on the basis of no misbehaviour at all. Can you point to any problematic edits on my part since this began? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to come to a meeting of the minds, so to speak, but I'll state it again. If someone needs to follow up on anything Abd says, it doesn't need to be you, does it? I'm sure that with an editor of Abd's.. history shall we say, that if he crosses the line someone will be there to say something. SirFozzie (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need to be me. But nor do you need to santion me. You've said, yourself, that I'm not the problem in this - but yet you're going to sanction me anyway. You call that just? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You have mail

You'll have more later if/when my scanner drivers ever finish downloading so I can scan the thing in question as well. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom and BLPs

Can you seriously suggest another way we could have forced this long-term disgrace without direct action? I agree that it would be better if admins played "in the rules" and through discussion to get the necessary done, but you know that was never going to deliver, and I can't exactly be accused of not trying and trying again, can I? Happy to be cleared, castrated, garrotted, or whatever is felt necessary, and I certainly never expected to be commended. But truly, there was no other way, and you know it. If Wikipedia wants people to play within the rules, then it needs to create rules that work, and work for BLP, it has singularly failed to do that, and so chaos will follow. That's regrettable, but the alternative is a continuing inertia on long-term pressing ethical issues, and that is unacceptable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, Lar. Case already filed. Things already looked at. ArbCom trying to find a way to handle this. And he goes and does it again, after two people blocked and numerous screaming imprecations. I'm sorry. There was a better way then to say "I regret I have but one admin bit to give for my BLP-try" and march the administrators in to face the whiff of grape. As I said, I;m willing to say you had BLP on your side and that you were right, but I'm not willing to commend you for how it happened. I can understand if you disagree, but it's a principle I'm standing by. SirFozzie (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As I say, not too worried about commendation. Please reword the motion and support the principle behind it. I've even quite happy to be desysopped or trout slapped if it gets the change.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not possible at this time. I hope my statement makes it clear that I support a majority of the motion however, and others looking at my vote should judge accordingly. SirFozzie (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that your are opposing the motion. IMO, the hysterical reaction to what arbcom sees as reasonable admin action needs to be countered by a supportive statement from the Committee. As you well know, the attempt to clean up BLP has stalled for years, and admins need to be motivated to continue to work in this area. I see the statement commending them as a way to encourage them to keep working in the area, while other parts of the statement ask them to use less chaotic methods. I think the sentence is balanced as crafted and does not harm as you seem to think. I see the true harm from admins abandoning their work in the area. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The admins doing it were also being jerks. I think there is enough nuance in this world to justify a vote not supporting them being jerks.--Tznkai (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It will be a massive net loss if they stop working to improve BLP. Words of encouragement and recognition for these admins is needed with the additional instructions to use less chaotic means. A blanket call for people to work in this area has much less meaning then giving support to the people that actually do. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to you privately, Flo. Check your email when you can. SirFozzie (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are other costs associated in encouraging them the way the committee has chosen to do, and what justification is there for pigeonholing those who interfered as bureaucratic twits? But yes. The committee chose a side on who they value and who they don't.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee

User_talk:Power.corrupts#Warning he is threatening to block several editors. I thought you would be interested after he edited that protected page.Ikip 06:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sirfozzie. It is rare that I have an arbcom member grace my page, they usually just try to ignore me as a pest.

I think these editors saw the amnesty editors support your reasonable warning, and automatically opposed.

I would like to create a WP:Coffee Amnesty essay, explaining how, if you share the ideology of the majority of arbcom and Jimbo, the rules don't apply to you, but I won't.

Not sure what part you were laughing about, how I slaughter your name? Ikip 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You have called me Sir Fonzzie and Sir Frozzie in that section. I just found it amusing :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom motion

Just wanted to commend your well-reasoned and level-headed handling of the recently-passed BLP motion. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it is the policy of some arbcoms to delete barnstars, so my feelings won't be hurt.

		The Arbcom's Barnstar
		The Admin's Arbcoms Barnstar may be awarded to administrators who made a particularly difficult decision...or just to show an administrator that you think they are doing good work in a particular area of "the job" and that their work is appreciated. Thanks. Ikip 01:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

;-)

View from SirFozzie. I like it :-) Thank you for making a strong show of support for changes in the way the way that we handle BLP content. It is important for the Community to understand that change is coming. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The pattern

Hi SirFozzie, you've declined my request and asked me to show the patternt of Jéské Couriano edits. I could not do it at the request because I am allowed only 500 words, but here is the pattern:

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

Would you like to see some more? Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It shows he has been uncivil, or a little over the top yes, but not anything with regards to administrative tools, for example.. and I happen to agree with him about the nature of some of those "personal armies" generated over at /b/ SirFozzie (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that in your opinion the statement "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" should be taken off Administrator conduct? Well, thanks for your input. Sorry I bothered you. I've no more questions. Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that (and I would please request that you NOT put words in my mouth. I do that quite well enough on my own, thanks :)). If you have a user conduct issue with Jeske, please consider opening a User Conduct RFC. Coming to ArbCom as the FIRST line of dispute resolution, not the last, is not going to get you what you want, here. I know the temptation is great, as we can do that which you desire as a resolution, (the removal of Jeske as an administrator), but except for very rare circumstances, we do NOT take issues as the first line of Dispute Resolution. SirFozzie (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood you. I've no "a user conduct issue with Jeske". I am nobody now. Jeske said "Mbz1's done.", and I assure you, I am done. So no, I've no "a user conduct issue with Jeske", but I naively thought Wikipedia might have. I see I was mistaking. Once again I sorry I bothered you. Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick favour please

Could you (or any other admin watching) possibly renew the range block on this range? I asked Alison but she's a bit busy apparently, and he's been back disrupting as 84.203.37.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 84.203.43.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated, but no point creating a similarly titled section....if you could confirm here the details I've emailed you. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, SirFozzie...

...a special someone is talking about you on WP:AN. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ioeth. Taken care of now. (they should really read WP:Plaxico during their month off :/ SirFozzie (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor spelling

Hello SirFozzie, I hope you are doing well. :) I see a minor spelling thing [11] did you mean "shunt", or "shut..." ? Yours, Cirt (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Shunt as in divert. :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I suppose either/or works in that sentence. No worries, Cirt (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

194.179.120.4 is being used excessively by Wikipéire. Should it be blocked?

As you can see by the IP's contributions (and location, Madrid), 194.179.120.4 is being used by Wikipéire. I've tried to put sock notices on the talk page, but he's constantly removing them. Should this IP be blocked? --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 16:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to have a word with a checkuser about collateral damage and/or a range block. SirFozzie (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alison has now done a checkuser and the IP has been blocked for one week. I'll keep an eye on it though :) --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 01:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone's watching yer talkpage, Foz! ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor formatting

Here, seems minor formatting is need to have Mailer Diablo show up as the first "abstain" number. Cirt (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks better now. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NP. Thanks for the poke, Cirt :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Vote strikes

Hi SirFozzie, FYI: [12], [13], [14]. Paul August ☎ 20:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, Much appreciated :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 20:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

received, and in discussion at the ArbCom level. SirFozzie (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Minibreak

Hey all, taking a mini break of about 72 hours or so. Normal service should resume on the weekend. No need to move me to inactive, but if there's anything I absolutely NEED to know, email me :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm back! SirFozzie (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy

I filed the ArbCom request for Brews ohare which went on mostly over your Wikibreak. I am asking you to please review the request carefully, taking note of the selfless and difficult steps taken by uninvolved editors (Count Iblis, ProfStandWellBack, CosineKitty) to strongly support Brews. I hope that my blunt style did not put you off. If I have violated etiquette by either my actions there or my writing here, please let me know, and I apologize in advance.Likebox (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you get a chance

Hey Fozzie. Hope your good. Sorry to bother you with an ani request but I know you looked at this before. But if you get a chance could you take a look at this. I know how draining this issue is but I could use a hand--Cailil ^talk 22:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I just posted a response to your recent comment. However I think its worth saying there that in the middle of last year just stopping HighKing and others from inserting or removing the term would have been attractive. However we have got HighKing to use the task force and to accept the results of discussions there, which have been reasonably even handed. However the sheer obstinacy of Mister Flash means that progress is only made with great difficulty. When BlackKite was involved we got somewhere, and we need some admin help on the task force. It would be worth your while casting your eye over the actual cases there to that we did make some progress. I also put some work into a protocol (see link on ANI thread) which got support and might (with modification) form the basis of a resolution. Either way, the point of posting here was to say that there have been some changes in behaviour over the last six months in HighKing (and he has broadened his editing habits) which should be encouraged. --Snowded ^TALK 07:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Iñaki de Juana Chaos' biography

Why have you removed all the additions I made and restored the version that the vandals are so desperate to keep in spite of all the data I added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericcoop (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on your page. I urge you to re-read Wikipedia's policies that I link to on your page. SirFozzie (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia so sorry about any confusion I might have created. As far as I know, if anyone wants to contest something that is written they should justify it. All I have done is add information all of which is sourced. I am a researcher at a higher education institution so I don't understand why my data is being deleted. What part of the data is being considered unsourced or false? I have spent the whole day trying to dispute lies about a convicted terrorist by providing evidence that judges have used in a court of justice. From your background, it seems that you don't speak Spanish or Basque and the same goes for the vandals that deleted all the information without any discussion. How can you know all of it is false when you don't even understand any of the evidence? For your information you have just deleted the names of several victims of ETA's murders as though they were POV. TELL me specifically what is it that you think may be false or biased.Genericcoop (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, first off.. Welcome to Wikipedia :).

I speak very little spanish (took a year or so of language classes when I was in school), and do not speak Basque. However, that's not what I and other people are concerned about here. I linked the Neutral Point of View for a reason. Let me copy some of the things that you said that were quite frankly, non-neutral...

"According to the Spanish Constitution (paradoxically reviled by Chaos and other terrorists)"

" It should be noted that as cruel as the Spanish Constitution, state, governments, and judges are supposed to be according to ETA terrorists"

"This fact contributes to create further confusion when comparing Basque secessionism to Irish or Palestinian terrorist activities behind emancipatory movements: It is unthinkable that Michael Collins or Bobby Sands would have been born to native British soldiers or that Khaled Mashal´s father in law had been a Mossad agent."

These statements come no where NEAR NPOV, and are Original Research as well. I don't claim that this person is a good person, I'm just saying that what we have on the article has to be written succinctly and neutrally, and unfortunately, what you're putting in there, is most emphatically, neither of the two. SirFozzie (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is insane! ETA revile the Spanish Constitution. They claim that it is Franco's legacy and that it was imposed on them in the constitutional referendum since the Constitution was not approved by a majority of Basques in the Basque Country although it was in Navarra.Genericcoop (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a paradox to revile the same constitution and consider it a fascist constitution while you seek its protection with the cooperation of International Amnesty. The Ribbentrop-Molotov non-agression pact before WWII was a paradox and I don't see anybody getting banned for saying that. To say that these two diplomats "paradoxically signed a pact" is historically accurate for it seems hard to understand two declared enemies militarily and politically would sign a pact. Paradoxes exist SirFrozzie. Not to mention all the documentation you deleted including letters and facts regarding this person's life. You have deleted everything!!!! Who is the next authority above you?Genericcoop (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the letters you removed states clearly that ETA compares and models itself after other terrorist organizations. ETA has even signed treaties with IRA, FARC and the LPO and leaders from these organizations are often quoted by ETA in their communiques. This is basic history SirFozzie. On almost every trial in which a terrorist is being judged, the first thing ETA members state is that they do not recognize the authority of the Spanish constitution, its laws, and its judges, again, common knowledge SirFozzie: it is ETA members who say these things not me. I'd quote from them but you would delete that too like you did with everything else. (Genericcoop (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

I don't know if you sent this to my talk page or if one of these lying vandals did it but if you did it is shameful: I have fully protected the article. Remember, articles on WP have to be written to A Neutral Point of View, and that goes doubly so for articles dealing with people, especially Biographies of Living People. Your information seems to fail those policies, and I urge you to cease and desist. SirFozzie (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would you urge me to cease and desist when you haven't read any of the information that has been deleted? Why don't you urge the people who vandalized the page to desist from removing truthful information? What criteria did you use to deem my comments lies and their deletions trustworthy?(Genericcoop (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)) Genericcoop (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd pick my next edit summary carefully. HalfShadow 22:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Genericcoop, I'm trying to help you here.. you are not doing your case any good here. Yes I did, and as I suggested, I suggest you read them before you edit any further. SirFozzie (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have spent the last hour looking for any justifications for the deletions or any explanations for why these things are not neutral. Where is your argument? Is there a separate page where you have posted any explanations? I have refreshed my article page and it shows the same bunch of bull that was written before I edited the page. Are you telling me none of this is non-neutral?

On January 10, 2009, de Juana participated in a Peace March held in Belfast, Northern Ireland. The purpose of the march was to express grievances against the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza and to express hopes for peace to the Irish government. However, Spanish newspapers, such as elmundo.es, expressed disgust that de Juana, having been convicted of causing many deaths, would be so duplicitous as to publicly march for peace.

Where is the source for this information? Why haven't you deleted it? You have deleted all the information I provided including all sources and yet you have not checked for errors or unsourced statements any of the existing paragraphs. This whole biography is propaganda. Regarding your advice or anybody else's: I don't care what you think. You have deleted truthful information and any threats regarding anybody's right to contest your authority or the validity of your claims are abuse of power. Who is the next authority above an administrator? Every hour that goes by without you restoring the insults that this unrepentant murderer uttered adds on to the pain of their relatives. (Genericcoop (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

Why is ETA referred to as a paramilitary group or, even worse, as a separatist group? What makes ETA, ETA is the fact that they intimidate, kidnap, blackmail, and kill people. I know many separatist groups that don't engage in any of the above. Listing ETA as a separatist group is like listing Hitler as as a vegetarian, or Stalin as a seminarist: true but irrelevant and misleading. There are many separatist organizations that don't engage in these activities and according to Wikipedia administrators they are all the same. What historiographic criteria does Wikipedia follow here? (Genericcoop (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

De Juana Chaos is listed as a soldier or another similar military category. This man is not a soldier: he placed bombs and blew people up and shot people in the head regardless of whether they were civilians or public officials. Are we saying here that a soldier from a standing army is the same as a terrorist that has confessed to several murders and has explictly said that he did it in order to achieve political goals? (Genericcoop (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

I just found out that SirFozzie is a member of the arbitration committee in Wikipedia. According to these rules it seems that two administrators have already cooperated in banning these additions. I will wait 48 hours and then will open a RfC. That if I haven't misread the hundreds of pages required to understand how to do anything on Wikipedia. I shouldn't have inquired my students about Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericcoop (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to file a RfC, or raise a complaint at The Incidents Noticeboard, you can certainly do so if you wish. I doubt you'd be getting the kuind of reception you are hoping for... SirFozzie (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think he's buggered off for good, or is he just sharpening his axe ready for when the protection expires? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Amend Brews_ohare sanctions, or not

Can we wind this up? I think we need a motion, and arbitrators' final thoughts. Brews ohare (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brews.. at this time I don't think there is any need for any motions.. it looks like there's no desire to change the remedies as they stand. SirFozzie (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your point C

Hello SirFozzie. I read point C on your talk page and decided to pipe up. I don't want to use up your time. I just want to request that you please take a close look at my case, and make sure that you have come to the same conclusion about my editing as has Sandstein (I suppose noting my response to his remarks.) I know that arbcom gave the power to administrators to make such decisions, but there are two issues here. The first is that I don't even think the basis of the call was sound, and I outline why in some detail in my request for amendment (wrongly placed, sorry about that). The second is that I was not even told that I may be subject to discretionary sanctions, which is supposed to be part of the process. Still, no one has made clear which policies I have broken. My point to you is this: if you are going to support Sandstein's decision, then I just request that you make sure you have come to the same conclusions that he has. If it's simply a matter of reemphasising that administrators are allowed to make those calls, without seeing whether they are sound or not, then 1) what role does the appeal process play? and 2) at the very least, I would point out the lack of procedure in this case and call for the decision to be "struck out" (hopefully that's the right legal term). So, if the rationale is that admins have this power, end of story, then I would suggest at least making sure it's being applied within the stipulated rules. I don't mean to harp. I won't write to you again unless I feel it's important. --Asdfg12345 13:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message.. let me review the situation, may take a day or so to get up to speed. SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I left further notes in a last statement. I only note here so I know it's been read. --Asdfg12345 03:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did read that. My personal inclination is to still let this stand, without blocking you off from seeking a community consensus to nullify and/or overturn the sanction. As I said previously, administrators working in the area of ArbCom Enforcement have a large amount of leeway in how they apply sanctions. SirFozzie (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to step up work on my thought-reading machine, because I am just too curious about the collective understanding of committee members on this case. I will probably seek community consensus on it. I'm not sure how that process works, but presumably one part of it may require a fuller elaboration on the rationale for the block, taking into account my response. If the wiki community indeed regards me as a black sheep, then I will have nothing to say. But it will have proven wrong my long held assumptions about the transparency, rationality, and rule-of-law (as opposed to 'rule by man') approach I thought wiki was based on. I really presume that what I'm accused of doing is violating the "spirit of Wikipedia" rather than any actually identifiable or specific violation of the rules. One editor who has regularly expressed disapproval of my comments and sourcing has said that. I can also reach no other conclusion based on the process of the AE appeal so far. But my biggest complaint would be how due process has been knowingly ignored. What can ya do? --Asdfg12345 02:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked User:Mattisse for "alternate accounts" and attacking another user

I agree that "alternate accounts" can be as difficult technically and ethically as "grey" investigations such as organised crime and terrorism as in real life. However, the indef block against Mattisse seems to conceal too much, and thus make the accusation(s) look like policy-state methods:

• Investigations of "alternate accounts" are difficult, but I'll leave that.
• WP's policy in "alternate accounts" in general seems rather lax. However, at present I see no general objection against operation of "alternate accounts" by User:Mattisse, and I see no restriction in the terms of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Clarification_motions.
• The complaint is that an unidentified attacking another user. In conduct issues, the complaint should show evidence of the conduct in question and why that violate one or more conduct policies. Where is that evidence shown?
• The block against User:Mattisse is only justified if the complain about conduct was shown to be linked to User:Mattisse. Where is that evidence shown? --Philcha (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not an alternate account. This is a situation where the account was used to attack another user, who they have a long history with. I will tag the account appropriately. SirFozzie (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagged the main account. The others were blocked previously. SirFozzie (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's CharlesRodriguez, I've just checked Charles+Rodriguez' contribs and I'm not where or against there was an attack. --Philcha (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It was created to harass another editor, basically to try to get another user who they've warred with under the Mattise account in an edit war. SirFozzie (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, AFAIK complaints about conduct are required to be backed up by diffs or history snapshots, but so far I have not seen any in evidence of this complaint. In fact even in cases of WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO that I've seen relative recently the diffs are identified, although their content by oversight. Since the alleged complaint(s) against Mattise's alternate account(s) is/are described as an "attack" but apparently without the legal risks of WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO, I find it hard to see how the complaint(s) should be prosecuted without evidence. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the history, Mattisse had a long running conflict with SandyGeorgia. And the new account went after SandyGeorgia in the area of Venezuela edits. SirFozzie (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Philcha and my self are both mattisse's mentors per arbitration see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts.

The fact its a sock look pretty unquestionable. Whether the motivation was to specifically harrasses is in question. It looks to that Mattisse wanted to discuss possible bias on Talk:The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary). However there are plenty of breaches of User:Mattisse/Plan. --Salix (talk): 11:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Background: This happened before with User:Rosencomet; Mattisse went after him in the same way she went after SG. When confronted with the evidence of a CU in that case, she said that her family was using the computer (or some such excuse). Looking at the most recent contributions, the CharlesRodriguez account was instantly recognizable as Mattisse, as she did very little (if anything) to hide herself, other than using smilies in all the wrong places. I can't possibly imagine what she hoped to achieve with this. My only guess is that she got what she wanted. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I known since in Jul 2009 that Mattisse had a long running conflict with SandyGeorgia, and I've seen more recently instances. IMO the question is whether the behaviour you allege is misconduct. IMO "And the new account went after SandyGeorgia in the area of Venezuela edits" is vague, as Category:Venezuela is fairly and there's no certain that the relevant article(s) are categorised. Is there any reason not to identify the behaviour you allege is misconduct, so that others can it examine? --Philcha (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)