User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

== ANI complaint ==

Please be aware, so that you may respond, that I have posted a complaint about what I feel is your inappropriate closure of the SA discussion thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate discussion closure. Vassyana (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise you to check your facts before making broad, sweeping, accusations. But I am aware of your complaint. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My error was a combination of confusing you with another editor and seeing your name around on admin discussions when science/pseudoscience discussions were active. Please once again accept my sincere apologies for my hasty error of defective memory. Vassyana (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

To avoid further conflict, I'd like to ask an honest question. Where do you think I should post the second-hand complaint about ScienceApologist? Would it be more appropriate to add it to the RFAR, or to the Homeopathy probation subpages, or both? I'm leaning towards taking Jossi's advice and posting it to the probation subpages, particularly considering that the arbs seem disinclined to take the case (and at least one arb has openly expressed that the probation should be allowed to play out before the committee takes on the situation). I'd appreciate your feedback on this issue. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would take Jossi's advice and post it on the probation sub page, and it wouldn't hurt to post it to the RFARB as well, but definitely on Jossi's page. Hope this helps! SirFozzie (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I think I will post it to the probation subpage and simply put a short comment with a link to it in the RFAR. Does that seem like a good solution? Vassyana (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That definitely works.. that way you have it where it needs to be, and you've made the ArbCom folks aware if it as well. SirFozzie (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC) (And, thank you for accepting my apology. Some days, the wikihistory smerges together in the memory. *shameful face*)

Eh, no harm no foul, it's friday, work stinks, so I probably was a bit more grumpier then I should have been myself. SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Block plz

Scorchedbythesun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - check the various histories starting at the top. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

W. Frank

You said WP:AE[1] but I can't see anything. Did you mean WP:TER? Tyrenius (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We're both wrong, I wanted to link to Thatcher's diff [2] on The Request for ArbCom talk page I blame fatigue :) SirFozzie (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Tyrenius (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to save you the trouble...[3] Tyrenius (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is on the WT:RfArb page, so that was a good link, Ty. SirFozzie (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiredness it seems. I got confused, because WT:RfArb came up as a red link. Shortcut is WT:RFARB. However, I've taken an alternative approach to the problem and created a shortcut for WT:RfArb also,[4] seeing as there is already one for WP:RfArb. Tyrenius (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The dreaded ANI / SqueakBox issue

I'm not here to rehash the issues about SqueakBox's deletion. I am here, however, to raise an issue I have with this edit. I don't think it's accurate to say that I'd been ignoring what you'd said. I read what you'd said, and it didn't address what I saw as a misreading/misquoting of Newyorkbrad's comment. I was, in effect, asking "what time is it" and you were answering "Sunday." I understand that, as ArbCom has stated, part of their brief is "to consider certain cases where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing." I'm not seeing where privacy precludes a public hearing about the deletion, since the deletion can be discussed without referencing any of the personally-identifying information that SqueakBox is concerned about. Leaving that aside, you really had no cause to allege that I hadn't read what you'd written, you've asserted that ArbCom has privacy issues under its remit when the actual ArbCom policy is more narrowly written than that, and asserted that I was employing the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum when, by definition, I hadn't. You went on to accuse me of wikilawyering and semantic tricks, among other things. You've misstated what Brad said and you've misstated what ArbCom's policy is. Now, you've misstated what I've said and done. These misstatements gravely concern me; There appears to be a disconnect here that's preventing us from communicating effectively, and I invite you to email me so we can resolve this off-wiki, as others' involvement may be having the effect of stirring the pot, so to speak. --SSBohio 04:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not in much of a mood to chat this evening (patriots fan).. but I'll try to email you sometime down the road. SirFozzie (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My condolences, Sir. Still, a 18-1 season isn't such a bad thing, even though the 1 happens to be the Super Bowl. Coincidentally, Squeak and I had a rather funny exchange when my Buckeyes were playing for the BCS championship. I closed a message with Go Bucks! and he was curious why I was talking about Buckinghamshire. Two countries separated by a common language and all that. --SSBohio 13:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AN Thread regarding checkuser

I posted what I hope was a somewhat more on-point response to your request on WP:AN. It does seem unusual to have such a high coincidence rate, but there is nothing really to measure it against. I'm no statistician, but generally statistical significance requires a variance from a norm - which in this case is hard to evaluate. Also, I'd like to see what happens now that the normal open proxies for one of the users is banned. It may be useful to redo the checkuser at some point in the near future - and continue, perhaps, to block open proxies until something falls out. ^Avruchtalk 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I concur with that bit about the checkusers. Speak to Lar, his response to the checkuser seems to indicate he was already investigating the possobility. Viridae^Talk 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is this bit: "They have edited 45 of the same articles." I'm not sure how to assign relevance to this, either. If Man has 5k edits, then you can assume he's edited hundreds, thousands or multiple thousands of pages. 45 of those in common with someone else isn't such a high correlation. On the other hand, if Sami has edited 70 articles... Then it might either indicate a suspiciously high correlation or that Sami is a SPA. ^Avruchtalk 00:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not so much the edit count that matters, but the number of unique pages edited in the mainspace in a significant manner. Viridae^Talk 02:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Well that evidence is reasonably compelling. Two things to note - CU logs are only kept for so long (check with ali as to how long) so a stuffup MAY have been made, but is no longer on the logs. The poor mans checkuser (could you give me a link to this) indicated they had a very very close median edit time, but your evidence shows absoloutely no crossover, something which would be extremely unlikely. The evidence is getting compelling indeed, especially in the light of the previous sockpuppetting used in exactly the same manner. Viridae^Talk 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Important not to jump the gun on these things. Dot all the i's, cross all the t's, and look for circumstances that might disprove the hypothesis. Durova^Charge! 07:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Being wary of confirmation bias. Viridae^Talk 07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. That's what we're tying to do here. For the Poor Man's CU .. BetaCommand came up with this, he suggested he could make a static page if I needed it so that's good. SirFozzie (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is reasonably compelling evidence that I haven't been editing much for the past few months. I haven't been editing much because I have other things to do, but also because of Bagley-inspired trolling that you are continuing by proxy. Now, thanks to you and your fellow Wiki Review contributors, I assume that Samiharris has been scared off the project so your evidence will be re-confirmed. If you have some diffs, some evidence of abusive editing, produce them. Stop this WordBombish nonsense. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that SirFozzie honored you and Samiharris by making a public decision to leave that site in protest against the methods its members had employed against you. Your response affects the likelihood of other people following SirFozzie's lead. Durova^Charge! 21:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how his carrying on the WordBomb/Bagley crusade on-Wiki "honors" me one bit. I really don't have problem with people ranting and raving on Wiki Review, and I am not sure I care if they quit that site or not. I do care when their hate campaigns and tactics wander over here.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing the message with the messenger yet again. Look, I know how hard it is to prove a negative, that you're not the same person. But can you tell me please about how two accounts with 5,000+ and 1,500+ edits, who edit at roughly the same time following each other.. Never, EVER cross-over?

I spent several hours last night going over a data dump of the date of the contributions of your account and of the account Samiharris. Over the more then a year (I want to say a year and a half, but I'm not at my home machine right now).. and the thousands of edits involved between the two accounts.. the two accounts do not cross over (IE, both folks editing at the same time).. EVER. For two accounts who have such a wide cross over (and editing periods being so similar, wouldn't you if you were coming in, consider that suspicious? That's just one of the factors that I'm considering in this.

Do I like you? Not really, to be honest. You and I have butted heads too many times recently, vehemntly and publically for me to be anything but truthful on that. Am I looking at the evidence, trying to proceed with the benefit of the doubt? Yes. You can claim that I'm "following the crusade of WordBomb". I disagree. I've stated my goal in all of this. Take it for what you will. SirFozzie (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're just betraying your own admitted prejudice. What you have here is evidence of the exact opposite of sockpuppetry or abusive edits, which is why you and WordBomb can't produce any diffs to support your jihad. If I was socking with Sami or vice versa, we'd be regularly backing each other up in the same article and not just bumping into each other now and then. You seem to be saying that "absence of evidence of sockpuppetry is evidence of sockpuppetry." That's just nutty.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there is evidence of that too. I just haven't gotten around to posting it, several times where the two accounts in question backed each other up in arguments, articles for deletion, and in merge discussions. But unlike others, I don't make Wikipedia my 24/7 life. I like to spend time working at my job, or my hobbies. Just because it hasn't been posted yet, doesn't mean it won't be posted at all.

I note you're still trying to link me with WordBomb.. because somehow, someway, you can't believe that a principled administrator would find this situation of great concern. The funny thing, it was a couple checkusers who originally suggested that it be taken to AN/ANI for a DUCK Test, because there was no way that a link could be proven or disproven, due to the open proxy use involved (I could come up with a "good for the goose" comparison here, considering that open proxy use is one of the things that certain people I could mention look upon as a sign of attack on WP, but that's a whole 'nother ball of beeswax, so let's leave that be for now.)

I brought the case before AN, as suggested. And I get attacked for it, not that I expected anything less, anyone who can read the first paragraph of the AN thread knows that I fully expected that I would be at Ground Zero of a major conflict. I post information why I believe this is so, and those who critique the EVIDENCE (and not just handwave away things because it was started by WordBomb), say they would like to see more evidence. So I am taking my own time, and my own effort to try to provide this effort. Others here on WP have assisted me with this evidence gathering (you can rest assured that none of the evidence that I've put together so far came from WR, except for maybe the initial CU request). So lay off the attempts to link me to a so-called jihad, it just makes you look silly and foolish. SirFozzie (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

May I step in? Mantanmoreland, you know I'm not popular with Wikipedia Review. I have no animosity toward you. If there are elements here that people are overlooking, please bring them to our attention. What we know so far is the following:

• You formerly used a second account in a way that brought a reprimand from Fred Bauder.
• Either you or Samiharris always edits from an open proxy.
• Both accounts share a lot of common interests, edit dozens of the same articles, and tend to agree with each other.
• Both accounts have rich edit histories containing thousands of edits, and often edit the same article during the same week.
• Both accounts edit during the same time of day; their average edit stamp is 10 minutes apart.
• The two accounts are never actually online simultaneously.

That's enough to raise a reasonable person's eyebrow. The methods that some people have used against you are deplorable, and if there is a way to set the doubts to rest it would not be wasted on me. I invite either you or Samiharris to provide it. For example, where have you disagreed with each other? Is your spelling consistently different in some way? You don't need to offer personal disclosures; two people who work closely together for a long time are likely to have a better understanding of their differences than anybody else. Some of those should be visible in the thousands of edits you've both made. Please point them out. Durova^Charge! 22:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all that is missing is evidence of sockpuppetry.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, one account clearly expected to be CU'd, so we don't have IP evidence. What kind of evidence should we demand, or should we just change our policies to say that sockpuppetry doesn't apply for users clever enough to edit from open proxies? Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're both right. This is entirely circumstantial; no smoking guns here. Back when SirFozzie and I investigated JB196, we discovered that both JB196 and BooyakaDell consistently misspelled the same word in edit summaries. JB196 had disclosed his real name onsite and published articles offsite; BooyakaDell attributed a citation to JB196's real name, even though that article had no byline. It would help very much to locate specific instances here that carry as much weight, whichever direction they lead. These edit histories are public. Both of you can help by examining them and supplying diffs. Durova^Charge! 04:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've responded (to Durova 22:55) by email. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

May I offer a chuckle? That looks like a scriptural citation. Durova^Charge! 19:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Book of Durova is between First Kings and Second Kings.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said Durova. Viridae^Talk 22:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Foz, there is also strong (circumstansial) evidence that Matanmoreland is (X (Sorry Viridae-SirFoz()), which would also add major COI issues to the case and may well be worth mentioning. Viridae^Talk 04:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, could I email you? When I said I had to run a few things about my report through the Foundation, that was one of them, and I'm doing my best to get a reply asap whether that is a bit of a minefield. SirFozzie (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

go for it, or I will be on IRC later in about 2 hours time. Viridae^Talk 04:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Viridae. owe ya one. Email sent. SirFozzie (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my additions. A few curious patterns. Users seem co-ordinated if not socks. Unclear why the Weiss torchpassing occurred, for example. Feel free to edit mercilessly! Cool Hand Luke 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As the saying goes, expect anything you contribute to Wikipedia to be edited mercilessly :) Thanks Luke, appreciated. SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Durova came up with a great suggestion for a sandbox page for the Investigation, to allow folks (pro and con and neutral alike) to post evidence, feelings, etcetera. Gimme a couple minutes to work this up. SirFozzie (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I suppose (?) for your deletion. Rather oddly, I seem to have been followed from Sarah's page and a statement that I made there - carefully tagged with ^{[wry joke]} - (that should be a giveaway!), taken as reflecting my opinion. It just goes to show: some people on Wikipedia have no sense of humour!

Incidentally, I once got a warning from Tyrenius for doing what you did. Consider yourself warned ^{[wry joke]}! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice ^{[wry joke]}. SirFozzie (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ping

You've got mail. Dureo (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Chill Pill Reference

I just think that you show a disproportionate amount of frustration over this issue. And I have been there too. You end up doing something stupid, or getting fed up and leaving. And that is not helpful to wikipedia, or to you. What happens if this doesn't go your way??? BETA 15:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Toldya http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASirFozzie&diff=187092362&oldid=186438873 BETA 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't go my way? I'll be disappointed (and a little bit less of a believer that the rules are supposed to apply to all folks), but suppose I'll have to live with it. SirFozzie (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you came back, BTW now that samiharris has retired, are you still interested in pursuing this matter? --BETA 17:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That wikibreak was from a couple weeks ago, I just never got around to removing my tags, that's all :) I am of two minds of it (that now that we are down to one account the basic problem (that possibly dual accounts building false consensus or double votes), and worrying about this: If proven true, this is at least the third account that Mantanmoreland has used in violation of Wikipedia's core principles regarding Sockpuppets. What's to prevent future accounts from being created? Is it worth the good faith when it's been proven otherwise? (again, trying to work my mind around it. SirFozzie (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

These guys are like drug dealers man, they will never stop. we cant stop drug dealers, viruses, serial killers, rapists, there is no victory but the one against yourself. When you can stare them in the eyes, and say "I don't care,give a flying #$&% what you do, you are unimportant" you have won, and that's all I'm sayin'BETA 18:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

They may not stop, but at least I've done my part. There's a commonly quoted line from English Irish Philosopher Edmund Burke about what happens if "good men do nothing", that's running through my mind. Truthfully, I hope this gets resolved one way or the other so all of us can get back to editing the encyclopedia (what we are here for in the first place). It's true I'm bringing this to a high boil, and it's messy in the short term.. but isn't it better then allowing things to boil quietly, until the water (editors) evaporate (leave the encyclopedia)? SirFozzie (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My research

I added my own research to the investigation page before you set up the sandbox. Please feel free to move it to the sandbox if you want, or let me know and I'll move it myself or leave it there, whichever way you prefer. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We can leave it there for now, but if you have anything else I welcome it on the sandbox page :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic, Part Ninety Billion

Please place protection on Free Republic. Lawrence Cohen and Eschoir are starting another edit war. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are actually the only one warring... Lawrence § t/e 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I don't have enough on my plate at the moment? As soon as I have time, I'm going to place a notice on the COI/N.. I have problems on both sides (Eschoir's possible CoI, and the probability of the other side being sock/meat puppets of a banned user), and don't have the time, the energy, or the willingness to scrutinize every edit on this. SirFozzie (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Esteemed SirFozzie: I have seen your characterization evolve from ""possible"" COI to more certain sentiments expressed elsewhere. It was formerly determined, as well as formally, and I will allow, that I had a COI, seven years ago. France had a COI with Germany in 1940, but I believe that dispute settled, too, and the French may edit the Merkel page to this day. Please don't let weariness with the sockpuppets ululations make this issue a fait accompli without a hearingEschoir (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you picked the wrong World War as your analogy, Eschoir. The Germans had a COI with France in 1914, and most of the world thought that dispute was settled in 1918. But the Germans held a grudge for more than two decades. Your actions are speaking louder than your words. On the Talk page, Shibumi2's description of your editing agenda is right on the money. You're trying to take out everything good, and stuff in everything bad. I have a COI because I hate Freepers. I know better than to edit that article. You should too. Neutral Good (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(Placed a topic heading so it shows up on my Table of Contents correctly SirFozzie (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

Speaking of your plate

I just wanted to pop by and let you know that it is very encouraging to see you taking the lead to conduct an honest and forthright examination of the concerns regarding those two users. Regardless of the outcome (I have no presupposed notions on what that will be), there is no doubt that a thorough review is being carried out with integrity and a genuine desire to have this resolved for the good of both the encyclopedia and the editors involved. Thanks. Risker (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker. Appreciated that people understand the situation I'm in. SirFozzie (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic

Please be more specific about what you don't like about my comments on this talk page. (I didn't mean them to be anonymous -- I guess I just hadn't signed in.) Lou Sander (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Might be your flagrant personal attack of "Eschoir is one of the most notorious trolls on the Internet."[5] Lawrence § t/e 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Google the word "Eschoir." The word "notorious" is a good word. Neutral Good (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "might be?" I'd like to understand what you feel is wrong, and I'm hoping you (SirFozzie) can be specific. Lou Sander (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling people trolls is not allowed. I'm not going to let the two sides continue a fight off wikipedia using this as a battleground. SirFozzie (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry I used the word. It is a fact that Eschoir has a long and extraordinarily disruptive history regarding Free Republic. I hope we aren't required to disregard it. Lou Sander (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due regard, it is not a fact and nobody is required to assume it and furthermore it has nothing to do with the qualiity of my edits. Eschoir (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your sandbox

No problem. I don't think such a thing could be proved, even though my interactions with Samiharris made me strongly suspicious of a COI. I would also like to stay focused on the alleged sock puppeteering. Cool Hand Luke 04:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing PROD tag - Belfast Naturalists' Field Club

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Belfast Naturalists' Field Club, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. The link to the contesting edit can be found here. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting my talk page

IP users that vandalise like that are really difficult to deal with. Fnagaton 19:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to need an sprotect on my page as well regarding this. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

More information

• [6], [7], [8] and associated edits. However, after this instance he quit doing it and that should have been the end of it. Fred Bauder (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland‎ beat you to it ;) SirFozzie (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This only covers one aspect of the issue. The RfC I was thinking of would detail the entire saga- who did what and when from beginning to end, including all substantially involved editors and admins. But, I think Durova's RfC is an appropriate action. Cla68 (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, there are BLP issues to consider with aspects of this. And I wrote Wikipedia:NAM#The_ewwww_factor at about the same time SirFozzie started this investigation. This could very well have gotten a serious look far sooner if it weren't for distaste regarding the tactics one side had been pursuing; I know I considered trying an undertaking like this nearly half a year ago. How this case will play out I can't really say, but if something like it occurs in future you'd do a real service by standing up for fair play. Durova^Charge! 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahem!

Please don't remove legitimate threads, as you did at User talk: Alison ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:DTTR WP:DFTT. YHBT. YHL. EIEIO. SirFozzie (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC) :D

That's not a template! I typed it out especially :( What's that one Tony Sidaway or Kelly Martin used about acronyms? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yer nutty, Hack. That's why we get along so well :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oi!! :D - Alison ^❤ 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

re Re: your message on Durova's Talk Page

Do you mind if I email you? SirFozzie (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For defending the wiki from the vampires within and the torch-wielding villagers without. Or something - you know what I mean. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(I hope you don't have some objection to barnstars; I don't give out many, but this one is sorely, sorely deserved.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated, Sarcasticidealist. SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of torch-wielding villagers, you had chance to look at that thing yet? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.. Interesting.. I'll have more later (but there's a lack of why A/B/C/D are person X that I saw on a quick run through). SirFozzie (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment

Regarding your comment here: I for one couldn't care less about sensitivities that never played any role whatsoever in the opposite direction. And it's a real simple story: Yes — or no. I'm certain a simple statement to that effect would be highly appreciated by many. If it's not true, it shouldn't hurt to simply say so, without evading the question. And it is thanks to Jimbo that the elephant is now in the room, as Whitstable just said in their edit summary.

But if it is indeed true, then we're dealing with serious violation of WP:COI, among other policies. People have been aggressively bullied, reverted, accused of stalking and harassment, and blocked for even mentioning the suspicion as such. This means that iff it is true, several admin bits are at stake here. User:Dorftrottel 16:20, February 13, 2008

I can understand where you're coming from. I'm just mentioning where I'm coming from. I have standards that I need to live up to, for me, if for no-one else. SirFozzie (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok and thanks. Your standards are held in high regard, by me and many. User:Dorftrottel 16:24, February 13, 2008

TER

Your input on my witch burning would be most appreciated, time permitting. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:David Lauder

David Lauder is a substantial content contributor, and in my experience of him (when he edits medieval history articles), he is not a tendentious editor. I have his word that he is not the same as these users. Can I request David Lauder's case and block be reviewed before action as permanent as an indefinite block is sanctioned? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He can post an unblock request, but I'd advise you look at the Request for CheckUser response first: Note that this does not confirm the people are one, but I can confirm that they have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other.. SirFozzie (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I did read that. It seems very incriminating I won't deny ... but he has no reason to lie to me in private. He seems genuinely baffled. I'm just trying to make sure a wrong (both to him and wikipedia) isn't done in haste. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I took the liberty of updating the pages in your submission by adding where the discussion has been consolidated to. --Michael Snow (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you want to go through the links in my actual statement, please do. I'm stuck in work-hell for a couple more hours SirFozzie (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Request for discussion on recent deletion

Hi. I was simply responding to an email sent to me by Counter-revolutionary and, for the record, have no part in the accusations/activities/whatever it is for or against him - presumably he chose me at random to request this.

It's fine if you want to undelete the page. Seeing as the 'pedia is swamped by red-tape nowadays, I have to admit I don't read any of it or care to update myself, so I'm not familiar with how to deal with it situations like this. I imagine you're more knowledgable than I am on things like this, so knock yourself out :-)

Regards, Craigy (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Craigy. Much appreciated. SirFozzie (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Sir Fozzie, if it was a courtesy deletion, it might be better to discuss it by e-mail. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I realize that the game seems a bit rigged for how we have to provide much more evidence than ever asked before, but we're fortunate that there were a lot of clues. I fear that we would never reach this standard with editors only slightly more skilled, but I hope this inspires some internal reform. Cool Hand Luke 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Free Republic

Yes I was trying to archive something. Please review Archive 10. The "missing material" is all there. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Had it.

Since I have run out of funny comments to make when fixing SineBot's little additions to anything I write, and since I was edit conflicted three times just now on the RfArb talkpage, I have made this edit. You might be interested. Relata refero (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• laughs* I'll have to consider it, I'm just more pissed at myself for forgetting these things constantly, and I take it out on the bot ;) SirFozzie (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits

Another editor being rather unpleasant to Vintagekits [9], not that I'm by any means fond of VK but it did not seem fair that he should have to take such abuse but be unable to respond due to his 1RR. The message on the Talk Page [10] was also needlessly provocative. I wasn't too sure what to do about it. Justin talk 19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made note of the situation on the users talk page and the article's talk page. Thanks for letting me know. SirFozzie (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's worth looking at it in more depth. This is the version before VK edited it. Look at the messed up "Personal life" section. These are the edits he made, moving the section to a probably more sensible place and removing the broken ref that was fudging up the article. Yeah, clearly vandalism! :P This is the version the other editor left. Not only did he actually move the section to where VK put it in the first place (after reverting it all back claiming vandalism), but I suggest you scroll down to the bottom of the article and see if you spot the problem? There's only one problem editor on that article, and it isn't VK (for a change!). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at this and concur with ONiH. Vk's edits are all perfectly appropriate. I'll have a word with the other editor and remind him to work with more experienced editors like Vk. Rockpocket 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

For info, same editor has been taunting VK on his talk page following his block, VK responded in kind. Justin talk 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL

As far as I understand it, you are not correct in the weight you are giving to the real life legal issue, which is actually something that Wikipedia does not get involved with. It is a matter for the parties concerned. A user will usually be blocked for the duration of such an undertaking, but this is a precautionary measure, not a punitive one. Note the policy wording, "If you do choose to take legal action, please refrain from editing until it is resolved and note that your user account or IP address may be blocked." Furthermore, such a block becomes null, once the legal action is resolved. If someone does have a legal issue, the correct thing is to deal with it in real life, and keep it off wiki. You regard this as a worse action than making a threat on wiki. In real terms it may well be, but in terms of wiki's jurisdiction, it is not. That is why this needs to be looked at again, because your judgement is based on an erroneous, though understandable, basis. Maybe the outcome will be the same, but there should be clarity about the reasons. I am not attempting to AGF, nor necessarily defending the user, so much as trying to establish the correct parameters. I am interested in consistency and justice being seen to be done. However, although I haven't mentioned it, I do think there are mitigating circumstances for Robert I (etc)'s initial reaction, which it is probably best not to go into detail over here. You can email if you want. Also WP:BLP has moved on considerably since then, and the whole issue might well have been seen in a different light if it happened now. If you don't agree with my comments regarding RL legal issues, I think we should ask ArbCom for a ruling on this. Tyrenius (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ty, I never thought I'd be saying this, but.. are you kidding me? Sure there was mitigating circumstances for Robert I, being new and all.. but there's no mitigating circumstances for coming back as another user ONE WEEK after being banned and REissuing legal threats. And then registering more sockpuppet accounts when THAT one was banned. SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condoning that behaviour, but it happened 18 months to 2 years ago. There is not, as far as I know, any legal threat or issue at the moment. Users are only banned for the duration of the threat or RL legal proceedings: ArbCom was quite clear about that. The more pertinent issue is recent behaviour with socks and vote stacking. Tyrenius (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The legal threats were, to the best of my knowledge, never retracted or apologized for, so they are still live (especially the first one, the ArbCom one). I know you're all for last chances, Ty.. but this is beyond the pale. Not to mention the socks trying to get the main sock unblocked so they would have yet ANOTHER person to get stuck in the editwars. SirFozzie (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Edchilvers, who was the target of the threat, accepted in October 2006 that it was no longer in force and supported the unblocking of Sussexman.[11] The socks and votestacking are an issue in their own right. Tyrenius (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ty, then David Lauder can always take his case to ArbCom. I will even preemptively file one if he so wishes. Maybe I'll add some of the other folks in who insist that this whole thing is a kangaroo court, because "OMG, ONiH and Alison talk to each other". (I see the 2nd checkuser has gone even farther then Ali did in naming accounts. SirFozzie (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Was he the target of the first legal threat? That's the one the ban (as opposed to block) was for. As documented on AN, there's been ample evasion of ArbCom remedies, if there's any attempt to unblock I'm insisting on this going to ArbCom. Also you've got the fact that Christchurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now a confirmed sock (and I can produce plenty of evidence to prove that's linked to David Lauder apart from the checkuser if needed) and has been editing while David Lauder is indef blocked. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was only aware of one legal threat pertaining to certain information concerning a crime that was included in an article. Was there another about something else? There's been evasion of ArbCom remedies. I'm proposing that therefore ArbCom enforcement should be applied. Tyrenius (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I - Robert I was banned for one year for legal threats (I'm unaware who they were directed at due to the evidence/workshop pages and the original article being deleted). That was the first legal threat, the second legal threat was the solicitor's letter that Ed Chilvers received that led to Sussexman's block.

Let's examine the evasion:

• The original one year ban on Robert I was evaded almost instantly. Not only that, but he made further legal threats, which is what got him banned in the first place!

• The one year ban on Robert I editing "articles which relate to Gregory Lauder-Frost and his political activities" was evaded using the Sussexman and Chelsea Tory accounts, and doubtless some IPs as well.

• Robert I being required to edit only when logged in and using one account (which has no time limit) has been evaded, using IPs, and four different accounts.

And in addition to those you've got - votestacking in ArbCom elections, AfD debates and other discussions. You've got the evasion of Sussexman's indef block, you've got the evasion of David Lauder's indef block, you've got the vast amount of sockpuppetry that clearly isn't covered by WP:SOCK etc etc

This person has shown nothing but contempt for the entire way Wikipedia works, no matter what remedies are made he ignores them. So do you really think he'll accept probation? He's not accepted any sanction that's been issued to him to date! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

Mine should be enabled. Is there a problem? Anyway, it's my user name, then the "at" then googlemail.com. (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ping, Fozzie. Check your inbox! - Alison ^❤ 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

read it, and replied Ali. SirFozzie (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A word in someone's ear

This stunt looks a lot like disruptive editing to me. Perhaps a gentle warning that "When it snows, it's time to go" would be in order. Choess (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given my 2 pfennigs on the issue. I hope that the folks I aim it at recognize it for the warning it is. SirFozzie (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought a brief message from someone who knew the score, as it were, would be the best way to quiet things without undue drama. Choess (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

SirFozzie,
A user named Vintagekits is now about to delete a page that I created Haroon Khan since the user thinks that it doesn't have a lot of evidence to prove that it is indeed okay to be on Alot of users have said that it is okay Via email. Can you please sort this out while I go back and fix the article on last time!--Lil'GKhan (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC) TAKE CARE & BE MERRY!

It's not tagged for deletion. It just has a request to prove that it qualifies for an article under Wikipedia's standards of notability. SirFozzie (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it is not tagged for deletion but the user said they would delete it or get it nominated for deletion...Out of curiosity when is the user going to be unblocked--Lil'GKhan (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC) TAKE CARE & BE MERRY!

Vintagekits 2

Not champagne.

Hmmmm. So you have blocked V-kits forever for sock-puppetry? I wonder how reliable your "tests" are? (Remember Derova etc?) Also I'm somewhat concerned at the attention paid to the Giano supporters in the election - is there similar attention paid to the support for others? To the contributors on "massacres" for instance? And what constitutes a "block avoidance"? If some abusive Admin blocks your own talk page because you aren't tugging the forelock hard enough, what else can you do? I, for one, wouldn't hesitate to change IP (WP:BEANS advises me not to expand here) to get my voice out though I wouldn't try to conceal my identity. BTW, none of this is out of any concern that you will discover any puppets of any kind in my case - (A) because I don't do it and (B) like (I suspect) many editors you'd never catch me even if I decided to! But meat-puppets?? One could (WP:BEANS caution) easily frame someone on that charge. We need registration and transparency here; not a police state. I can't say you did a good days work on Vk - but I did warn him. Nonetheless, I am somewhat depressed by what has happened. Sarah777 (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a checkuser block. Airtight, completely. SirFozzie (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And I see User:David Lauder is gone. How many editors are the same person?! Sarah777 (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, that thought has run through my mind, oh, about 200 times.. SirFozzie (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever thought that "The Troubles" related disputes could actually be about two people on either side (plus a host of English editors of course)? (I have sometimes wondered I must admit!) You beat me to it! Sarah777 (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, this makes me really angry. How can editors publicly condemn others [12] [13] when they know they did the same thing themselves? It beggars belief. It frustrates and saddens me to think how many hours have been wasted, many like yourself showing remarkable amounts of good faith, when we were all being played for fools again and again. I guess perhaps now, though, there may be light at the end of the Troubles tunnel. Two principle agitators gone and a clear message what will happen to anyone else, on either side, should they step out of line.... and God help anyone who even thinks about popping champagne.... Rockpocket 08:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all a big stitch-up by the Irish Republican Cabal. Oh...damn! Now, who's for a nice relaxing cup of tea? ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish breakfast tea, I hope. You have mail, btw, ONiH. Rockpocket 08:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

and God help anyone who even thinks about popping champagne.... Notably, when Astrotrain went looking for the champagne on WikiReview, I thought about taking some action on general principles.. (especially after the kicking I took over there, at one point they claimed I was the ringleader of the Irish Republican Cabal. *snerk*).. good thing I'm not on WikiReview Staff. And of course, you can't block someone here for a smartass remark there. SirFozzie (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Smart?! Hardly the word... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

and God help anyone who even thinks about popping champagne....: no-one should be drinking champagne - it's Lent.--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin is a language

Please, re Sir Fozzie, @ MM's arbcom case: (It's all fun and games, till ArbCom puts an eye out) - I have been trying to track down the original quote here for ages! It's to do with the training of gladiator's, isn't it? If you have any further information, I would be greatful.Newbyguesses - Talk 08:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the quote is "It's all fun and game, till someone loses an eye" and the quote is by my mom :D SirFozzie (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's one that's borrowed from an oft-used English mom's quote - "you'll have someone's eye out with that". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RichSatan's removal of comments at Talk:Games Workshop

Hi Foz, hope things are good with you. I'm sorry to burden you with this but could you keep an eye on the situation at Talk:Games Workshop. Last night User:RichSatan made this edit to the talk page, removing his old comments and refactoring mine. I've reverted it and left him a note on his talk page refferring him to WP:TALK and explaining how using "strike through" is the accepted etiquette here on WP. This might just be a mistake he's made but would you mind sticking that page (and possibly my talk page and his talk page) on your watch list - just in case--Cailil ^talk 14:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Watching all three. SirFozzie (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

bombing campaign

Fozz I’m no wilting violet (as you know) but this is a bit strong, one of the posse canvassed for support. O look another one, what’s this rent a mob. --Domer48 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All taken care of for the moment, Domer. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Foz I wasn't shouting WP:CIVIL I always use caps for wikilinks just a habit I have but I will amend that practice if it is the wrong thing to do. BigDunc (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No Dunc, wasn't referring to your comment, was referring to Domer's "NO IT WILL BE DISCUSSED FIRST", comment. SirFozzie (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh right sorry.BigDunc (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, no harm no foul :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hands up on that one. No excuse. Thanks Fozz. --Domer48 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just don't be letting it happen again, Domer.. recent events have left me on short fuse with regards to the usual faces in the usual places. SirFozzie (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On a short fuse! Have you seen my talk page? Its so far of the map, its not funny. Do me a favour would ye, have a word with this little trumpted up F*** would you. Because if I say anything right now, I know your going to let me know about it right quick. Rock is pointing a very dirty stick around, and I'm not having it. --Domer48 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have calmed down a bit now. Could you have a word with this editor though, I don't think they took you serious considering their follow up on it. Thanks Fozz. --Domer48 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello. My name is Stephen Dixon (call me Drance though). I am currently looking to be readopted. My former adopter went into hiding soon after she gave me permission to seek another adopter. I was wondering if you would be willing to take the job.

Drance ^{I know 7}

Unfortunately, Sir Drance, I am.. as one of my friends put it.. "Busier than a One-legged man, in a buttkicking contest" at the moment, so cannot accept new adoptees at this time. But if you do have questions and can't find anyone to ask, let me know and I will do what I can. SirFozzie (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Counter-revolutionary

Why is Counter-revolutionary unblocked? The consensus is pretty clear that this is a serial abuser of sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Guy, it's complicated, but per the checkuser result that this was more like a friend or a student/mentor type thing then a direct sockpuppet, and the several people offering concern on the AN thread that an indefinite block was over the top, I offered C-r a compromise, that he A) No longer proxy for "David Lauder" and B) Limit his contributions to one account, which he accepted. I've seen a few edits since that I'm not too sanguine about.. [14] But am being pulled in about 9 million different directions at once, so I cannot fully monitor his edits. If you feel he is violating the terms of that parole, let me know, and I will take action. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a word

Fozz im not happy with this implied threat here this kind of behaviour must not be tolerated as has been shown by the shit Rockpocket had to put up with. A stand must be taken against editors who leave messages with implied threats. BigDunc (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also have just been looking over his page User talk:Feline1 and there is a significant history of attacks on editors.BigDunc (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help

Hello SirFozzie. Could you deliver a posting for me to One Night In Hackney's personal page, complimenting his 'Sockpuppet spray can'? Here's the message Luv the spray can ONIH (it's a genuine compliment). I'd do it myself, but I'm banned from his personal page (unjustifiably IMHO). GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, could you ask him to lift his ban, on me? GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use

[15] the tag on this is wrong, it's a fair use image, not self made. I don't know how to change it.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. I happened to be passing :) I added {{coatofarms}} and {{logo fur}} and filled out the details - you might want to tweak around with the wording but it should be just fine now - Alison ^❤ 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ali. For the folks above I've missed, I will try to get to you asap, I'm straight out today! SirFozzie (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic amended

In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."

All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Wikipedia policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your note

SirFozzie, I appreciate all the work you have done in trying to unearth the truth, and encourage you to continue. However, BLP violations are not tolerated on WP. If we mention any derogatory allegation about a living person, it must be supported by reliable sources. This applies to any page on the Wikipedia site, and unsourced material may be immediately removed by anyone. As I explained to Patrick on his talk page, we welcome properly sourced material, while rejecting unsourced allegations. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better for a clerk to remove BLP violations, but per WP:BLP anyone can do it, from any page. Please do not restore BLP violations. Crum375 (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I missed her pp due to ec, but I fixed it. Crum375 (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

SineBot

Lulz. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, SineBot and I go way back. I've also told it I hope it's AC Power Supply gets connected to a DC power outlet, and that I hope it has a horrible accident with an electromagnet. SirFozzie (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was glad the day HagermanBot died. --Deskana (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just four little marks (~~~~) that will keep that scrapheap from bothering you. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If SineBot isn't careful he'll be having an encounter with a recharge socket and five thousand volts of direct current! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to work SineBot to a frazzle! Newbyguesses - Talk 14:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Time out!

Given I missed the episode that led to protection of /Evidence, and I may be off-line tomorrow, I will probably just add some DIFFs and un-provocative comments to my #Proposal-Newbyguesses section. Would you care to delete or comment out the unused sub-sections in #Time out? There wont be any use for them, I shouldn't think, but if you comment them out, they can be resurrected if needed. It makes the page easier to read, and i have a very slow system, thanks. Newbyguesses - Talk 14:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Request an overview

For clarity this issue is discussed at Talk:Feminism#Persons_of_interest

Hi again Foz, this must be my week for bugging you - sorry about that. I'd like you to give an outside view of an edit I made at feminism. I removed Benazir Bhutto from a list of Islamic feminists. Because that inclusion was sloppy. Yes Bhutto is a feminist and a Muslim but an Islamic feminism is a movement, one bound up with reform of Muslim theology. This edit uses this edit summary:

(→Islamic feminism: rmv Benazir Bhutto from list. Although notable as a female political leader in an Islamic country, Bhutto was not actually an Islamic feminist activist)

I made a point of saying she was not an Islamic feminist - because obviously she is a feminist in the broader sense.

After making this edit I was accused of povpushing by User:Blackworm, who has a history with me and with other editors from wikiproject gender studies. This history can be seen here and here and here, oh and the edit summary here). He makes this assertion in this thread. Also note that he has not reverted just made this claim against me on talk page. In the AN thread I asked Blackworm not to post on my talk page again - he has honoured my request and I in turn have not left a message on his.

For the record I have no issues with Bhutto or anything she said. I have read a few books on the subject of Islamic feminism, but not hundreds. I am tired of having to deal with these assumptions of bad faith. My explanation of my edit may not have been my best talk page posting ever, and perhaps I was incorrect in my decision to remove Bhutto from the list, but Blackworm has (and not for the first time) ABFed and declared me a povpusher - which is quite a claim - he could simply have asked me why i did it rather than making these remarks. I'm tired now, so I could do with a neutral pair of eyes taking a look over the situation. If I'm wrong here please tell me.

BTW, I can provide diffs if necessary but I thought links more appropriate now--Cailil ^talk 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, thanks for dealing with the issue at Talk:Games Workshop--Cailil ^talk 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, SirFozzie. I deny the accusation that I accused Cailil of povpushing. I said that Cailil's removing of text and his edit summary violated WP:NPOV. Do you believe that amounts to an accusation of povpushing? By the way, this is the second time Cailil has accused me of accusing Cailil of povpushing -- nowhere have I EVER used that word or implied the sentiment and Cailil has failed to respond to my previous demands for evidence backing the accusation. I claim that Cailil, in fact, is the one failing to AGF. Anyway I'm happy you two know each other and have had fruitful collaboration in the past. I do not understand, however, why Cailil is soliciting your opinion in this matter after a single post from me, and making such highly questionable accusations. Blackworm (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry for clogging up your talk space Fozzie. However, Blackworm has made a number of points that are not accurate. First off this is the diff I'm referring to above (please note its edit summary). He has accused me of POVpushing in this instance: (from the first diff in this post)

Of course, some feminists deny that Bhutto was a feminist, because they disagree with some of what Bhutto said; but Wikipedia should not embrace that point of view especially considering Bhutto self-identified as feminist.[16] Cailil's edit and edit summary removing Bhutto from the list violate WP:NPOV.

Secondly, the historical issue with Blackworm (which he refers to as the first time I brought povpushing up) was in relation to this post to WT:GS in which he accuses the project of being "a collective of pro-feminist editors." I have never shirked on evidence in regard to this issue. I can provide diffs to his continual ABF if you want, however I'm simply asking for a WP:3O on my edit. I'm disengaged until further notice. Once again, sorry for clogging up your talk-space--Cailil ^talk 12:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem Cailil, and I'm sorry for how busy I am (working from home on a major work project).

I'll try to get to it as soon as possible. SirFozzie (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No response to me, SirFozzie? Has Cailil already biassed you against me personally, or is Cailil a personal friend? The quote above in no way is an accusation of povpushing on Cailil's part, nor did I ever accuse the project of being a collective of pro-feminist editors (although I don't see why that accusation would be unwelcome, are pro-feminist editors automatically povpushers?), and I would appreciate it if Cailil would stop these continued false accusations and personal attacks. Blackworm (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And by the way Cailil, WP:3O lists a series of steps to follow for listing disputes maintaining neutrality -- going to an admin you know, pleading your case and injecting personal bias against your opponent without telling your opponent you have done so, is not called for by WP:3O, and cannot be referred to as "asking for a WP:3O." Please don't use official language to describe your informal requests for support from editors you know; it is misleading. Blackworm (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good

You beat me to it by two minutes. Endorse block, good call. Although I was actually going to make it longer. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic again (sigh)

Pardon, but I wish to impose on you to the extent that you would express an opinion on whether Shibumi2's two reversions of discussed and sourced content today fit with your recent guidance, also he expresses a desire in talk to use an affidavit to support a point of view he acknowledges pushing. Thanks. Eschoir (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk with MastCell, he's watching over the article during my convalesence from injury. SirFozzie (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, SirFozzie

Hello,
SirFozzie I would like you to nominate a page Image:Picture 81.jpg for deletion, I can't seem to delete it. Yes, I uploaded it for my page but now I do not need it anymore, It is indeed a picture of me.
Thank You. --~*~Lil'GKhanster~*~Take Care & Live Life (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, Thank you anywaysUser:Lil'GKhan