User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 27

Possible sockpuppet

Hello. A disruptive editor called User:Renkaw Gib was recently blocked. I noticed one of his edits being this: [1]. Since his block, I have noticed two IPs that are clearly the same user pushing for similar edits and warring against established users in the process. I am all in favour of talking but the comments left by the IPs in the summary points to some concensus which in reality has never happened. See these edit history pages: [2] and [3] (which I see you have dealt with). Do you feel there may be a connection here? Can the pages have their protection levels increased? Thanks for your time. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 02:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the articles for a bit. SirFozzie (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello again SirFozzie. I think the blocked disruptive puppet master User:Wikipéire is back again on the Andy Murray page, forever restoring United Kingdom where constituent nations are more appropriate. He is IP hopping as ever; I believe that the only way to drill the message into him is to introduce a protection level on the article, atleast a first stage setting that will exclude IPs and non-established users. Either that, or it is a constant edit war. I know that it has been said that it does not count as an edit war if this user happens to be one of the belligerents but we all have better things to do than running backward and forward to tackle trolls. Thanks. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed your measure on the Andy Murray article. Thanks for your help. Best wishes. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Those buttons can be so evil

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Congratulations on joining the ever expanding and illustrious ranks of admins whose silly forms have talked them in to blocking themselves. Shell babelfish 13:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

He's a repeat offender. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:84.203.69.106

I take it they will have to get an account, since it's block evasion? Or do you think that could be the sock? SGGH ^ping! 01:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I unblocked for now, we'll see if the sock reappears.. There's a good chance that this is not the persistent sockpuppeter.. but we'll see. SirFozzie (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Indef block of editor ANobody.

Sir Fozzie, back in April you indeffed blocked the legendary editor A Nobody, as a creative solution to ensuring Arbcon would be notified if he returned to editing. While that may have seemed reasonable at the time, administrator KWW has objected to one of ANobodys friends editing his user page with reference to WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned users - diff This raises several problems with the indef. Folk dont seem to be getting the message it was purely intended as a technical device. ANobody may now be aware that a hostile admin is watchlisting his page, and as he finds Wikipedia stressful will be deterred from posting an unblock.

There doesn't seem to be any need for this out of process indef block, which can clearly be interpreted in an unfair way, as ANobody is too high profile to return to editing without a high probability that someone will report his return to Arbcon. In light of this, please can you unblock editor ANobody? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to list A Nobody as a banned user, or to do anything that goes with it. Also, at this time, I see no reason to lift the indef. If and when A Nobody feels up to returning full time he can do so by posting an unblock request (which should immediately be granted), and the ArbCom case should be opened at that time. I don't see a problem with the housekeeping being done. SirFozzie (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody hypothetical

I think people are trying to make a distinction where there is no difference. As a hypothetical, assume that an editor was editing articles under e-mailed directions from A Nobody. Wouldn't you treat that exactly the same as we would someone that was editing articles under e-mailed directions from a banned user, on the basis that such an editing arrangement was being done to avoid the Arbcom case?

I'll agree that A Nobody has been convicted of nothing, and shouldn't be treated as if he has been. However, he is blocked, and any proxying, meatpuppeting, or sockpuppeting is still unacceptable. There's no reason that he can't perform any edits to his talk page himself, and there's no reason to deal with communications and actions being relayed through a third-party.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Email

Please check. Tommy2010 16:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Received and replied. SirFozzie (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a second one. Thanks, Tommy2010 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody editing

I believe that these two edits to an AfD were made by A Nobody (talk · contribs), who, as I understand it, isn't supposed to be editing on WP unless it's to address his arbitration case. (He's edited from dynamic AOL IPs before when he's been blocked.) Is there anything that can be done about such block evasion? Deor (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have posted these to fellow checkusers to review. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I opened WP:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody before seeing this conversation.—Kww(talk) 18:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

fyi:

• another IP
• imported to wikia:annex
• tit-for-tat
  (a cross-wiki-diff; left was on en:wp, right is post-wikia-import)
• Deor blocked on another wikia subdomain

Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

For your consideration;

• User:Comfort shoe

new and blocked, and there's discussion at WP:ANI#Courtesy Break (WP:ANI#Canvassing section, really) and User talk:Bali ultimate#On socking

Good catch on the other IP. I'm wondering if this moves him into bantown...

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP again

Hello, I thought you'd be interested that the banned puppet master User:Wikipéire is back to his usual on the Andy Murray article, asserting his preferences for United Kingdom where everywhere else, the constituent nations take precedence. This IP is clearly within the same range as this one] that slipped through the net. The point is you can lock the page for as long as you like, I doubt that this one user will ever relent on this issue. Can you atleast block the IP range and lock the page again? User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. SirFozzie (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

One big thank you! User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Naked Short Selling

Thank you very much for your notice that Germany's ban of naked short selling has already been mentioned.--Fox1942 (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

cheers

Thanks.

But I'm here because I saw you in a block log and thought you might like to know about this gem from the user. Cheers, Jack Merridew

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Note re Lar/Polargeo

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

1. Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
2. Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
3. Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
4. Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
5. Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm recused in this area, but hopefully all parties (not saying any one at fault or wrong, but all parties) will cut this out. As I insinuated in the discussion, I have a feeling that if an omnibus case gets accepted, there will be a large amount of unhappy people in that area. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:81.187.71.75

I just thought you'd like to be informed that 81.187.71.75 (a.k.a Maiden City) is active again. Starting his/her disruptive edits as soon as the previously enforced two month block expired. See City of Derry Airport history, previous to my last three reverts.--NorthernCounties (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. IP Blocked for Six months this time. Let's see if it works. SirFozzie (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Fozzie! =] He's such a pain!--NorthernCounties (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a pity...

...though I don't regret assuming good faith, I did have high hopes. Oh well...! TFOWR^{is this too long?} 10:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

List of pitchers who have retired 28 straight batters in a nine-inning MLB game

I was hangon patrolling and happened to notice this odd article. This would appear to me to be a possible attempt to do an end–run around your full protection of Armando Galarraga. FYI, your call. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Email

Poke.   Will Beback  talk  09:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied, Will. Thanks for the reminder. SirFozzie (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Recent Deletion

Why you delete my page?

Dont get why think it was a Hoax  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCoyAgent (talk • contribs) 07:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 

Because it was? SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Koman Coulibaly... did I miss something?

Hi SirFozzie, thanks for participating in consensus gathereing over at Koman Coulibaly. Um... could you please explain your edit summary here? You said I "took too much out" but um... I didn't remove anything at all. I restored the earlier wording (which you agreed to in discussion) and I added the previous editor's comment about the final standings not being affected. Your edit actually removed some of the wording you'd said was ok in discussion? So... what was the edit for? Thanks,

-- Joren (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

you've got mail

Hi Fozzie, just dropping you a line to say I've sent you an email. It might be nothing but I think it's worth a look--Cailil ^talk 14:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just letting you know I've received it. Mind if I let others take a look at it too? SirFozzie (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all - hope it makes sense. If you need anything more from me just ask--Cailil ^talk 21:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

A lock was requested on article "Pamela Jones" and I can't abide this. There is no controversy, except maybe the deletion of the "Health issues" section. All is nominal, but I feel the article has just been trolled in the Talk page. Please give us a look, and also on Groklaw, if you have a logon there (I thought you did).

—Aladdin Sane (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I do, but let me see what's going on. SirFozzie (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to provide a more detailed rationale at an Arbcom amendment request

...At your statement here [4]. As it stands now it's only one sentence. Could you please write a few more sentences explaining why you've taken this standpoint? Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have tried to expand my answer at this point. Hope this helps. SirFozzie (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I wish it were longer, but I'm willing to believe there are some confidentiality considerations, or least-said-is-soonest-mended ones. I appreciate the reply. Novickas (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick flavour please

Semi protect my userpage and usertalk page please, the former is uncontroversial and the latter is due to incessant bleating by banned and topic-banned editors, my edit notice means any IP editors that need to contact me know what to do. thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

deleting my comments

I see you have deleted my comments, why have you done that? Have I violated any policy? Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Why have you rev del'd my comments? Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, what happened is that some of the comments in that discussion (not yours) came very close (if not outright over) the line that we have to enforce. I needed to get all the edits that was in that section. The user in question is banned from en-wp, and I think that any further discussion of that user needs to happen over on meta and commons. (Sorry, it took me a while to figure out how to say that, and write it up). SirFozzie (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is rubbish, and knee jerk, I object to my comments being rev deleted when I have not violated any policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat offended that you deleted my comments as well. I don't see how linking to discussions on other projects is a BLP violation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Choosing my words carefully here... sorry. There was an allegation of ongoing, active criminal conduct in that thread, which was the reason for its deletion. I, like every other person with the CheckUser/Oversight ability, can be reported to the Audit Subcommittee if you believe I'm in error. (naturally, I would recuse from the discussion, being a part of the AUSC currently). This is why the policy states anything like this has to be done privately, because of the disruption that it can cause. SirFozzie (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an all too keen desire to use the additional tools that have been trusted to them without much real investigation or qualification, as in seen him around clearly won't misuse the mop type comments. I appreciate at least you saying that my comments that you deleted did not violate any policy or guideline. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the thread now, and to be honest I can't see an easy way to deal with it discretely without rev-del-ing all of it. That's no reflection on your comment, Rob: it's simply due to the way the thread was started. I'd hope the community realises that having a revision deleted isn't necessarily any reflection on a particular editor: I've deleted edits I've made because they were sandwiched between an WP:OUTING and my redaction (the outing wasn't by me, and you can see the gory details on ANI if you're curious). TFOWR 22:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and unsolicited, definitely - but I suspect Rob knows that. I stalk him ;-) TFOWR 23:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm sorry Rob thinks I'm attacking him. I tried to explain, and apparently it's not getting through. :( SirFozzie (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I hope that wasn't a comment about Fozzie's action here - he did what he had to. It's unfortunate that your edits got caught up in the bit that needed to be removed, but that happens from time to time - no reason to take it personally. Shell ^babelfish 23:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just want to point out here that the edits have now been suppressed. This relates to another editor's, Rob, and not your. Yours, unfortunately, got caught up in the middle of the problem. It was my in own judgement as an oversighter that I have now suppressed them, per policy. If you feel this was abusive in some way, or just in error, you should contact the AUSC who will review the situation and can undo it accordingly - Alison ^❤ 00:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

At the request for arbitration that I've filed, my uncollapsed responses to NocturneNoir (particularly that at 19:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)) are of special relevance to ArbCom. I ask that you please look at these, ask other arbs to look at these, and reconsider declining to address this situation (as I note in that uncollapsed response, motions are perfectly acceptable). Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've commented again after reviewing. I don't think it needs to be handled by a full case or motion.. the parties know the way this was handled was wrong, and that we do not want to see a repeat, formalizing that "repateed poor behavior will have consequences" wis unnecessary.. you don't need a motion to say "You did it wrong.". SirFozzie (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ips and games workshop

Hi Foz, sorry to bother you, but do you remember a case from March 2008 of an IP dogging about some OR that I removed from Games Workshop - well they're back. If you had a second to explain to some new comers what the situation was and is I'd very much appreciate it, and sorry to bother you. The thread is here--Cailil ^talk 14:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Remembered, and commented, although it looks like it's all set now. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Looks like you protected the page right about when I blocked Marknutley. What do you think the next course of action should be? NW (Talk) 22:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If Marknultey violated a restriction, I have no problem with him being blocked. I think the general feeling of the Committee is that any further editwarring will be viewed harshly. I'm going to leave it protected. I will also make it clear that rather than edit warring with other people.. either report it on the talk page, or wait until the PD is up. SirFozzie (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your intent in the remedy you have imposed (er, suggested) the clerks apply, I still have very serious reservations about the way you've gone about implementing it. As a recused Arbitrator, you still have multiple venues by which you can seek to impose restrictions in the climate change area, without overreaching the community's limitations on Arbitrator authority.

• You might ask your fellow non-recused Arbs to consider a motion embodying your remedy. This would allow for discussion of the pros and cons (and potential alternative solutions), offer clear and explicit terms for the remedy, and give an unambiguous statement of how the unrecused ArbCom (who are the only Arbs who should be enacting remedies here) feel about the remedy. Unlike all of the other parties to the case, you enjoy special, direct, unfiltered access to the ArbCom mailing list and Arbitration wiki.
• Another alternative would be to file a request through the existing climate change probation process.
• A third option might be to open a discussion at AN/I.

What you should not be doing (and I can't emphasize how much I do believe that you've done this in all good faith and absolutely the best intent) is giving instructions to clerks to take content-related action in an arbitration case from which you are recused. I plead with you to withdraw your instructions to the clerks pending the outcome of any proper, community-approved process. Your last comment hits the nail on the head here — "I know you said we shouldn't do it, but it was REALLY REALLY important." Well, the content of these articles is really, really important — but the instructions you've given the clerks are something that you shouldn't do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The Climate Change Topic board, AN/I, etcetera, no matter their original intent, have been co-opted by the various members of these disputes to be battlegrounds. I have not touched the area of which I recused, at all. As for the special, direct, unfiltered access to ArbCom-L and the ArbWiki, I did inform the Committee of the acts I took, and there has been no problems there. I took the actions when I did because there was an ongoing, current issue and I was the one on at the time. Over on the current discussion in the ArbCom case, I've tried to make it clearer that this is not QUITE a topic ban, but any edits in this area should be innocuous and not lead to any further blowups, because quite frankly, we're all sick of it. SirFozzie (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not touched the area of which I recused, at all. Wrong. What part of the word 'recuse' do you not understand? You recused from the climate change case; that means you relinquished all your regular rights, responsibilities, and authorities as an arbitrator for the climate change case in its entirety. You have neither the right nor the authority to direct the clerks in the case in any way, and doing so is jumping boots and all into the area from which you are recused. I recognise that you are now regreting your decision to recuse, but that does not excuse your actions - you are recused. ArbCom as an institution is damaged when individual arbitrators take it upon themselves to ignore their duty to act ethically, and ethics demand that a recused arbitrator take no part in the case in any official arbitrator capacity. Protecting the article was a justifiable action as it was a step that any administrator could have taken, and that would have solved the urgency problem you raised. Calling for calm on the case pages would have been a justifiable act as it was a step any editor could have taken. Putting on the mantle of arbitrator-ship to trout the warring parties from on high and instruct the clerks was unjustifiable and blatantly over the line. It was an assumption of authority that as a recused arbitrator you are simply not entitled to wield. EdChem (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, Ed. I don't see any problem with SirFozzie helping to maintain order in the various related forums while the non-recused members deliberate on a proposed judgement. In fact, he is helping make their job easier by taking care of the background noise so that they can concentrate on their proposed decision discussions. He is not trying to influence the outcome of the case at all, except perhaps to help speed it along. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla, "helping to maintain order" is a task of the clerks, and I have no problem with SirFozzie helping out on clerk tasks if he wishes to do so while recused, but it is not the role of a recused arbitrator. What I do object to (very strongly) is any recused arbitrator acting as an arbitrator - recused means relinquishing all the rights and authority that go with being an arbitrator. Violating this basic ethical principle is not helping the other arbitrators, it simply reinforces the urgency of getting the updated arbitration policy and code of ethics promulgated. EdChem (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

EdChem, you seem to be taking an overly legalistic approach here. ArbCom is not a court, Wikipedia is not a system of justice, etc. You could speak about perceptions of fairness if you like but ArbCom is not bound by precedent and is free to change their rules and processes as they see fit at any time. So hectoring an arbitrator on their proper role, rights and authority might not be the best approach to take. Much of your input in this matter, in general, is subject to the same utilitarian critique. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, SirFozzie, I take no issue with your decision to protect the page. That was a reasonable action that any admin might have taken in the face of an apparent edit war. (Though as WMC notes below, the protection may no longer be required because Marknutley is blocked.) I don't know the circumstances which led to your recusal – they are not readily apparent from the main case page – but I'm completely willing to assume that you have no (potential) conflict of interest with respect to this particular page protection action.

My concerns are twofold. (Please forgive me if it seems that what I say repeats EdChem's points; I think he sees the same problem that I do.) First, as a recused arbitrator, you shouldn't be giving directions to clerks to take specific actions related to the case. The ArbCom, as a body, allows a remarkably high degree of participation by recused abs in its processes, but there are still limits. You're free to comment on all parts of the arbitration process right up to suggesting elements of the final decision, just as any other experienced Wikipedian would. What you cannot do while recused is take actions on a case which are reserved for arbitrators. You don't get to write the decision, you don't get to vote on remedies, you don't get to instruct the clerks.

Second, no arbitrator should be enacting remedies on their own, especially not through the mechanism of an announcement on the talk page of the evidence subpage. I'm sure it was not your intention to do so, and you might prefer not the phrase it in that way, but that was the effect of your actions. When you stated "This is not giving first movers any advantage, however if they're taking advantage of this to slant an article to their side, let the clerks know and let them take care of it.", followed by "Well, it was either empower the clerks to deal with article slanting (which they won't necessarily do.. they have the option of just noting the content, and letting the Committee know so they can build it into their decision), or have everyone given ollie ollie oxen free...", you were enacting a remedy which granted clerks extraordinary additional powers (either of direct enforcement, or to manage a new dispute resolution process), and simultaneously casting into doubt the existing probation framework (are just clerks allowed to deal with article slanting, or are uninvolved admins still allowed to respond to concerns? What happens to the CC probation page?) Non-arb readers of the page have no idea what has been brought up with – or approved by – other arbitrators on the mailing lists, the arbitration wiki, or in other confidential venues. Remember that "I did inform the Committee of the acts I took, and there has been no problems there." is different from "I have clear and unambiguous approval to give the instructions that I did." All we can see from the outside is SirFozzie instructing clerks to take over policing climate change articles for bias.

That's why I am asking so fervently for you to go through channels here. Page protection put out the immediate fire, now you've got time to pass a proper motion so that everyone actually knows what the ArbCom as a whole is asking for. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst not doubting SF's good faith, his action was pointless and, as others have pointed out, a bad idea for a recused arb. But the most important point is that his action was pointless, and the current page protection is useless. This "edit war" came about purely because MN chose to violate his 1RR parole. NW has solved that by blocking MN; so the edit war is over, so the protect can be lifted. MN was clearly not being rational during his reverts (no attempt to discuss; after block accuses ChrisO of being full of shit [5], etc). The block should give MN time to calm down and has solved the problem; if it hasn't (if he returns to edit war as he has promised to) the problem can be solved by extending the block. There is no need for this page protection and, as others have pointed out, there are problems with the manner in which it was done William M. Connolley (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean you and Ed had problems with it. Multiple arbs (one of them who are writing the proposed decision) have signed off on it. I consider it necessary, and it is only for a week, and the proposed decision will hopefully be up by then. Any edits that need to occur in the meantime can find consensus on the talk page. I see an overhaul is happening on the talk page.. I suggest if people want to show they CAN color in between the lines, they pitch in with it. SirFozzie (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, re-read what I wrote above. I do not object to or have an issue with your decision to protect the article page, which I tried to indicate by saying "Protecting the article was a justifiable action as it was a step that any administrator could have taken, and that would have solved the urgency problem you raised." My issue is with you acting as an arbitrator on the case page, rebuking parties and instructing the clerks, because while recused you have relinquish the right to the arbitrator role. Whether the case arbitrators agree with your opinion is irrelevant. Whether they choose to legitimise your instructions by endorsing and taking on responsibility for them is also irrelevant. You are recused. Consequently, you have no more status on the case pages than any other non-clerk / non-arbitrator. My issue here is the fundamental ethical principle than recusal means irrevocably relinquishing arbitrator status for the case. Now, the fact that the case arbitrators generally agree with your views means the consequences for you breach of ethics need not be large. I realise that you may disagree with me about the importance of ethical principles, preferring the pragmatic 'no harm so no foul' type of approach. In that event, I suggest you consider the wider issues of the reputation of ArbCom as an institution. The present discussions at WT:ACN (including the one where you missed the relevance of my comment to Risker) go directly to questions of trust in ArbCom to act with integrity in privacy-related matters. ArbCom members placing pragmatism above ethical principles gnaws away at the trust you ask the community to bestow. As a final word, please do not lump me into the same category as WMC - though I believe he is correct in some areas (such as in alleging that Lar's claims of being uninvoled are hopeless compromised by his actions), I disagree in others and certainly would not be inclined to defend much of his actions. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill Huffman

You might remember this amendment request I filed which resulted in the editor in question agreeing to stay away from the Derek Smart article. Since then, as you probably noticed, he has busied himself completely with making mainly derogatory comments in the current case. That's no big deal, but I think he went a little too far today so I just wanted to bring it to your intention. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 is a most excellent article editor (as I've mentioned to him before on multiple occasions) especially in the military history space. However, as his above comment indicates, at least to me, he seems to have some unhelpful habits when dealing with his fellow editors. There was no good reason for him to threaten CynWolfe. Cla68 was apparently just being a bully. He was being a bully in his dealings with me. I suggest that Cla68 should stop this disruptive behavior. He should also explain why he thinks that it is okay to tell total lies anytime but especially when he's doing it to further his disruptive and negative goals. Being so brazen as to tell lies to ArbCom is especially telling, at least in my view. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that Cla68 has apparently once again bypassed the opportunity to explain why he told this lie to ArbCom. I informed him yesterday of this opportunity.[6] Further detail on this situation was conveniently pointed to by Cla68 above.[7] His lie, I'll quote here, "The university at which he says Smart claims to have received a doctorate is Warren National University (WNU). Sub-pages on Huffman's website print what he says are emails in which Huffman and Smart argue over the university and the degree." He said this lie to try to get ArbCom to enforce sanctions against me. He said, "Thus, it might be a good idea if TallMagic and Huffman not edit the WNU article either." The request to amend prior case linked to above has my response which I believe proves that Cla68 was lying. You may note that in my initial response to Cla68's brazen attack, I tried to assume good faith and allow Cla68 plenty of opportunity to correct his false statement, which he never did. I would really like to know why Cla68 told this lie about me to ArbCom. I hope that you, SirFozzie, are also curious and will ask him to please explain. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill, I think the gist of prior discussions were that you were going to STOP bringing up Derek Smart. I'm not going to allow you to continue to bring up off-Wikipedia disputes. SirFozzie (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the gist of prior discussions was that I would no longer edit talk:Derek_Smart and by implication do nothing to try to influence the Derek Smart article. My request above is only weakly tangentially related to Derek Smart, the person, and nothing to do with his article. It appears that you have no interest in why Cla68 told ArbCom that fabrication. I would just like to remind you that Cla68 was the first to bring up this issue on your talk page. Sorry to have bothered you. Bill Huffman (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but I thought I should address your final sentence. I don't know what you mean because I have not brought up any off-Wikipedia disputes. Sorry again, Bill Huffman (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Not joining in the cacophony above, since I don't think your action was wrong, but could you explain why you're recused on the case? Hipocrite (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I have been involved in disputes as an administrator with some users in a similarly divisive area (The topic is pushed by some as a way to get around "all that annoying science"), that while does not share a topic area with Climate Change, shares some of the same editors in that area. Also, before my time on ArbCom, I filed an Arbitration request against one of the main parties of the case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley While I don't think that it truly affects my ability to judge this case fairly (we're talking a bit over 2 years ago for the conduct conflict, and just at two years ago for the ArbCom case), I tried to err on the side of caution. With hindsight, possibly a better method would have been to abstain if those specific editors rose to the level of being noted in the arbcom findings, and abstaining from WMC-related findings. Hope this explains things better... SirFozzie (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the reminder. All the best! Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

STiki

Re: the recent block of user:west.andrew.g... FWIW, the STiki program works great. If you haven't tried it, it catches some glaring vandalism that is often days old. Also, it has a learning algorithm, so it's getting smarter. In short, it has the potential to automate, semi-automate, or at least complement current anti-vandal methods. And the more hardcore thinkers, coders, and academics this site can attract, the better for it.

No user should be creating multiple accounts just to try out their software, but the encyclopedia can really benefit from the sophisticated, cutting-edge coding provided by user:west.andrew.g. Please encourage him to use the Test Wiki, and to keep up his work. Just my two bytes. Ocaasi (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ocaasi, the block of his account was not due to his software, but to a specific problem the user created that required significant cleanup, as well as people contacting the Wikimedia Foundation. He is currently in discussion with members of the ArbCom and the WMF now, to discuss this. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, obviously, I don't know the details. Nor did I mean to imply any user should get special rights. Just that as talented as this guy is, we should have him on our side and benefit from his skills. Thanks for responding, Ocaasi (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I had dinner with this guy at Wikimania - he'd traveled to Gdansk from the US, and he seems to be "on our side". We were hoping to use STiki as one of our anti-vandalism tools for the WP:1.0 project. He's relatively new to the community, and I wonder if he just made a horrible mistake? Obviously I agree with Ocaas that he shouldn't get special treatment, but if you need a "character reference" concerning his intent, I'll be happy to speak up. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Committee and WMF are discussing things with the user. We're hopeful that something can be worked out. SirFozzie (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

FYI, there's now broad agreement (including from Jimbo himself) on a resolution to the dispute that led to you locking this article a few days ago. If you would like to unprotect the article I'm sure that would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have concerns about the recent BLP discussions, on the talk page and on BLPN, but I will unprotect, but will have no truck with continued edit warring.. SirFozzie (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. There's a broad consensus among the majority of editors, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of editors behaving unhelpfully. I have, however, notified them and others of the current article probation regime that covers this article. It will certainly need to be watched - please don't hesitate to use your bit if necessary. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Apparently there was a party that didn't show up on the talk page to discuss the proposed changes to the house of lords who is an aggreived party. Perhaps you should revert to the pre-protection state and reprotect, instructing that aggreived party to discuss on the talk page as opposed to edit-warring? Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with this -- just left another comment to the same effect, not having noticed this from Hipocrite. Minor4th 21:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton

Could you please consider reverting back to the status when you lifted full protection today and place it under full protection again. See the talk page. ChrisO is unilaterally making revisions (24 so far) some reverts and not engaging in discussion on the talk page. At least a couple of other editors have commented on the horribly written article that needs to be overhauled, and that is an impossibility with ChrisO's edits and reversions. Minor4th 21:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on things. SirFozzie (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th is talking nonsense. Two other editors (SlimVirgin and GiacomoReturned) have been making some substantial changes to fix stylistic issues. Neither editor participated in the talk page discussion, and none of their edits were discussed beforehand. Their changes have, generally, been improvements and I welcome them - but along the way a few mistakes were made which I've fixed. That's all there is to it. The article does need to be overhauled, but not at the cost of introducing factual errors. There is no real content dispute here, just editors accidentally tripping over each other. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree. I have concerns about the speed and the fact that people went right back to arguing, but I will hold off, as long as things stay relatively calm.. I also had one of the clerks keep an eye on this, so even if I don't see things break down, it will be taken care of. SirFozzie (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. You will (I hope) have seen from the talk page that I did a substantial amount of work with a number of editors to agree a way forward, which was successful, and I intend to continue this. There is no real argument as such - things appear to be well in hand (for the moment). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris has reverted 7 times since the page was unprotected and has more than 30 edits. Things are not relatively calm. Three editors have mentioned the impossibility of getting the article in better shape because of Chris' constant reverts and insertion of POV material. I don't appreciate Chris' comment that I'm talking nonsense of SirFozzie's general agreement with his characterization. Minor4th 23:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've just reverted a gross BLP violation by an anon IP editor and requested oversighting, which has now been done, at WP:AN/I#Accusations of fraud - oversight needed. NuclearWarface has re-semiprotected the article - unfortunately it has a long history of being mucked around by IPs. It should be a bit more stable now. Minor4th is, again, misrepresenting things. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you might want to try a gentler approach, Chris. Accusing folk of "talking nonsense" isn't helpful. Why not slow down the pace of your edits so all editors can participate instead of racing to be first? ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please re-read what I just wrote above? This isn't about the "pace of my edits". I just reverted a serious BLP violation that's just been oversighted. The same IP editor has just done the same thing on another article [8]. Do you suggest that I should just ignore that? To put it bluntly, Minor4th is attempting to get me sanctioned for reverting vandalism and misrepresenting it as some kind of edit-warring. That's dishonest and unacceptable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I read every word, actually... and don't appreciate the suggestion I didn't. Not all 30 of your edits today are "serious BLP violation" fixing... it's great that you got that one, but maybe for the more minor stuff, slow down, let it go, leave it to others. WP:COOL often has good advice in situations like this. And you're repeated accusations against Minor4th are starting to become problematic, so I suggest you, to put it bluntly, stop. Your approach is lacking. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ENOUGH. Ahem. This was what I was afraid of when I unlocked the article. I did revdel the IP's additional item and blocked the IP (though I'm not sure if the block needs to be reduced, if the IP is a floating IP).. but.. this is not exactly filling me with confidence about the future of this article. I'm getting close to full protecting it through the case's closure, because it's getting obvious that the parties will not and can not get along.... SirFozzie (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Minor4th 23:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the IP situation. There is, I repeat, no substantive editing dispute at the moment, so there is no need to re-protect the article. If Minor4th could focus on discussing issues on the talk page rather than complaining here every time I make an edit, things would go a lot more smoothly. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have to say that I'm really disappointed by your action here. I've responded to your message on the article talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replied, Chris. I understand where you're coming from, and I have no problem with it being reversed if people think there's a chance of substantial improvement to the article is possible. I just don't think so. SirFozzie (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, too, and I'm sorry you've had this unnecessary silliness on your talk page, but I think you're seriously misreading the situation. The article is being substantially improved and there are no current editing disputes. Some content elements are being discussed amicably on the talk page, but nobody is fighting about it in the article. You protected it on the basis of "edit warring" and "content disputes". Could you please point out what you're referring to? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the recent article editing history, full protection appears to be appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, I don't believe I asked you. SirFozzie, Shell has asked basically the same question on the article talk page; you may wish to respond there. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I think you may be misrepresenting what Shell said. My read was that she said your editing pattern was problematic and that it was a major factor in the protection. It's interesting that you seem to not always accurately represent what others said or did, and seem to ascribe motives that are less than benign. Why is that? ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, ChrisO — why did you stop beating your wife? However you choose to respond, ChrisO, I recommend that you not rise to Lar's baiting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Baiting? That's a breathtakingly bad faith characterization of what I said. Why do you do that? ChrisO seriously misrepresented what Shell said (as he has in the past with other statements) and I was calling him on it. Since it's not really defensible behavior on his part, you're right, he probably ought not to dig himself in deeper, unless he's ready to admit he messed up. This sort of the behavior is what got ChrisO in trouble in previous arbitrations. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, baiting. Your first two sentences were fine; you acknowledge that the two of you have different interpretations of Shell's words. (I don't know who is more correct; I haven't looked at them.) Since Chris invited SirFozzie to review those words for himself, it hardly seems plausible that Chris is attempting to mislead. The rest of your comment is faux-civil baiting of someone with whom you are embroiled in a disagreement. It's a very short paraphrase from "you seem to not always accurately represent what others said or did.... Why is that?" to "you're a liar; why is that?". I'm sure that all of us here are capable of reading between those lines, whatever degree of imitation affront you choose to respond with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my characterization of ChrisO's problematic behavior, and my request for an explanation of why it's a consistent pattern rather than an isolated occurence. This sort of the behavior is, after all, what got ChrisO in trouble in previous arbitrations. Spin it as you wish though, it just makes you look like part of the problem rather than the solution, and like you're engaging in factional behavior by attacking the messenger. As you did in your "evidence". ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The usual double standard applies here: accuse "skeptics" of all kinds of malfeasance and it's justified through WP:SPADE; but when Lar speaks plainly about one of the faction, WP:SPADE morphs into WP:BAIT. ATren (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious, usual suspect, the first mistake was the unprotection, it was downhill from there. I know where your coming from , hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nitpick

There's no "southbound end" of a northbound camel. Did you intend to say "southern end", or was this some veiled reference to the camel's... um... "emissions"? ;-) ATren (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You just may be on the right track there... ;) SirFozzie (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion you should have gone with the insult delivered by Jeff Goldblum in The Tall Guy: "I hope all your children have small dicks. Especially the girls." MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Now that's personal! SirFozzie (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

¿Que?

[9] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Was a goof up, sorry. And now.. we go on an archive run! SirFozzie (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)