User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 29

Note

I do appreciate your effort to be a voice of calm and reason. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, I probably wouldn't even have raised this issue, except that I saw he had done it to somebody else also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, BB... I know what it's like to be frustrated, angry, and in need of some WP:TEA... others did it for me when I needed it, so I like to pay it forward when I can. SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SirFozzie. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.
Message added 16:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I updated my statement regarding the gravity of the situation and why I believe is not premature. You may wish to review it. Thanks Codrin.B (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Appeal posted

Hi, I wanted to alert you that I have posted my appeal to the ArbCom evidence page. Please express my sincere thanks to the committee for allowing me to do so. Smatprt (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare

When you have a moment, please vote on the enforcement section as well. Nothing crucial in there, but I think you may have inadvertently skipped over it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Greetings,

I think it's more than clear when I'm editing. Sometimes, if one stays logged on for a time, Wikipedia auto-logs one out.

I'm reviewing the diffs. The two regarding sockpuppetry appear to reflect IP edits. They may just reflect Ryoung122's editing while inadvertently logged out, as opposed to any intent to sock or mislead. (I'd appreciate Ryoung's briefly commenting on this.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 	+ 	

RYoung has never taken responsibility for the edits, has he? But an exhausting, (if not exhaustive) level of diffs here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I also sometimes use IP editing when I don't have time for a full discussion. I don't think there's any evidence of my intentional misuse of sockpuppetry, yet there is evidence of false charges made (in 2007) that turned out not to be me.

I also attempted to create an Aslan119 profile in 2007, with the purpose of editing articles that had nothing to do with supercentenarians and longevity. That didn't work out.Ryoung122 21:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SirFozzie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

It's about an issue that cannot be discussed openly in detail. User:MistressOfDarkness

 Done SirFozzie (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up...

I'm not starting any new investigations or issues.. after the Monty Hall Problem proposed decision is voted on (hopefully Elen and I can get something up late this weekend, early next), and existing problems move forward, I'll be taking it easy for a few weeks, let the batteries recharge. So, if I don't respond here, and you need my attention on something, email me. It'll be way quicker :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

With the PD of MHP up and running, I'm going to take a break until April 2nd. I've asked the Clerks to set me inactive on everything except RHE and the MHP case, and I expect to wrap things up on MHP shortly. SirFozzie (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Canvassing

Although the threads have been deleted and can no longer be accessed at that web site, they can still be seen accessed via Google's cache.[1] I'm not sure how long it will take for Google to update its cache so I recommend you save local copies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Google cached the most recent thread (titled "David in DC goes after Nick Ornstein"), but it's still available in search results:

The 110 Club -> David in DC goes after Nick OrnsteinMar 3, 2011 ... I had let that comment by David in DC slide because it did not affect me or the situation. But I certainly can understand how it affects you ...z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=1781

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It was...

... a mistake, but I'm not going to follow it up. I hope Arbcom will learn to assert its independence and integrity with more confidence. Geometry guy 02:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dammed if we do, dammed if we don't, you know? SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Damned" is what I know, unless Arbcom is concerned about the threat of new reservoirs or hydroelectric power stations. :) Geometry guy 02:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, one could make the pun that the normal course of the Committee's business would be disrupted either way, so it fits :) SirFozzie (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Good recovery. Geometry guy 03:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

One tries. Or tires. One of the two ;) SirFozzie (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SirFozzie. You have new messages at Kingpin13's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Chuckles, good April Fool's joke -- Jimbo Wales, 04:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC), er... SirFozzie (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony Robles

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

[2] and [3]Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut's ban

Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use reminders Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this fresh statement Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

meh

Hi SirFozzie, I know it's likely such a minor issue that prolly be advised to not even mention it, and anyone with an ounce of research could quickly figure out .. but I noticed that the support at this Proposed decision didn't get your sig. Just that I got the impression that these things tended to be more "official" than other areas of the 'pedia. Sorry to trouble you over such a minor thing. Cheers and Best — Ched :  ?  05:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks :) SirFozzie (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

summary of thoughts on preemptive notifications

SirFozzie,

As an arbitrator, I thought I would ask you here to see if my Request for Clarification can be closed as I cannot find instructions on how to close my own request. As you will see in my request over there, I mentioned that it appears to be a lack of interest to finalize the discussion on whether a preemptive notification could be perceived as a violation of WP:BITE and WP:AGF.

Incidentally, that's what I felt, [[WP:BITE|bitten WP:BITE]], when I got the preemptive notice by EdJohnston on the basis that I'm a member of The 110 Club & the concern of the canvassing over there (but certainly not by me). You also expressed concern about the membership & timing issue, which is unfounded. I think this experience can make an editor feel like "he is not wanted on Wikipedia" and I certainly got that feeling from you with your diff here. The WMF had done a recent study showing how there had been a downtrend in active editors since 2007 due to lack of editors continuing to show interest after a year or so. I apologize I don't have the actual link at this time, but this is what I feel right now -- your opinion made me feel unwelcome here on Wikipedia when I feel that I hold a high level of integrity and professionalism, qualities that Wikipedia would appreciate from an editor. Regards, CalvinTy 11:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll put a request in to the clerks tonight to have it archived. I'm sorry that you feel bitten, but I disagree, I tried to go over things with you and explain WHY we were reacting the way we were, which was shared by other people. Anyway, I do hope you stick around. SirFozzie (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the archiving, SirFozzie. I will manage & I'll move on just fine, no worries, thanks.  :-) Incidentally, I have had some ideas on improving the WikiProject World's Oldest People so, today, I have made a preview/proposal for the WikiProject here. Take care, CalvinTy 02:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

SirFozzie, I'm trying to attract the attention of an oversighter re: a problematic userpage I have come across without attracting to much attention to it. You appear to be online ATM can I ping you an email with the details? Pol430 talk to me 23:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot get to mail currently, (at work). If it can wait four hours or so, go ahead and shoot me an email, if it's urgent, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_suppression. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I have already emailed the oversight list, but not sure if it is being monitored. The page has been up since 11am today, I would say the matter is quite pressing but not quite an emergency. I'll see if I can find someone else, failing that i'll email you for when you are finished. Thanks Pol430 talk to me 23:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I didn't see any email, I assume this is all set? :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, SirFozzie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed and answered. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Got your response, Thank you for checking. Take care. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

accounts created for anonymity

Currently there are two sock accounts editing as SPAs in articles related to WP:ARBR&I. Both editors have stated that their new accounts were created for the purpose of editing in this controversial topic space after the ArbCom case was completed. WP:SOCK#LEGIT clearly states that creation of such accounts for privacy is legitimate. But reviewing WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, it seems that some sort of notification is in order, though it's not fully clear. One of the accounts Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing since last October pursuing a campaign of WP:CPUSH. The other editor Rrrrr5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account. I mention this because I would like to be clear on how the sock policy applies to articles in this topic space. Any feedback on policy, or the appropriate forum to address the question is welcomed. Thank you, aprock (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aprock, I've reviewed the situation: I can't speak to any matches of SOCK, I'd SUGGEST that they contact the committee via email to disclose the link between any accounts they control, but A) we have no reason to suggest that they're being used in a way that would violate Wikipedia's norms and policies on alternate accounts.. and B) If there was a match, we can't say, per the LEGIT sock policy.. However, I think it would not go amiss to let Rrrrr5 know of the discretionary sanctions (I see their first article is up for deletion), and bring it to AE if there is a continued pattern of possible POV pushing. SirFozzie (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir Fozzie this strike me as direct violations of Sock puppet WP:ILLEGIT policy of Avoiding scrutiny in an Arbitration topic area where "violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." I do not know the diffs in question for these Admissions mentioned above. It seems me with the type campaign on is persuing I can help but feel its Duck case on somebody evading sanctions even if CU cant make a direct connection. This individual is smart and know how to game the system and showing pattern of that is extremely difficult as relatively few people have the back to accurately assess material. Such pattern is hard to asses with simple diffs required at WP:AE. Such material create irrecovable harm to the encylopedic element we try to maintain here. The last headline we need is "Wikipedia promoting White Nationalism." We are trying to build an informative encyclopedia here and frankly I have show the situation to two Phd holding collegues in the Anthropology and Sociology and they expressed extreme concern and the material. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, TRA: Please review what I said, I was asked to check these users and to determine if their statements that they were using alternate accounts was an issue with gaming the area. I did check the users and determined that there was no reason to suggest they're being used in a way that would violate Wikipedia's norms and policies on alternate accounts. I suggest normal DR (plus discretionary sanction reports at AE as necessary) as needed. SirFozzie (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So just for clarity, these individual have other accounts the are not under sanctions or are not tied to any other account at all? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not really free to go into more detail, but I can say one account was POSSIBLY tied to one other account, a near-dormant account that hasn't been in the area at all, and the other, I was not able to tie to any other account. SirFozzie (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Privacy issues are reasonable restrictions, and you have just told me more I expected you to say in response to my question. Its still frustrating dealing with an editor who has is in WP:CPUSH systematically violating WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE with attitudes of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or rebutting with absurd arguements that sound reasonable to those not familar with the topic. Showing Diffs of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE always make it a content dispute in the eyes of WP:AE clerks. This however has serious significant potential for harm for our encyclopedic elements more so In my opinion than any edit wars. Edits wars end up as long strung out talk page discussions that dont receive hardly any notice from the General public the creation of coatracks sections is harmful to our integrity. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That is what we have AE for (which I should note, that I've suggested for at least one editor here). If we have POV pushing, I'd think that the latest discretionary sanctions we've passed would be sufficient, are you saying that they're not? SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No merely attempting point out the serious problems people experience when trying to deal with WP:CPUSH. AE Admins are often reluctant to implement sanctions unless there is obvious conduct issues like 3RR violations, personal attacks, BLP issues or other clear cut violation. SImply saying some one is pushingin point of view is often hard to show. I guess more ranting about frustration with the system more than specifics of the case. Thanx for listening The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No Problem. That's what we're here for. :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

more SPAs

Sorry to be back so soon User:Maunus has posted another concern about another editor at WP:FTN also in the WP:ARBR&I topic area. Once again we have an Account that has been dormant and has popped back up in the topic area as another left. Would you mind dropping an WP:ARBR&I Sanction notification on their talk? So we can nip it in the bud at AE in the near future?

The ones that need notifications are Rrrrr5 (talk · contribs), QuintupleTwist (talk · contribs), 174.97.236.49 (talk · contribs) The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to seek guidance on how to properly notify users of the existence of discretionary sanctions. Given the overall reluctance of administrators to enforce problematic behavior under WP:ARBR&I, being able to notify users (regardless of their behavior) early on might keep things a bit less disruptive. Are such notifications something regular editors could/would/should do? aprock (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer an administrator do it myself, but I don't see just a "Hey, here's something you need to know about" message being a huge problem. SirFozzie (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom and my filing

Related to the Racepacket filing, the last ArbCom situation ended with a wait for the RfC to resolve. NewYorkBrad asked Racepacket to disengage from netball and myself. jayvdb did similar things. Racepacket basically waited out the days until ArbCom would archive the request, finished the RfC by refusing to address netball, continued to do the contenious editing. It was filed this morning because things have subsequently felt like they were getting worse for me as Racepacket continued to engage me, my content, tried to get others involved after that. Basically, my filing is a separate ArbCom filing because while the roads issues were addressed, my issues were not and what I percieve as harrassment continued. --LauraHale (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Laura, I've tried to get myself up to speed on it, as the noted wordsmith Yogi Berra once said.. "it was like deja vu, all over again..." SirFozzie (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm just a little stressed at this point. I didn't behave as good as I could have during Talk:Netball/GA1 and Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA2 and probably a bit recently on Netball and Talk:Netball when it came to dealing with conflict. I'm trying very hard to improve my content area. I'm trying generally pretty hard to avoid areas where User:Racepacket could be involved. I made sure that I ran Rules of netball past several people to make sure it wouldn't be perceived as WP:POINT for nominating and that the article was legitimately up to the point where it wouldn't take a lot of work to get the article passed. And yeah, at this point, I go to my watch list and feel ill and have a lot of anxiety about processes. I just want a resolution that will work for both of us to minimize our interaction ans resolve outstanding issues like paraphrasing accusations. --LauraHale (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

Could you please unprotect Kirsten Price (musician). It was create protected and I would like to move an article there. mauchoeagle _(c) 19:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me see what's going on here.. SirFozzie (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Kirsten price (musician) is the article I want to move there. mauchoeagle _(c) 19:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I have a request to the admin who deleted/protected it to see if there's anything else I should know before I undo the create-protection. SirFozzie (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No sweat, bro.

Hi, Fozz! Long time no see. No problem whatsoever with that new article; you did the right thing unprotecting it and placing a good article there. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

I just noticed that you are voting against all 4 motions. Care to throw one out there that you would approve? What exactly are your thoughts on this? Tex (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Jack/Barong wants me to throw a motion out that I'd approve, unfortunately. The softest I'd be is to leave the restriction in place for a year, and if he stops playing silly buggers (not only with the extra accounts, but arguing with everyone and everything), then I'd be willing to see it let off. I tend to take a dim view of someone deliberately violating a restriction, and then arguing that the restriction should not apply to them. SirFozzie (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fozzie, is your motion 5 intended to augment or supplant the existing restrictions? You write only "modified". As perceived ambiguity with in Committee communications has made trouble in this case already it might be best to make absolutely clear before the votes pour in. Thanks for your time, Skomorokh 19:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Skomorokh: As far as I know, the restriction on using alternate accounts was the only remaining sanction against the Jack account, was that not correct? I'll see if I can change the wording. SirFozzie (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If I knew the clear answer to that I wouldn't have filed the request to begin with ;) Appreciate the reword, it's clearer now. Arigato, Skomorokh 19:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Immediate Attention Required

Hello, SirFozzie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

N419BH 06:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it and replied. SirFozzie (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied back. More immediate attention required. N419BH 06:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing sig

You don't seem to have signed your vote against the "Hawkeye7 admonished" remedy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse

You, I note, were one of the last people to interact with user Mattisse on enWP prior to xyr final indefinite block.Your considered opinion on seemingly similar disruptive behaviour on Wikinews would be welcome (see n:WN:WC.) --Brian McNeil /^talk 07:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)

ok .. that was good

I gotta wonder, how long have you been waiting to spring this one? ... Priceless! :-) — Ched :  ?  21:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought I've used that one a few times before.. can't recall when but I'm pretty sure. But glad you liked it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm sure I've missed bunches there cause I try to stay out of trouble .. lol. That was the first time I'd noticed. I do read some of the Arb stuff, just so I know what not to do. — Ched :  ?  22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeking input on a proposed finding of fact

Hello. I am writing this message as a third party monitoring an ongoing arbitration case. I have been voicing concerns about a proposed finding of fact since 6 June, but no arbitrator has chosen to respond to those concerns. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your input on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_finding_9. I apologize for contacting you on your personal talk page, but despite posting notes daily on the proposed decision talk page requesting arbitrator input, no one has responded. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Recusal

I think this comment is a valid one and one which would no doubt be well placed in the ongoing discussions about how Wikipedia should handle the subject matter of the request for arbitration. I do think however that, if you hold this opinion, you are sufficiently neutral in the dispute to hear the case (or vote on its acceptance). Even if the scope of the case was kept very narrow (which doesn't seem to be what Coren is looking for) I think your stated opinion may colour your opinion. At the very least, it will give rise to the appearance of bias. I am therefore asking that you recuse from the case. WJBscribe (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that it will, but I will consider the request and decide shortly. SirFozzie (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (edit: It looks like a moot point anyway, at 5/5 with the recusals it is just about mathematically impossible to pass anyway)/ SirFozzie (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

MMN case

Apologies for catching you at such a busy time, but I wanted to make note of something. Regarding this evidence, I was actually the first person (and admin) to revert Mick's removal. I consider it possible that Delta was simply following my lead in the matter. At the time, in line with talk page guidelines, I believed my revert to be the right thing to do. I'd hate to see Delta, or Mick, (or anyone else for that matter), take blame for something I started. I'd be happy to expand on the matter if so desired. Kind Regards, — Ched :  ?  20:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"will we or won't we"

All the other arbitrators at Arbitrators' opinion on hearing are referring to the statement you made there, so I must ask a dumb question, what do you mean exactly by "will we or won't we" ? Mlpearc powwow 19:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Meaning people opened this case with a desired end result of removing the administrative tools on the user in question. I have not polled my fellow arbs on whether they think they should be removed or not, but this obviously doesn't need six weeks of fighting (evidence, workshop, etcetera, proposed decision), to determine that question: "Will We" remove the administrative tools or "won't we"? (if the answer is "won't we", the answer will probably a motion to admonish or censure the user in question for lack of judgement as a remedy instead of removing the tools. SirFozzie (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and clarification. Mlpearc powwow 22:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A note:

I will be inactive for the next few days.... possibility of a week or two tops.. during this time I will not have much wikiwrite access.. although I will try to keep up with read access and email. SirFozzie (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U: Cirt

SirFozzie, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, --JN466 13:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, SirFozzie. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arbitration committee

To expand on what I said earlier in the case.

I was unaware that the mailing list had been leaked, and I appreciate that you and Krill have both got stuck into the case a bit (and certainly reasonably given the other issue) but I haven't seen much from the other Arbs and I think that's bad. Mick for one hasn't been given enough support to show the Arbitration Committee isn't going to just let him hang. Sandstein has also essentially got away with Arbitrating the issue when he's involved in the case because not enough of the people who are supposed to be doing so have got stuck in. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you so little understanding of what is wrong here [4]. I informed the Arbcom last November/December that their blasted wiki was not secure, yet instead of a proper investigation it was turned into an orgasm of "let's get Giano" [5] or am I imagining that thread on WR perhaps I am, and it's what Coren is permitted by the Arbcom to call my paranoia. I strongly dissaprove of these leaks, and I fear for the innocent and weak who are going to be caught up in this. This should never have been allowed to happen. Giacomo (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think you will find that my comment at the time was "I would not trust the Arbcom with the name of children's hamster." My position remains unchanged. Are you surprised? Giacomo (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Giano, do you think that I APPROVE of these leaks? Do you think I'm not cognizant of the people who are affected? As to one of your other comments, I know of one arb whose name isn't known (even to us fellow Arbs) right now. Identifying to the Foundation (as required) and identifying to the rest of the Arbs isn't the same thing. SirFozzie (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you don't approve - unless you are the leaker, which I doubt you are. For your wise colleague's sake, let's just hope the foundation keeps its own records a little more secure than it keeps yours. Personally, I still think ex-arbs were able to pop in and out of that Wiki and that's where the leak was and for all we know may still be. Anybody who identifies is a fool or has nothing to loose. When adjudicating, there is no need to sit chatting and insulting other editors in a secret place, everything should be out in the open and above board. Those matters which are very confidential and serious should be dealt with by paid and properly trained employees not by a bunch of amateurs. Giacomo (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how they got access to it, but I can securely say that the leak of arbcom-l was not through the Arbwiki because , as the saying goes "you can't get there from here" ArbCom-l had no links to the ArbWiki etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think we will just agree to differ in our views, shall we? Giacomo (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as we've said, we're not ruling out the possibility that some one has gone rogue, but the possibility is equally strong (if not stronger, in my opinion) that this is someone on the outside having "broken in", so to speak, and gathered all the material. I wish I knew. I wish we knew. It's hard to provide answers when all you have is questions, and you have to do troubleshooting by ruling things OUT, instead of having evidence pointing at what happened. And yes, we agree to disagree (we seem to do that a lot, but at least we can agree to disagree, huh? :)) SirFozzie (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat

Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On break

Need to recharge mentally/physically. SirFozzie (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Hey, I don't have much to do with ArbCom as a rule, so if I'm breaking protocol or something, tell me to buzz off. Basically, you said that "In short, Δ is "right", but in the wrong way, consistently" if ArbCom were to topic ban Delta, as (ridiculously, in my eyes) it looks like they will, could we perhaps have a statement to that effect? All too many times, people have said things that basically boil down to "you're enforcing the NFCC, that's what Betacommand did, he got blocked, therefore you're wrong". It would be nice if, for clarity's sake, any sanctions were explicitly in relation to Delta's manner, rather than his projects. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I will see what we can do here to provide clarity. SirFozzie (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for realizing that I wasn't trying to be a smart ass, and taking the time to give me an honest reply. I just don't know that much about ArbCom and how it works. (and something tells me that I don't want to ... lol) Cheers Sir. — Ched :  ?  04:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Pamela Jones

You claims use of words like "smeared" in an article is not POV? 69.171.160.52 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for bugging you on break. The same group of anonymous IPs that your reverted on Pamela Jones [6] is now accusing me of being her "son" [7] . Can you keep an I on this or can you point me to another admin ? Thanks in advance. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your objection to the motion on an arbcom public scheduling mailing list

I understand where you're coming from, but I and a number of others who aren't "out to get arbcom" or unreasonably reacting to the leaked emails do think that more transparency is a good idea.

There are certainly plenty of critics, unreasonable and reasonable, who are pushing for somethingorother. Please accept that some of us who aren't trying to rake you over the coals think that this is a good idea.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)