User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 30

Inactive

SirFozzie (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowly coming active, will try to get up to speed once I get home. SirFozzie (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Untimely deletion

The deletion of the Senkaku Islands mediation threads was unexpected. For me, the surprise was untimely. I hope that Feezo will be willing to explain this edit:

• (Deletion log); 21:29 . . Feezo (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands" (For the Mediation Committee, due to arbitration case)

Regardless, please consider using your administrator's tools to provide me with a copy of the missing threads.

In order help make this possible, I have created a new sub-page. Please recreate copies of these useful diffs at User:Tenmei/Sandbox-Archive 1.

Nihonjoe suggested here that I may need to ask an arbitrator to do this. --Tenmei (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, please stop spamming this request everywhere. See Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy#The_privileged_nature_of_mediation - the mediation pages will be made available again after the RFAR closes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A question

The structure of arbitration seems quite convoluted. How does it actually work in layman terms? So far, there is this initial statement stage that evers froyone writes some sort of introductory paragraph. And then I suppose there is a evidence stage where everyone provides diffs and such. After that, will there be any discussion/debate or will the arbitrators simply make decisions by looking at evidence?

Also, what's the X/X/X/X thing? Thanks --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, at this stage, everyone is making preliminary statements on the issue, and trying to convince the Arbitration Committee either to take the case, or decline the case. If a case is accepted (I'll explain more on that in the second part of my answer), it is opened, with pages being set aside for evidence ("Person X has gotten involved in edit-wars", with links to diffs showing the person edit-warring, for example), Workshop (which is proposals from parties, interested observers and sometimes arbitrators, on how to fix the issue, and Proposed Decision (where the Arbitrators post a proposed decision and vote on it)

The X/X/X/X thing is a short hand on how the Arbitrators have voted so far on accepting the case:

The first number is the number of arbitrators who have voted to Accept; the case (IE, they believe a case should be opened, the conduct of the parties should be looked at, etcetera.

The second number is the number of arbitrators who have voted to Decline the case (in other words, they don't believe a case should be opened for various reasons. The Arbitration Committee looks at people's conduct, they try to avoid making content decisions, for example.. and it is a rare case that will be accepted if no other attempts at formal Dispute Resolution have been taken)

The third number is the number of RECUSALs from the case. Arbitrators recuse when they believe (or others reasonably believe) that they cannot arbitrate fairly in an area (for example, if someone has strong feelings in an area, or has previously tried to mediate or work in the area involved, for example.

The final number is the catch-all "Others" This is usually for folks who have made a comment on the case, but haven't decided yet on whether to accept or decline the case.

For a case to be opened, it must reach a net-four status (that means there must be four more arbitrators voting to accept a case then there are votes to decline.)

Hope this helps! SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a checkuser on my account

Hello, SirFozzie. I was falsely accused of being a puppetmaster, and the case is being closed without clearing my name. Could you clear it? Is there some step I should take instead? Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Permalink 1 & Permalink 2. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note, I would like to request independent administrative oversight into this SPI, as the responses by HelloAnnyong and DeltaQuad have been less than satisfactory. HelloAnnyong maintains that Cerejota's SPI was legitimate, even though he filed it to win a content dispute. HelloAnnyong also alleges that a Wikistalk query justifies his conclusion that Yopienso and Gise were allegedly meatpuppets, when in fact it does not show that at all, and there remains no evidence for such an allegation. To date, HelloAnnyong will not retract his conclusion, a false conclusion which has smeared the reputation of an editor in good standing. Furthermore, DeltaQuad has closed ranks and accused Yopienso of canvassing when all she did was contact him and express concern with being wrongly accused. This is not the kind of judgment and behavior that we should expect from administrators or clerks working on SPI. Yopienso was falsely accused and the SPI, which contains no actionable evidence of any kind, should be deleted to clear her good name and restore her reputation. At the very least, there needs to be a closing statment indicating that the clerking comments violated the presumption of innocence and demonstrated bias against Yopienso. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a look at this, in order to address this concern. There is *no* evidence of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, and I have so noted on the SPI. What I see is evidence of collaboration, which is what this project is all about. Risker (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ottava Rima

Could you explain how you bestowed yourself the authority to extend an arbcom year long ban to indefinite? It is particularly confusing since no discussion is linked at the block log. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 18:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. part of OR's original ban terms include that he is required to work out conditions with the committee (with the limitation of one unnamed appeal every six months.. the discussions we have had with OR have not given us the reassurances that he can avoid the behavior that per to his original ban. SirFozzie (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku

In response to your diff here, please acknowledge a question here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

OMG how dare you!!1!

[1] ???? MastCell ^Talk 02:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How'd that happen? Weird. I must have hit something when browsing on my phone. My apologies! *ack* SirFozzie (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd gone rogue and did it on purpose. That would have been fun. Oh well; I'll go restore my comment. :) MastCell ^Talk 03:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying old diff

The graphic in the arbitration section of The Signpost suggests that the Senkaku case is generating significant interest. I want to make sure that my contributions are as clear and as well written as possible. I found a problem in a diff addressed directly to you.

A short transitional sentence needs to be added to an early September diff at WP:RfArb/Senkaku/Workshop. As I review my writing, the parallel construction in the opening paragraph is weak. It may be unclear:

@ SirFozzie -- The investment in ArbCom processes fails if it only results in punitive remedies -- compare Coren's "down-to-earthness" here. As you know, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, international attention was narrowly focused on an examination of (a) what went wrong, (b) what could have prevented it, and (c) what can be done to prevent something similar. This involved stepping back a bit to gain perspective. Similar questions are suggested by this case. Corollary assessment tools include, e.g. ...."

When you first read this diff, did you think you understood what I meant? In your first reading, did you stumble over the connecting sentence I wrongly omitted? --Tenmei (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it have been easier to read if there was a paragraph break after the first sentence? --Tenmei (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-visiting ban decision

At Tenmei banned for one year, you support a harsh sanction.

Please consider a less severe remedy in light of a wider contribution history which may have been overlooked -- see

• User talk:Roger Davies#Thank you for writing something good
• User:Newyorkbrad#Thank you for writing something good
• GA, 2010 G-20 Toronto summit

In 2009, Roger Davies observed,

"I believe that Tenmei was trying to create an appropriate backdrop for later helpful and meaningful discussions ...."

The Senkaku issues were not simple; but there you have it.

Even this diff does not alter your judgment in this instance, I hope it will influence your thinking in other cases which arise in the future? --Tenmei (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

talkback

You're right.

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

comment

Just so it's noted this was well said. --Ludwigs2 00:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.I hope you accept it in the spirit offered, even though I do not consider the topic ban to be out of line. It's a thought that was drilled into me by wiser Wikipedia editors (who sadly no longer edit Wikipedia that much) when I was running through my first real set of issues here on Wikipedia (with a serial sockpuppeter) SirFozzie (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I do; I know my own flaws. As I keep telling people, the sanction doesn't bother me half as much as the double-standard; it sucks being stuck on the wrong side of an entrenched bias. But whaddayagonnado? At any rate, it was well said. --Ludwigs2 01:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

ygm

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.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Δ tip

Use Δ as it appears on your talk page. See also {{BCD}}. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fake Latin

Please note WP:NAUSEUM. :) --JN466 16:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(chuckles), Thanks :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain this?

What's your explanation for this?[2] Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can, it's called Foz had a new techie toy, and hit undo by accident on the touch screen. Sorry, Malleus. SirFozzie (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Running a bit slower then normal..

Right now, I'm in the middle of a regime of eye drops that leave my eyes constantly dilated so staring at the computer screen is a bit like Mr Magoo attempting to read. This means that I'll be running slower, and using more of one of my techie toys where I can ramp up the text level to make things more readable, so I may make more mistakes. Please forgive any errors for the next few days. SirFozzie (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry Sir Fozzie. We will adjust accordingly to help you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(chuckles), thanks.. I actually was going to go update the article on the medical condition that requires the constant eye drops ((iritis)) but turns out that's a pretty good article already. SirFozzie (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Once an editor, always an editor. However I think you should take it easy while on the drops. At least I won't feel guilty that I strained your eyes with my post. :) Take care and get well soon. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Abortion FoF1

Hi, I noted this at the PD talk but don't think it has been noticed. Could you take a look at this and perhaps make the changes, if you too can see the error I'm pointing out. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on clarification page

I have a feeling you are replying to Vecrumba's point, not mine. I do not recall a single instance I was ever involved in an i-ban being used to "own" a content area. What slight relevance this bears on my request for clarification is with regards to this specific AE topic, where, in FSP own words, if one party of the i-ban is involved, the other should stay away. This could be seen as (according to FSP) giving the first party "ownership" of the thread, which I do not believe should be the case. I have no idea how any topic ban would help here, and please note, with all due respect, that you did not answer my question(s) as posed in my request (if it helps, they are bolded). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to quote you

Hey SirFozzie, I always double check it`s ok with the author before I repost comments, but I was wondering if I could put your comment re. the BASC endash on my userpage under the funnies section. And thanks for the laugh :) -- DQ (t) (e) 21:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing.. glad I made others laugh :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Could use some extra eyes on something...

If you get a chance could you take a look at Chemo (comics), ites edit history, and this editors contribution history.

I'm approaching a few old hands at Comics since there is something odd here and I want to make sure it isn't just me. I'm also approaching you and a few other Arbs since this may impact Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian and I'd like some general imput.

- J Greb (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

The Fozz clearly deserves a nice drink Achowat (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong venue

There are currently ANI discussion going regarding actions of admin User:Wgfinley in AE.As you clarified this shouldn't be happening only arbitration Committee could decide on such matters.So this discussion should probably be closed.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Alastair Haines and his wife have a son, born to the couple this holiday season. I'm sure he would enjoy hearing from you

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

• File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
• Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
• Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom

SirFozzie are you still actively assisting in ArbCom enforcements? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

He won't be participating in any enforcement in which I'm involved in some way. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

My sensors detect you need a kitten. Here you go.

Von Restorff (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you informed?

Have you informed the rest of the Arbitration Committee or do I still need to do that? Silverseren^C 04:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

inactive-health

Sorry folks.. the last week hasn't been too good to me health wise and I cuurently have surgery scheduled for early next week. TPW (if I have any left) please take care of any urgent request s here. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wishing you a speedy recovery. Mo ainm~Talk 15:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear SirFozzie,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding conflicts of interest

Hi Fozzie, just a mini-rant of sorts here, and potentially well off-topic to actual goings on. I assume ArbCom and yourself are involved in discussing the MSK unblock and the presence of a potential conflict of interest with the unblocking admin. I've supported MSK in the past so you may take what I say with a grain of salt, but I wanted to warn that conflict of interest is an inherently difficult thing to detect and prescribe against. I'm not concerned at this stage what happens with that entire situation, but I am concerned that if ArbCom is indeed looking at this as a COI situation, they are presented with a very slippery slope before them.

The main problem is where to draw the line. Is common membership of an external site sufficient to qualify as a conflict of interest? What about members of the same WikiProject? People editing from the same household? The same university? Married couples, de facto couples, girlfriends, associates? Members of the same Wikimedia chapter who work together? People self-identifying as belonging to the same club, group or political party? People from the same city, state or country? There is serious potential to create a precedent that bestows momentum to the issue, starting its movement down that slippery slope. If ArbCom is going to make a ruling on conflict of interest, it would be in ArbCom's best interests to establish as bright a line as possible in defining what does or does not constitute a conflict of interest. If such a line can't be defined, any decision ArbCom were to render on the matter would be at serious risk of being undermined by its own ambiguity. Precedents are even more subject to the doctrine of unintended consequences than anything else. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, looking at involved, it's pretty cut and dried. SB Johnny even says flat out that he knows that he'll take heat because he's involved in the situation. I will say discussion with Johnny is continuing and we're looking at the full nature of things. SirFozzie (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

TM Arbcom / TimidGuy Appeal / Discretionary Sanctions

If you think that sanctions should be imposed on one or more editors under the terms of the TM ArbCom discretionary sanctions, as you stated here [3], then you should impose them. You don't need a new ArbCom or other proceeding to do so. Otherwise it is a vague, unsupported allegation against unnamed editors. Were an involved editor to make such a statement, it would be quickly labeled as harassment, a threat and a personal attack. Fladrif (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Saying that in the context of dispute resolution that there are editors who may need to be removed from the editor is none of the things you say they are, but let me work on some proposed wording and you'll see some proposed findings and remedies shortly. SirFozzie (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not label them as such; in my experience, however, there are a number of editors actively participating on the TimidGuy Appeal Evidence, Workshop and talkpages who would so label them, and have taken just such an approach to labeling similar assessments, repeatedly, even on those very pages. Fladrif (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting. The case is now closed. I never saw any proposed findings and remedies. I never saw any discretionary sanctions handed out. It hardly inspires any confidence that ArbCom is the least bit serious about enforcing its own decisions in the TMArbCom case. Fladrif (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for any of my fellow Arbs, I think it was decided that requests would better be handled at AE instead of in the case, since it would require adding new parties and then somehow getting them up to date with all the information. I do think that AE will see more action in the near future. SirFozzie (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you (and I take it from the comment on the PD page, Risker as well) thought that there were editors who should be sanctioned under the TMArbCom discretionary sanctions, you did not need to add parties or remedies to the TimidGuy Appeal; you did not need to wait for someone else to request AE. You could have simply imposed the sanctions. That is how discretionary sanctions work, isn't it? ArbCom doesn't look like it takes discretionary sanctions seriously if Arbitrators opine that discretionary sanctions are in order for unnamed editors, but then do nothing. Who do you think is going to file an AE case over the TM articles after you've banned a senior administrator for complaining about the editors on those pages? Fladrif (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Committee banned Will (note: I personally voted against the ban) because he went beyond Wikipedia's norms and policies and turned it into an outing/harassment situation. I actually have a lot of thoughts about that, which I'm writing up to post on just like a sandbox page.. I think the situation is sad myself. As for why Risker and I don't do it ourselves, well.. people are hesitant to take action in areas where it would mean their later recusal if/when it comes back to the Committee.. so in a lot of cases, the arbs don't use their tools in anything remotely controversial. SirFozzie (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it was the Committee's action, not yours. As for Arbitrators not generally using tools in controversial arenas, surely every Arbitrator knows plenty of other Administrators who have no such need to keep their hands unsoiled. Fladrif (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, there's the rub for you. if other administrators take action at our behest, all that really changes is the name on the action right? For example, if I asked a fellow administrator to block "User:X" for something and they go ahead and do it, then I'm still kinda responsible for it, right? I have my opinion, but I'm constrained by my role, and the fact that my fellow committee members voted against making user conduct review part of the existing case (or opening a review post-COI RFC), and instead recommended that editors use the AE board in conjunction with the existing sanctions. SirFozzie (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Two words: Plausible. Deniability. Fladrif (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And then when it all comes out? Let's say I did that, then my email gets hacked. Or ArbCom-l leaks (not like that would ever happen... *SARCASM ALERT DETECTED*). Congrats, I've mot only destroyed my own reputation and standing here on Wikipedia, but dragged down my friend (who only took an action that I asked him to), but also damaged the Committee, etcetera. I'd love to let those who think arbitrators are super all powerful folks who can change Wikipedia on a whim try to do this job, we're just as constrained by Wikipedia's policies and norms as anyone else, and in a lot of cases, we can't use the power BECAUSE we have that power. :) SirFozzie (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One can always say to another Administrator without fear of recrimination, "I have some concerns about this, but as an Arbitrator, I am constrained to not act on those concerns. Take a look at this for yourself, make your own decision, and take such action as you deem appropriate." If you want complete transparency, you say it publicly. Fladrif (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this to you

There's a section on WP:ANI that deals with Jeff Merkey spamming copyvio edits into orchid articles using nearly 100 IP addresses. The IPs have been range blocked for 6 months, but, the fact remains, that there are nearly 1000 edits by Jeff Merkey with no citations and no sourcing. Given his past difficulties with copyvio editing, I'd think it prudent to have someone go over those contributions with a fine toothed comb. If I were a betting man, I'd wager they are cut and paste from a book Jeff Merkey has lying around his domicile.Direct link to the ANI conversation [4], look in the collapsed box labelled "Discussion moved from WT:PLANTS" Good luck. Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman topic ban?

Hi, I saw you remove Prioryman's comment and block him for violation of a climate-change topic ban. I've checked the usual places (ARBCC, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions) and done a quick search on the AN archives and Prioryman's talk page history for likely-looking keywords, but I'm stymied. Which case/process was it that placed the ban? (Was it under another username, or did I miss something obvious?)

Also, if the topic ban is the same as the one specified in ARBCC (or worded identically to it), has the ArbCom decided not to allow the editors topic-banned under that decision to participate in future topic-ban appeals by other editors? If so, that would be a departure from the way William M. Connolley's topic ban appeal was handled in October ([5]), where the ArbCom had no qualms about letting topic-banned editors like Cla68 and ZuluPapa5, JohnWBarber, and (if a topic ban existed at that time) Prioryman have their say. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this block either. While I'm familiar with Prioryman's history and the block does fall under the letter of the ArbCom decision, it seems that other topic-banned editors have commented freely and extensively in same venue without any expression of concern (e.g. [6]). I'm a bit perplexed as to why Prioryman had the book thrown at him in this case, when this behavior hasn't been treated as a violation in the past. I assume I'm missing something? MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This was brought up on the ArbCom mailing list as a clear violation of Prioryman's restriction by another arbitrator (who couldn't take action because they were not at their home computer.) If I had been made aware of the violation, I would have blocked those as well at the time. But going forward, as the remedies state, parties topic banned under the restriction are not to comment on CC-related processes. If you find violations, let me know. As for "having thrown the book at him", I don't think a 24 hour block qualifies here. (Edit: TenofAllTrades: Prioryman is restricted from CC as a result of the case, but I cannot go into details, unfortunately.. but as MastCell states (as he is also familiar with Prioryman's history), this is a valid sanction.) SirFozzie (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Also: The reason that an ArbCom member is doing this instead of the normal AE procedure is due to the special circumstances that apply in that account's case (as ToaT notes, Prioryman does not appear in the decision, but is restricted due to the additional information that the Committee has.) Normal violations can also be reported to AE (was this done in previous cases? I'm working and can't check at the moment) SirFozzie (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman's unblock request: "I hadn't realised (though clearly I should have done) that processes were covered as well. It was an inadvertent error on my part, for which I apologise and accept full responsibility. It won't happen again. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)." I think for a first violation, this is a reasonable statement. Could we go ahead and unblock? NW (Talk) 17:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Um... As long as the unblock reason states that yes it was a violation, and not a "bad block", so to speak (there are too many who think that any block/unblock cycle meant it was an automatic bad block and shouldn't count. That's my personal opinion at least  :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked then. And I guess that's something to keep in mind for the future: Arbitration processes count for topic bans and the clerks should probably be removing posts in violation of such bans. NW (Talk) 17:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, insisting Prioryman doesn't call it a bad block in his request to be unblocked won't stop anyone else from concluding that it was a bad block. Exok (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The nice thing is that Prioryman did admit it was a violation, and promised to not do it again, which should settle THAT discussion (which is another of the reasons I went ahead with ok'ing the unblock) SirFozzie (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a "bad block", but there's a clear and unmistakeable precedent for topic-banned users to be allowed to contribute in that venue. Looking at this previous request, I see no fewer than four topic-banned users commenting, including Prioryman. That request was reviewed by a substantial number of Arbs and admins, none of whom seemed to see any violation of the topic ban.

If Arbs have now decided to take a hard line on the topic, then that's legitimate under the letter of the decision, but it represents a diametric reversal of precedent. Under those circumstances, it's probably worth clarifying this as a no-fault situation - it's really hard to fault Prioryman for believing he was permitted to comment. I think we all know that any blocks placed under WP:ARBCC are likely to be dredged up again in future proceedings, and institutional memory isn't a strong suit around here, so it would seem rather unfair to hold this against Prioryman in the long term.

As a technical matter, the block (and perhaps the unblock) should be logged at WP:ARBCC. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all concerned for sorting this out so quickly. I'm a bit confused by what's been said here. I don't recall participating in the discussion pointed out by MastCell at [7] - a quick search doesn't show my username anywhere - and I don't think I had any particular opinion about WMC's request. I was aware of it and I was also aware of Cla68 and other topic-banned users participating in it without attracting any complaints or blocks. That's what made me think that processes related specifically to the arbitration case were not covered by the topic ban. That would actually be a logical position - otherwise you couldn't discuss the case despite being covered by it, which would be somewhat ridiculous. Is it really intended that topic-banned editors cannot discuss matters concerning their cases? It is, after all, not a discussion about the subject matter per se but is purely a procedural discussion about an arbitration case. I would suggest that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment should be specifically exempted from subject matter topic bans. I'm also curious as to why a different standard was followed in my case than for the topic-banned users who commented on WMC's request. Prioryman (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My bad; the link to the full discussion, including your comments, is here. I've fixed it in my comment above as well. MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrected link! As I said, I wasn't particularly concerned about whether WMC's request was justified, but judging from my comment to you (which I'd forgotten about) I was concerned about the scope for wikilawyering, was curious about the rationale behind what was being proposed, and wanted to know more about it. I think those were reasonable questions to ask and obviously nobody objected at the time to me or to anyone else participating in the discussion. What made it different this time? Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I have to query this point as well, which I touched on in my initial post. The ArbCom seems to be being rather inconsistent in its treatment of the topic-banned editors on these requests for amendments; what has changed from five months ago (when WMC filed his amendment request)? That request appears to have had at least five topic-banned editors offering statements – Cla68, ZuluPapa5, JohnWBarber, Prioryman, and A Quest for Knowledge – to which the ArbCom offered no objection, along with one flat-out banned editor (Bookworm44) whose comment was retained, but boxed up. (Ironically, many raised concerns about a battleground attitude or a tendency to stretch the limits of Arbitration restrictions in their remarks.)

Blanking Prioryman's comments and blocking him without warning is a remarkable about-face from the ArbCom's previous handling of amendments to this case. Is there a reason why the Committee didn't enforce this interpretation of their remedy until now (aside from being part of the generally sloppy, shabby way the ArbCom has historically treated WMC) or why an Arbitrator who has heretofore been recused from all climate-change-related decisions needed to take an emergency enforcement action here? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to blame someone, you can blame me. I was one of the drafters on the Climate Change case and therefore, of all people, should have noticed that several of the editors at the WMC request were topic banned. However, I didn't. There was no deliberate tolerance on that occasion, just oversight. Anyhow, the clerks have been alerted and will also be more vigilant in future.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

How exactly did you prevent all the other Arbitrators from reading the amendment request upon which they commented and voted, and thereby become blameworthy for the entire Committee's failure to manage their own process? Telling the community to 'blame' you is meaningless gesture unless there are real reasons behind it, and – for that matter – real consequences for failing to properly manage an ArbCom process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Stuff falls through the cracks (both ArbCom's cracks and the community's) all the time, I'm afraid. And, of course, there was nothing to prevent any of the people watching the page raising the issue at the time.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hang on a moment, we're talking about a discussion which every active arbitrator and the clerks saw, and in the case of the arbs actively participated in, so I don't really buy that it was an oversight. While individual arbs may not have realised, that surely can't be true for everybody. There are really only two explanations that I think are credible - that there was a tacit acceptance that topic-banned editors could participate, or that arbs literally don't bother to read anyone else's comments in amendment discussions. I had thought the former was the case but perhaps I was insufficiently cynical? Prioryman (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps no one recalled the policy and everyone kind of assumed that with so many topic banned editors participating, surely if it was against the rules, someone else would have raised the issue? I'm an Arbitration Clerk, and that was probably my assumption at least, though I can't really say for sure what I thought at the time.

I am surprised that the Arbitrators jumped straight to a block this time. Even giving the fact that the decided it would be best to start enforcing the policy, a simple boxing/removal and a note on your talk page would have sufficed. NW (Talk) 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

One does wonder where the emergency was. The Arbs have tended to ignore these amendment requests for days and weeks at a time; what was so critical here that the unnamed Arb who requested the block couldn't just wait until he got home to deal with it? Why did SirFozzie – who had recused himself from both the climate change Arb case and WMC's amendment request due to an unspecified conflict of interest – need to be the one to take action here?

I'll also say that the Arbs should be forehead-smacking quite themselves quite vigorously if they don't know or understand the implications of their own remedies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no COI with me in CC. WMC and I have had uniformly negative interactions in the past (including him filing a RfC against me and others), so I recuse from a modicum of caution. I have no involvement in Climate Change (other than the actions I took as an administrator (note, not an arb) back then and now. Roger noted the violation on the mailing list, and another arbitrator (who also is not recused in this area stated that since he was not in a place where they could not block Prioryman (they have a "public" account for use on shared computers but that account does not have administrative priviliges). I was the one who made the block because A) I was available and B) I agreed that it was a violation. I did not know at the time about the previous violations (the CC topic ban is very specific in that excludes people not just from the topic area, but any processes relating to the topic, even DR such as the amendment request), or I would have done the exact same thing in just about any other case (once again noting that I would not take any action regarding WMC) SirFozzie (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason for your recusal wasn't noted on the CC case page, nor on WMC's amendment request, so I wasn't sure about the extent was of your involvement. That said, do you think it's a good idea for you to involve yourself in any amendments related to the case, given how pivotal a role WMC played in it, and given that you were not involved in the original case due to your recusal? More specifically, do you think it is a good idea for you to involve yourself in the current amendment request, given that Cla68 shares your history of – let us say, 'negative' – interactions with WMC, and that it appears that Cla68's relationship with WMC will enter significantly into the way that his amendment request will be evaluated? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is stretching things a bit too far to say that negative interactions with ONE of the many many people involved in the "Great Climate Change Omnibus Case of 2010", as it was called at the time, (even one like Dr Connolley, who was a primary focus in this area) means that I have to recuse from the area so I don't see any reason to think I am involved, no. SirFozzie (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder that this block (and unblock) should be logged at WP:ARBCC. I'd do it myself, but I might struggle to come up with a dispassionately worded summary... :) MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Taken care of. Tried to find a way to word it myself, but what can you do :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to have the inadvertency of the violation noted - the no-fault situation MastCell mentioned above. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. SirFozzie (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, but I'm afraid the Wikipedia Review troll and serial harasser Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is making trouble about it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Clear logging of restrictions and arbitration enforcement actions. It is none of his business, of course - this is simply retaliation for my earlier highlighting of the way that he harassed Fae. Your input would be appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because of your recent actions, I time-travelled back to the summer of 2010 where I started this discussion that touches on the same points. There was another discussion around that time where I detailed some of your violations of your ARBSCI sanctions and discussed the issue more specifically, but I'm having trouble finding it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear, I answered your questions in that discussion and you continued to harangue me - even after, as I recall, an arbitrator rebuked you about it. You contribute virtually nothing in article space and seem to regard yourself as some kind of some kind of vigilante enforcer. It's about time that you realised that you are not responsible for overseeing and enforcing sanctions. When I proposed in January that you be banned for harassing and outing another editor off-wiki (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal), the closing administrator castigated what he called your "WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior", which you demonstrate on a virtually daily basis with your attacks on other editors on Wikipedia Review. Unfortunately this is yet another example of it. Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it is next to impossible for me to do any serious work in article space with my work being attacked by trolling sockpuppets or those here who bear grudges against me. I have virtually stopped participating in AfD discussions because at least one person will magically appear there to vote in the opposite way. You seem to forget that I had nothing to do with your sanctions - you earned those by your self. I am merely asking for them to be properly recorded and logged. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not your business. Let the admins do the administration and the arbitrators do the sanctioning. They don't need your help and haven't asked for it. I suggest you take the hint. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency

On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia#Comment_from_AGK, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.

AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.

As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.

AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.

In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:

1. Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
2. If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
3. If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?

These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.

The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello SirFozzie. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Back again

And let's hope no more issues that take me away from the wiki for a while. :) SirFozzie (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request

If you say you're "leaning oppose" but don't say why, it doesn't give me much to go on - could you be a bit more specific? Prioryman (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I will instruct the clerks to keep a close eye on this request, as Prioryman states in his request, folks who under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request. is odd. Topic-banned editors have commented on previous appeals. Why the change? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dr Connolley, what happened was that Prioryman violated the topic ban (inadvertently, they had legitimately didn't realize that the topic ban was more broad then usual, the remedy specifically states that the topic ban also covers CC-related Wikipedia discussions) about six weeks ago and was briefly blocked, but he was unblocked after stating that it was an oversight and that he would abide by it in the future (you can see part of the discussion above as it happened here on my talk page).Basically, letting other CC-topic banned editors comment previously was an oversight and that we would be enforcing the stricter standards going forward (which is one of the reasons why I had no problem with Prioryman being unblocked). NuclearWarfare let the clerks know then that the Clerks would have to keep this in mind going forward (as tehy are the ones who usually enforce such things on Arb-related pages), and Prioryman rightly got it out front in his request so there would be no inadvertent violations this time around.

Prioryman: The leaning oppose is a first reaction, that I have concerns that it would be hard for you to avoid conflict in a highly charged topic area, but I am willing to listen to other statements of neutrals in this area and be swayed. SirFozzie (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm perturbed by your comments, which imply that you don't feel that there is any route back into the topic area for me. I can hardly be accused of making a premature request - it's been 18 months after all - and my record of contributions since the case has been exemplary. In fact, as a way of demonstrating that I had changed my approach, I specifically sought out a highly charged topic area area to bring an article up to FA standard - namely Battle of Vukovar - and entirely avoided conflict, dealing in a sensitive way with the complexities of the issues involved. I was specifically complimented for that and was given multiple barnstars for my work in the area. Is the Arbitration Committee really now in the business of handing out lifetime topic bans with no parole? Prioryman (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In response, no, we're not in the business, as you say of handing out lifetime topic bans with no parole. However, I considered the whole history (of both you personally, and the area), and my first thought was that the chances of renewed warring flaring up in this area at this time was too great to lean support.. that's why I posted what I did. SirFozzie (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Then that does amount to a lifetime topic ban with no parole. In that case what is the point of the standard remedy 3.2.1? "Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors." I've demonstrated this in spades; in fact I've gone out of my way to demonstrate it. Now you're effectively saying that it doesn't matter how much I demonstrate it. How is that in any way reasonable or proportionate? You set out the standard that needs to be met for a lifting of the topic ban, but now you're saying that isn't actually applicable? It seems to me that if 3.2.1 has any meaning, topic-banned editors should at least be given the opportunity to demonstrate that the topic ban should be lifted. Put it another way: I've asked in the appeal for a full lifting of the topic ban. Is there anything short of that that you would consider supporting? For instance, permitting me to contribute DYKs relating to the topic - bearing in mind that I've had great success with DYK editing over the last 18 months, with no conflict at all - for a limited period, say six months, to demonstrate that I'm able to contribute positively to the topic area? Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, you've given no explanation for your reasoning in my ARBSCI amendment request: "would do more harm than good". Could you explain what you mean by that? Prioryman (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My personal idea is that these areas are functioning better right now, but to drop ARBSCI and CC sanctions (as Roger suggests) would invite the same issues all over again with all parties. SirFozzie (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you perceive "the same issues" as being in the ARBSCI case? Bear in mind that I was essentially sanctioned for poor sourcing, rather than editorial interactions. Prioryman (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Roman Polanski Arbcom

I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User blatantly violates talk page guidelines by severely refactoring an Arb's comments. Film at 11.

Hope my splitting up your post at WT:AC was OK. Thanks for the reply there, I've commented. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

please understand ...

I changed one of your block settings .. Ottava Rima ... An article he worked on, Nicolo Giraud which went through FA recently had a ton of changes made to it. I gave him back his talk page access so he could help address some of the changes. I'm only concerned about the article .. and I've told him if he even thinks about misusing the talk page to address other editors then I'd be the first to remove it again. Risker is aware of the article - so it's not like it's not being monitored .. hopefully you'll understand the spirit in which I've done this. — Ched :  ?  11:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand the spirit, but please reinstate it. Ottava is banned by the Committee. We left him a sliver that we do not offer many other editors (working through other editors as proxies), and that's how it should work.. SirFozzie (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ottava can be a pain in the rear, but I would have thought that proxy editing is worse than talk page editing. Rich Farmbrough, 03:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

In this case, Rich, Ottava's problem isn't in content editing, it's in his interpersonal skills. If it was a content issue, I feel fairly safe in saying that he would not be blocked at this time. It was suggested that this method would be a way if Ottava was interested in still contributing to get the benefit to the encyclopedia, while having someone to soften his.. rough edges let's say. In this case, not many people are willing to proxy for Ottava because again his interpersonal skills mean that not many people are willing to put up with what's necessary to do so. SirFozzie (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Not many people? How odd. I see some 30 editors in good standing on OR's talkpage, writing both during and, mainly, after the arbcom case that got him banned, about the irreplaceable loss his content contributions are to the encyclopedia (far outweighing any little problem there might be with his communication style), lamenting the "unduly harsh" ban, or pointing out what a good thing it would be to give him a "second chance". I don't understand why all these people aren't falling over themselves to proxy for him. One person says explicitly that "it would be nice to be able to work with him." Are you telling me all that's just talk? Bishonen | talk 13:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

ArbCom

I find your response very disappointing. As an arb who was absent you should be trying to verify if what I am saying is correct, not simply slamming a door shut in my face for the sake of it. I was informed in advance that this was how ArbCOm would act, but I chose not to believe it. Please prove the doubters wrong and act with rectitude and integrity. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

You said, for example:

"People are inherently flawed. No one is perfect (not even Arbs! (that's a joke)).. but I don't see a huge problem with a bot or high volume automated task if it makes OCCASIONAL errors.. as long as the person behind the bot/task owns up to the mistake, fixes the mistake and doesn't get into wars over the mistake."

I gave an example in the case where I had sifted 160,000 edits from 2 years ago to find and fix a handful of errors. This was totally ignored in favour of some poorly or totally unsubstantiated assertions. The unwillingness of people to own up to mistakes, is not limited to bot masters. Rich Farmbrough, 03:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich, the section that you miss is the following ..as long as the person behind the bot/task owns up to the mistake, fixes the mistake and doesn't get into wars over the mistake. That also applies to your actions post case. Instead of realizing that you've made a mistake, and owning up to the mistake, you've argued that WE made the mistake. I'm trying to AGF on the repeat requests for allowing your own talk page bot. We generally believe that if someone is interested enough to file a request that they're also interested enough to keep an eye on the request, and there was no indication in the first request that there was any support at all for allowing a task like that, so to having declined one request and then to see another one immediately after that was.. aggravating let's say.

I don't think any members of the Committee are willing to grant ANY level of automation at all at this time If I could make a recommendation, it's to forget the idea of running any level of automation at all for at least a few months, rebuild the requisite trust, and only then reapply. I'd say at least six, and let the new crop of arbitrators who will be coming on in the new year deal with it, but since I will no longer be an arbitrator at that point, I can't make any promises of how it will be received). SirFozzie (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to realise that I'm working on an accelerated schedule here. Six months is a very long time, I've already lost two months out of my life to this.

So lets start at the top, and skip the irrelevancies.

"you've made a mistake" be explicit, I've made many mistakes. Encouraging the committee to accept the case was one. Which do you

have in mind? Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

PS I don't usually do talk pages and drama boards so you'll forgive me if I am intermittent coming back to chack for your reply. Rich Farmbrough, 03:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

PPS I see that you only have 45 threads in a year on your talk page. That is a different world than I inhabit, and perhaps explains why you can't see the need for intelligent archiving. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I'm not going to play word games with you for endless discussion. The information that we consider mistakes is in the case. You may not agree with it, but that's what we saw in this case. As I said above, I don't think there's any way the Committee (as it stands) will see fit to relax the restriction on using automation is any meaningful manner for at least six months. If the archiving bots available to you are not suitable to your needs, you will need to do so manually. I'm sorry that this disappoints you, but it's not going to change. SirFozzie (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to do endless discussion. I just want to nail down what is going on here. I am asking for hard facts, I get people telling me to "internalise" this or that.

Six months is clearly some kind of punitive concept. There is no fear that talk page archiving would do any harm, therefore opposing it needs some other justification. If that is just "we don't like you anymore, go away" fine. Let us at least hear what it is, instead of dancing around the subject. All you express in the above paragraph purporting not to play word games is "No." I think asking for a reason is natural and right. Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

No, six months is about normal for people to shown they've corrected the behavior that led to the sanction that folks want to have removed. Again, I'm sorry that you can't accept the evidence and findings that happened in the case, but continuing down this road won't lead you to the result you want. The door (on using automation) is firmly shut, and slamming yourself into it time and time again won't lead to the door swinging open again. Only time and showing better behavior then that which got you sanctioned will lead to the door opening again. SirFozzie (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the complain is apparently about using automation, showing a change of behaviour is impossible without access to automation. With things like talk page archiving the committee seems to be making my life difficult merely for the sake of it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Considering that at least two of your amendment complaints wished to regain the ability to use a bot on your talk page, I would say that it would appear that's at least part of your concern (the ability to use automation). We're not restricting you for using a bot to do talk page archiving, just disallowing you to RUN a bot. As for showing a change of behavior, there's no topic restrictions that you're on, so you can edit any article that strikes your fancy. Editing some articles and improving them (and showing evidence you can collaborate on others when issues arise) would go a long way towards showing an improvement in behaviour. SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Not complaints. And what got me sanctioned was not sticking up for myself back in 2010 or whenever it was. Generally my editing is non-controversial, except for a few slightly unusual editors. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Fae RFAR

I have a question regarding the ground rules. While baseless speculation is explicitly prohibited, is documenting that parties to the case have speculated without evidence in the past also prohibited? Or should diffs of baseless speculation be avoided all together, for privacy reasons?

By the way, thanks for establishing these rules. They should help smooth out the drama in the case. ThemFromSpace 14:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what I would suggest: "In the past, user:x has made contentious statements without having evidence to back their claims. (link to the statement without evidence to back them up). As I said, keep it dry, factual and succinct. SirFozzie (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I received your note on my talk page and affirmatively state I will comply with the rules for this RFAR. MBisanz ^talk 17:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a very problemfull case, and is already at least close to breaking policy by allowing outing. It should be controlled in that respect incredibly tightly. Rich Farmbrough, 03:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Sir Fozie, accusations have been made by those harrassing Fæ which make claims about HIV +veness seem like nursery yard jibes by comparison. Yet you've discourage editors from referring to those accounts without supporting links. Personally Id refrain from linking to such claims under any circumstance, and dont think they have any credibility, as the witchhunters attacking Fae include several members who have previously launched deceptive attacks against other editors I know to have impeccable character. But others may have a different view, and if any of Fæ's defenders support accusations of harassment with links to the extreme accusations, it might cause additional distress to Fæ, especially as accounts have once again repeated their tactic of linking his username with his real name, as they did at the last RfC.

As a precaution, can you please consider expanding your restriction so it forbids accounts to mention Fæ's real name on any of the Arb boards, regardless of whether he may have previously self-outed? FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As you yourself note, Feyd, one of the defenses against charges of outing is self-disclosed information. There's no way we can "disappear" such information, or prevent people from using it, which is one of the reasons I urge people to be very careful with the information they self-disclose. SirFozzie (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the education system will ever follow your example, as its been fashionable for young people to self-disclose all sorts of personal info on the net for over 5 years now. Its in your gift to make harmful posts disappear from the Arb board if you wanted to. Still, even while complying with your restrictions it should be trivial to take the ball into the WR account's court. Witch hunting is not be tolerated! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence

I wanted to call your attention to a response that I made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Allegations_of_anti-gay_bias_are_no_worse_than_other_allegations. You seemed to be saying that calling an editor a homophobe was not like accusing him of being in violation of other Wikipedia policies, because "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So I'd like to ask you about a similar situation.

• Two-thirds of Americans opposed the building of the "Ground Zero Mosque". CNN called that attitude "Islamophobic".[8] Suppose you know an American editor has made an edit that appears to have an anti-Islamic bias. If someone calls him an Islamophobe, is that (a) an "extraordinary claim", or (b) more likely than not to be true? (Or both?) Wnt (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Actually, as someone else mentions in the case text, there were accusations in the Muhammed Images of being anti-Islam that weren't backed up there either,and yes, in my thinking that they were falling under extraodinary claims. SirFozzie (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... this was the source of some confusion to me. Usually I've heard that phrase applied to things in science that seem very unlikely, but you're saying that even if something is more likely than not it can be "extraordinary". What makes it extraordinary? Wnt (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The effect it has on the attempt to find consensus. Let's say the anti-Islamic thing going on. If you're in a discussion on a topic dealing with Islam and you personally are trying to find a good faith compromise, and the person you're trying to work with says "I don't agree with you, and you're obviously anti-Islamic" (where it's not immediately clear that you indeed are, well, that's going to break down any chance of consensus really quickly, right? Plus it becomes too convenient an out not to seek consensus or common ground. "Anyone who disagrees with X is (Anti-HotButtonTopic/Pro-HotButtonTopic)" is usually a sign that the whole thing's broken down isn't it? In this case, f you have proof that another person is indeed homophobic (statements that REASONABLY can be construed as homophobic) then that's one thing, but too often I'm afraid it became a convenient label for "People who had concerns with another editor" in this case. SirFozzie (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a subtle but very important distinction to be made here. If I say you're anti-Islamic, that is a general characterization of your personal mental state which I am not qualified to make. But if I say that a comment you make is anti-Islamic, that is an objective characterization of a particular piece of text which can be confirmed or denied by third party editors pretty easily. So the latter case is not a stopping point for discussion at all, but a chance to shed some light on the question of whether an editor is contributing in a way that may be biased or uncivil. This is merely an example of the the general principle "focus on the edit, not the editor". Wnt (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I don't know that this matters, but you said "Apologized (not to us.. but to his supporters)" - in fact I apoligɀed to both constituencies "I apologise to ArbCom for that".

All the best,

Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

• Hi Rich: While I personally appreciated the apology to us, but by what I said, apologizing to those who supported you was more important then that, I'm hoping that weverything will move forward better from here. SirFozzie (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Fine, it wasn't completely clear, and I am, perhaps, slightly more concerned with these things than I usually am. Rich Farmbrough, 03:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
    

Evidence rules and scope in Fæ RFAR

I'd like to draw your attention to questions of scope that I posted here and to a concerns about Fæ's answers to your questions that I have been expressing here, here, and here without much success. I was hoping to stay out of this, but it seems likely that I will need to present evidence if only to effectively rebut claims that are being made about my actions and motivations. I will let you know if I wish to become a party. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence length

I'm afraid I've gone slightly over length with my evidence - it was originally 648 words but I've reduced it to 548, and I can't really reduce it much more without losing essential content. I'm currently only about 9% over. Is this good enough for you to accept? Prioryman (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's close enough that I don't have a problem with it, Prioryman, I'll let the clerks know before I head off to sleep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs)

Thanks - Lord Roem managed to squeeze it down to 532 words in the end. Prioryman (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You might also want to have a general word about this sort of situation with your clerks, some of whom seem to believe that the 500/1000-word, 50/100-link limits are etched in stone. In lieu of interpreting the guidelines with any flexibility, or seeking the advice of his ArbCom masters, Lorn Roem has endorsed one editor submitting evidence on behalf of another editor as a way to get around the word/link limit. I'm not sure that this is a good precedent to set: [9]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ick. I've often advocated for better supervision of Arbcom proceedings but adhering to the letter of the rules, while trashing their spirit, doesn't seem helpful. SirFozzie's approach ("you went a little over, but not too much so that's OK") is much more constructive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a party

Can you please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Can_someone_please_explain_why_this_case_seems_to_be_about_me_and_not_F.C3.A6.3F? Lord Roem mentioned you, so I guess that you're the one to speak to when one has concerns over who is or isn't a party to the case. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you have asked for both Michaeldsuarez and I to be added to the case as parties. I think I have already stated that I would prefer not to be a party, but if I must be, you will need to clarify the scope of the case, especially with regard to my involvement. I will need to amend my evidence and will require an extension of at least a day. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence regarding Fae

I received a message this morning that I had been mentioned on the Fae case. While my name has since been deleted, the incident is mentioned linked to at least once (and perhaps more, I didn't even attempt to click on more than 10 links...there's just too many). I know the time for evidence is over, but seeing as I just received notification and that an incident involving me is already mentioned, I would like to give evidence regarding the incident.LedRush (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sir Fozzie, I would also like to submit evidence in the Fae case. Due to work commitments I won't be able to do so before Saturday. Could you please extend the evidence submission period? Thank you. Draco^E 15:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Shall I take the silence to mean "no"?LedRush (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry,I let this slip by, thought I had already answered it. PLease do so quickly as, I will probably ask the clerks to formally close the evidence page after the weekend SirFozzie (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.LedRush (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sir Fozzie, as noted at the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Can_someone_please_explain_why_this_case_seems_to_be_about_me_and_not_F.C3.A6.3F, you may not ask to have the evidence page closed on Monday. Please follow established procedure. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The evidence page will close Monday as planned. DC has participated in this case from 6/12. If he needs extra time, he can request a clerk post his evidence as necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • He has not participated in this case as a named party since that date. Even if it was 6/12, that's still Tuesday, not Monday. Please do not violate established procedure. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Sir Fozzie. When exactly on Monday will the evidence page close? Draco^E 18:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Draco, I asked the clerks earlier what time the pages are closing, and the answer was 23:59 UTC on the dates concerned. Prioryman (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Request to clarify RFA evidence

Very late last night, just before the evidence phase closed, another editor noted a potential error in the evidence I posted. I did not notice the problem until this morning. The problem results from imprecise language condensed in order to meet the 500-word length limit. I can resolve the problem without violating that limit, and the language would not have been quite so drastically condensed if I had known of the leeway subsequantly recognized by Lord Roem's response to Prioryman on his talk page (but not by the boilerplate bot language). I therefore request permission to add brief clarifying language to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Off-wiki_commentary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, approved by LR. Sorry to bother you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae case: behaviour beyond Wikipedia what is within and outwith scope?

Hi,

With some of my recent additions to the case pages, I've been trying to feel out where its boundaries lie with regards to off-Wikipedia behaviour. As well as being a Wikipedian, Fae is a WMUK trustee and a Commonsist. Criticisms of him on WR and Wikipediocracy includes discussion of what he has done in those capacities and not just what he has done here. So I want to clarify how you decide what is admissable with regards to the following:

1. What Fae or anyone else has done outside Wikipedia (e.g. as a Trustee or on Commons);
2. What Fae done on Commons etc that shows a continuity of conduct with his Ash account here;
3. References to threads on WR etc that are about what Fae has done outside Wikipedia;
4. What a WR (etc) person has said or done on stuff that has nothing to do with Fae.

Feel free to answer on one of the case pages. Thanks.Peter cohen (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A) Commons is not under our remit, neither is his position with WMUK.

B) Again, Commons is not within our remit

C) Was it designed to have a specific on-Wiki effect? If so, then while it may color our thinking (IE, there's people who HAVE made statements that could be considered harassment on WO, some of which were in poor taste, and removed by the people later)

D) It doesn't really effect my view one way or the other. There are people there who have been banned for good reason (or have reason to distrust/mock Wikipedia).. but that doesn't make what they say wrong, just because they said it. If they're right, they're right, and if they're wrong, they're wrong.; SirFozzie (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Previously undisclosed

"[T]here apparently is other accounts as well, previously undisclosed." What do you mean? I don't want to know the name(s) of the alleged account(s), but I would like to know what is meant here. Undisclosed to the public? Undisclosed to ArbCom? Undisclosed at the time of the RfA? "Apparently" as in unsure or undetermined? Your comment raises more questions than answers. It might cause confusion, unless you clarify it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Michael: While I'm not going to go into details right now, there was information forwarded to the Committee that a number of alternate accounts with no clear linkage were active as of 2010. I'm currently reviewing the accounts to make sure that none of them double voted, chimed in on the discussions together, or ran into significant issues that would require a finding. Not prepared to go into more detail then that until I've checked everything out. SirFozzie (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The rules of evidence were a nice try, but....

Please take a look at this discussion on SilkTork's talk page. It appears to be skirting the rules of evidence by holding the conversation on an Arb's talk page where the unsubstantiated allegations made by Fæ have been able to go unchallenged. I think the focus of this RFAR has already been lost, but making those types of allegations while the case is proceeding should addressed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll review. SirFozzie (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't know me. But, as an outsider, I've had a lot of respect for you over the years, David. And I realise that it would be very easy to take the road of less resistance here. So simple. And it seems that, after all the advances, that it wouldn't matter much if you just let this one slide. But it's the turning point. And, deep down, you know it is. Do this thing right. Do it -all- right without sweeping things under the rug. And, even if it fails (and it might), you'll know that you did the right thing.101.118.43.172 (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(Oh, PS, doing it all right includes your action against the ED troll... anyone who thinks "lulz" is an excuse for anything needs to grow up.)

Use of cross-wiki accounts

I am curious about a point regarding the application of WP:SOCK. In a few instances regarding the Fæ case an alternate account uploaded an image to Commons and the other account then added the image to an article on Wikipedia. Both accounts were in use on Commons and Wikipedia at the time and not publicly linked. Even though the act of the unlinked alternate account took place on Commons does the use of that image by the other account on Wikipedia still make it a violation of WP:SOCK? Technically, the accounts only contributed to the same articles in two minor instances, but the images on Commons were clearly uploaded to be used in the article to which they were immediately added.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actions on other WMF sites is not within our remit (except for VERY rare cases (such as the interaction ban in the Racepacket case, where much of the harassment spiraled from an on-wiki dispute, but was done off-wiki SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that nothing done by the other account on Commons can be dealt with here, but what I am asking basically is if someone had two active accounts here that were also active on Commons but were not publicly linked in either place and the editor used one account to upload an image on Commons that was immediately followed by the other account adding that image here would this not have the effect of portraying the two accounts here on the English Wikipedia as separate in violation of WP:SOCK since the accounts would be shared across both projects?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't consider that. That falls outside our remit SirFozzie (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Action isn't within your remit, but a motion of recommendation to the WMF is. Like I said. Do the right thing. Do all the right thing. At least you and Brad know this... So do something about it.101.118.43.172 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record...

Not having jumped in on Noetica's desysopping straw poll one way or the other doesn't necessarily mean the "community" agrees with him.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Falung Gong 2 proposed decision

There is a vote to close the Falung Gong 2 case which is not yet passing. Your votes could be decisive as there are one proposed finding of fact and three proposed remedies which do not currently pass due to missing arbitrator votes. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind being contacted here; the rules of engagement here are not clear, and I don't want to act in a manner that is viewed as violating some unspoken rules of propriety. But I wanted to quickly draw your attention to a couple threads on the FLG 2 case. It would be encouraging to know that this material has been read and considered, since these threads relate to the votes on which there has been some differences of opinion (similarly, it is heartening to know that evidence pages are read — I really just don't know who reads what).

• On edit warring
• on Colipon’s failure to AGF
• [10]

Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting clarification

At the ArbCom Falun Gong Proposed Decision page (which I think is much clearer than saying the AC FG PD page ;), you mentioned the "new committee" in relation to the proposed ban of Homunculus. I'm assuming you were referring to the ArbCom after the next election? John Carter (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I was going to say the Committee, but I will not be on it (I've made a vow that three years in a row is ENOUGH, thank you very much), so it will be the Committee of 2013 that gets to decide. SirFozzie (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Three years. My god. Thank you. Having only been peripherally involved in a few ArbComs over the years, I have found even those rare instances enervating. The fact that you've put up with it for three years is something I can't see myself ever having the guts to put myself through. Thanks again for three years of thankless work dealing with people who have a habit of swearing at each other on a regular basis. John Carter (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You don't know how much this means to me right now, with all that's going on :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, allow me to echo John's thanks, so the job you're doing is somewhat less thankless. Without arbcom, Wikipedia would be utter chaos, and beyond all hope. JN466 02:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen. Really appreciated. SirFozzie (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Note

• Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Prohibited

As the page states you are the drafting arbitrator, please note. - jc37 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously

Hey, Foz. Can you please have a look into this... particularly the *hilarious* bit where an admin blocked the account for block evasion *before* blocking the IP address *at the same time as* removing my defence and very reasonable requests from the area where I'm meant to defend myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Halfnakedlabrador Also, I request the contact details of the checkuser ombudsman committee. Ta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheap54678 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP isn't blocked. So I create an account.. which is blocked with the entire talk page deleted.. so the only way I can appeal a block of an account that was incorrectly blocked for block evasion is to evade a block..

Of course, we all know that what happened is that Sterling got on IRC and pleaded for a local "useful" "person" to do what he said. That young man needs to learn that you can't have one set of rules for yourself and one for others. I re-iterate my original request for these accounts to be vanished and for my privacy to be protected from the likes of Sterling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheap54678 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rich's talk page

Hey, just wondering why you reverted Rich Farmbrough's comment on his own page. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Noticed you self-reverted - I misclick like that all the time. So frustrating! Sorry to bother you. Happy editing! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed

Hello SirFozzie,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! WorldsApart (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes

Recuse if accepted - thanks - Youreallycan 20:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And, done. Please take my comments (and Brad's) to heed, it is my opinion you aren't helping yourself with your statements so far. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - Youreallycan 20:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Accept v. Recuse

Hey SirFozzie. If you're going to recuse on the Youreallycan case, can you change your vote from Accept to Recuse on the case request page? It doesn't seem right to me for an arbitrator to vote to accept a case when they have acknowledged that they are not going to be active on it (because they are recused no less). Best, NW (Talk) 20:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Bey NW, I've only been asked to recuse if accepted, but in abundance of caution, I'll do as requested :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated as well - Youreallycan 21:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie, please note that while NuclearWarfare holds the exalted ranks of administrator and arbitration clerk, he isn't yet a bey to the best of my knowledge. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If we can have a God-King, surely there's room for a bey or two? Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, our current Bey of New York isn't doing very well recently, so there may be a vacancy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We had him already in Boston, so you can keep him *laughs* SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

TDA men's right move again

Hi Fozzie and sorry for contacting you directly but I have a concern about TDA's sudden involvement - expressed here. I'll note that TDA has also started commenting on Talk:Feminism an article I have significantly contributed too. Given that it was clearly expressed that a) KC did nothing wrong and b) that any further moves should go to Move Review and c) this looks a bit like hounding (especially in light of this[11]). If this is an AE or ANi matter I'll go there but would like some input. I'm going to contact PhilKnight and ElenoftheRoads directly to. If I'm overreacting I'm more than happy to redact and AGF--Cailil ^talk 12:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that

You're obviously not a fool, and I wouldn't have a clue if you're arrogant. But you are wrong. Sheesh. Look. The outcome is highly likely to be a ban, because it's highly likely he'll do it again. But there's a slim chance he'll behave. Miracles happen. He's put a lot into this project. One last chance will cost the committee very little. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, no offense taken, I understand that people wish to support Malleus, and that things are heated (I'm trying extra hard to remain civil, and I've been known to fly off the handle a time or two myself). I really do wish that it could go differently, but without Malleus stating that he will at least try to change his behavior (which would be the ideal goal, but the odds are.. rather slim that he would make that statement), it wouldn't be a matter of if, but when, and how much more sturm und drang would be generated as a result. SirFozzie (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, he's not the kind of person who would make that statement, but he's the kind of person who might quietly change his behaviour to continue contributing here, if he's extended the goodwill gesture of one last chance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I endorse what Anthony says. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, all I can go by is what he says, and he says he'd be a coward if he didn't call people these things publicly. :/ SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If the people at the top were really worried about editor retention they would get rid of ArbCom and keep people like Malleus who actually contribute. This is a huge, huge fuck up on your (plural) part. (With no offense toward your personally, as this is directed at the actions of the "institution", obviously) T. trichiura Infect me 21:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We disagree, but I do understand where you're coming from T.t (please forgive me not spelling it out, I'd probably make about 10 errors trying to type it out, and I'd probably screw up even Copying and pasting it) SirFozzie (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

kudos.

I noticed you struck your vote while trying to reach and understanding. (the Malleus Clarification/motion). I compliment you on that - and I hope you, NYB, and Malleus can find a solution short of a ban. Thank you for your consideration - I think it speaks volumes as to what is best for the project, and your efforts to ensure that. — ChedZILLA 04:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ched. I'm hopeful. We're not there yet, but I won't say that I didn't try my hardest for an optimal solution. SirFozzie (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And as it turns out, Malleus has decided against meeting us halfway, and as such, I've had to reluctantly reinstate my vote. SirFozzie (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello to you! I am sorry for the unthoughtful words I have commented about you on Worm's page. Worm's one of few editors on Wiki who supported me through tough times, otherwise I won't even be here. Worm told me you did not deserve the comment from me and I apologize. I respect you as a Wikipedian and would like to take back what I said, I hope you can find the kindness in your heart to forgive me and help me become a better editor.

RexRowanTalk 09:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I know things have been heated, so I'm not taking this personally. Thank you for your apology, and hopefully things will come to a better solution soon. 09:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding me with grace, I am willing to learn from you. Sincerely. --RexRowanTalk 09:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the R&I/Mathsci case

(For note, I am not the banned user in question, just a former Wikipedian who is frustrated with the system enough to no longer contribute, this case is a further example of my frustrations...)

My notes on this (and if you could post this to the case page, I'd appreciate it):

• Echigo Mole is accomplishing his goals of disrupting Wikipedia through Mathsci at this point.
• Mathsci is performing essentially a witchhunt against anything and everything that even smells close to EM.
• At no point in many of the AE enforcement actions was there ANY conclusive proof that it was EM. All circumstantial, all assumed. All giving more ammo for Mathsci to continue hunting and bringing in others into this ever growing web of issues.
• The innocent users having no background on the case and knowing basic wiki policy wonder what the hell is going on and eventually getting IBANed or straight up banned when they, as a neutral observer, see what is going on with this case and jump in.
• Mathsci then seems to follow the newly "marked" user's contributions and jump on them at AE, ANI, or other unrelated venues and further inflames the situation.
• For the last round of I-BANS, there still is no conclusive proof that it was EM. In fact, the IP posted three notices and was blocked as a tor proxy, not even as part of the SPI two days later. After the block Mathsci goes around removing the posts armed with the case amendment as his ammo.
• It was noted and discussed during the R&I amendment that this could be an issue

Still can't support it, as it doesn't specify any method or process for ascertaining that edits are, in fact, those of a banned editor: If it's requiring a closed SPI, it's cumbersome, and if it's assuming guilt, it's eliminating due process and appropriate notifications--of the two, the latter is the more concerning issue to me, since editors should not be sanctioned absent appropriate warning. Still, it does look better than either of the previous two. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• If arbiters really wanted to stop disruption of Wikipedia, they would require Mathsci to backoff and notify an admin of things he suspects EM related and then drop it to let them handle it. Otherwise, eventually everyone will be one-way IBANed with Mathsci at this rate.
• At any rate, Cla68 does good work. However, he is someone who, when seeing people being wronged, has the urge that he must jump in an assist to help them. Looking at all the times he has been in "wiki-trouble", this has been the case. (Larouche, Climate Change, etc) .
• In this particular case, I think the AE admins went too far and need to step back and really see what's going on with Mathsci. He's spending most of his time lately dealing with EM stuff than actually contributing to the encyclopedia.

65.122.75.14 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Most assuredly, I believe you have earned this. MONGO 00:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

R&I Motion

I see I am not the only IP poking for your attention.

ARBCOM does not make policy. That one gets tossed around quite a bit. Your motion notes that there is no evidence showing an abuse of the one-way iban justifying its modification, mearly the potential for it. Does that not logically extend to all one-way ibans? I view the motion as a statement that oneway ibans are inherently unfair and that any can be changed to two way on that basis. Isn't that effectively writing a de-facto policy that one way ibans are unacceptable? 206.47.78.150 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, but considering Mathsci's behavior when this case request was brought before the committee, I think that there was a valid concern that he was gaming the restriction, which several other arbitrators (even those voting oppose) also have concerns with. SirFozzie (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

spi case

can you take a look at this case [12] thx. Baboon43 (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello SirFozzie. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Motion on Elen of the Roads - Freudian typo?

Re this note, didn't you mean "per the Arbitration Committee policy" instead of the current "per the Arbitration Committee police"? Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, if the situation here wasn't so ridiculous, I would laugh at the mistake I made. Thanks for the catch and the notice. SirFozzie (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's some inspirational music to be played loud. goosebump song Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)