This is an archive of past discussions with User:SirFozzie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
better result? How. I've put tens of hours of work into this, and it appears to me right now there's a double standard going on. I understand the pressure that Brad and FT2 are under, I just think that this is NOT a good proposed decision. It's not even a bad one. It's a go-forth and sin no more one, and that 's the complete opposite of what the community consensus was.. it's a whitewash, plain and simple. SirFozzie (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
C'mon Fozz...now it's time to hand it over to the evening shift. Let's grab a beer and spit pistachio shells at unsuspecting preppies... Risker (talk) 04:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. and I appreciate everyone giving me good advice to take a few deep breaths.. I'm still a bit frustrated, but no longer doing that cartoon thing where steam comes out of my ears. SirFozzie (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You write: "The level of evidence provided is 900% as much as normally needed for a DUCK block." [1]
Well, I didn't get into over-analysing the statistics because what impressed me (and boy, was I impressed) was that there was a great quantity of it. The emphasis on quantity is what worries me particularly. You know you can take a set of filters and apply them to two samples in a population until you find one with a local minimum. Discard any filters that don't give low readings. Rinse and repeat, and suddenly you've got quite a lot of filters that are distinctly alike for those two individual samples. What you've built by doing this is a recogniser for those two individuals. But then if you go and apply the same recogniser to other sets of individuals, they'll be quite high readings, so you may fool yourself into believing that you've demonstrated that samples X and Y from the population are actually identical. After all, your recogniser cannot tell the difference. That isn't a "duck" test, it's something else. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
In other words, "who cares, that every marble so far reviewed matches.. there's tons of marbles that might not match." Speak plainly. SirFozzie (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere Since it's now expressly obvious that ArbCom cannot or more likely will not deal with the elephant in the room (due to "confounding issues" that no one wishes to explain, or show publically, or even be on the record about, except for UC).. the ArbCom will not be the end of the issue. Instead, we'll be right back to where we started. I've heard vague whispers of "managing the impact this has on Wikipedia, the Foundation (etcetera)", and "damage control" being the issue of the day behind the decision. Well, bad news, true believers. ArbCom has their chance to manage the impact and damage control. They've dropped back 10 yards and punted the main issue away, instead. It'll be up to the greater community to take care of the issues that ArbCom apparently can't handle. SirFozzie (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the evidence is that it fails, by its selective production of an armory of different filters, to demonstrate that "every marble so far chosen fits." It just shows that "out of a myriad of possible marbles, we can find many that fit"--selection bias. But there are bright sparks on arbcom and they recognise an unnecessary decision when they see it.
I've absolutely no problem, and I'm sure the arbitration committee has no problem either, with the idea of the community solving its problems. That's how it's supposed to work. But what you seem to be doing here is proposing that the community resolving its problems is something novel and unusual, when in fact the committee's remit is only to intervene where the community cannot resolve its problems. Read the arbitration policy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason why it was sent to arbitration is because A) Even the newcomers to this issue realize this is highly policial. I'm asking you to be totally honest here. If someone had blocked Mantanmoreland as a result of the overwhelming consensus of the RfC, do you think that certain folks would have let the block stand? The answer is left as an exercise to the student. SirFozzie (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You're ducking the question, Tony. I ask again. "If Mantanmoreland has been indefblocked by someone (ANYONE) as a result of the community consensus on the RfC, do you honestly think that folks who support Mantanmoreland (and call it things such as "mind control", "vast Overstock conspiracy", etcetera) would let the block stand?" SirFozzie (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've told you the answer to the question. It just takes one admin prepared to unblock, for a community ban to fail. That's the answer.
Obviously someone who supported Mantanmoreland would not be willing to countenance a community ban, but they might be swayed by a show of consensus. Then again, they might not. That's what consensus is about.
This isn't some weird "they won't let it stand" thing, it's how Wikipedia works. We can only know if such a ban will work if we actually discuss the evidence and, if you want a ban, see if there is consensus for it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
We've already done that. It was called "Request for Comment/Mantanmoreland". And thanks for trying to shift indefblock = community ban. SirFozzie (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A community ban with consensus is the only way to keep and retain an indefinite block in the absence of intervention from the foundation, arbcom, or Jimbo. There is no distinction, nothing up my sleeve, nothing is being shifted. Read the policy page I cited. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The17:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other, so rather than continue to wind each other up, I think it's best that we agree to disagree and fight the battles (if need be) out in theopen. SirFozzie (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And I full admit, I tend to be a bit grumpy about the whole thing, since I've been having people take shots at me ever since I started this investigation what.. a month? six weeks? (seems like at least that long, if not longer) after the initial check user came back. *shrugs* SirFozzie (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You're lucky. It started at RfCU, went to AN at the checkuser's suggestion, went to the investigations page, to RfC, to AN again (to contest the RfC), to RfArb.. and now we look to head back to AN after all this is done! Talk about your vicious circles, huh? SirFozzie (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
None of the sources is cited right after his name, and none of the sources I see at the bottom conspicuously note that "Colin Cowherd" is his real name. Chicken Wing (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
But please don't injure yourself on my account! I'd really like to keep the "No Fozs were hurt in the deciding of this RfB" tag up... ~ Riana ⁂00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Back from Burnout
Hey SirFozzie - I see you have come a long way since we last worked together on Wikipedia - I look forward to seeing you around too. :)
Oh, come off it. It was meant light-heartedly, although I will concede that perhaps it was a little ill-advised. I just think it's absurd that you should be admonishing me for not telling people off for using ad hominems when they weren't. Sam Korn(smoddy)21:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me from reading the arguments of those supporting a ban on this guy that they feel Mantanmoreland has been unapologetic about his behavior. Can you show me some evidence of that--or am I misreading it? Reason I'm asking is that if he has been unapologetic about his misconduct, I could definitely support a ban per the precedents of Primetime and Archtransit. Blueboy9622:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page, BB. At one point in the discussion, he insisted he'd never been accused of sockpuppetry, then we got to post ArbCom Member Fred Bauder original "Gotcha" SirFozzie (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, after he reluctantly admitted the warning had been issued he refused to comment on whether it was correct or not. That instance was checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry so we really have to presume Fred Bauder was correct unless Mantanmoreland had a very good answer. He disregarded repeated invitations to provide an alternate explanation. DurovaCharge!22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
update on Talk:Gamesworkshop
Well RFCU has come back as a mixed bag about User:RichSatan. It's confirmed that he and Byahahaha are the same but "no comment" on the IPs (see it here). I'm pretty sure its a duck but if you'd like I can get an uninvolved sysop to review? Hope you're not too stressed out by other things--Caililtalk 00:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm thinking of sending this up to ANI - as it has really become a case of harassment - what do you think? The IP claims it hasn't read the page before - but it resolves to teh same street and company as all the other IPs making RichSatan-like comments. Considering that RichSatan is a sock-puppeteer, it's probably time to call the ducks - "ducks"--Caililtalk01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I would bring it in to ANI, definitely.For this IP to appear shortly after RichSatan leaves, Byahahaha (now known to be RichStan) tries to vandalize the page, and now this IP attempt to discredit you.. that's a box of Quackerjacks. SirFozzie (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems like nobody wants to get involved Foz. The IP has changed (it is dynamic) to 82.152.176.98 and these are there latest remarks to me[2][3]. Wherther or not these IPS are RichSatan they certainly are all the same person. They have claimed not to have read the page before March 12th and yet the same dynamic IP has been beating the same drum since this time last year. Have you any advice on what to do about this guy? I've laid out all the evidence at ANI but (probably because people aren't reading it) they must think its a content issue. He wants to ignore NOR and NPOV and demands I don't edit the page (looks a bit like WP:OWN to me)--Caililtalk23:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I left a note to Jehochman about this last edit by the IP. At this point I've been called "insane" (last diff), had inferred that I have a COI and had my profession smeared[4], he's made demands I don't edit the page - and all of this is only from this latest week of contribs from that IP. The same behaviour is exhibitted by the same range going back to June 2007[5][6] (oh and this lovely threat to edit war[7]). Looks like Jehochman is too busy - so would you mind having a look at the last edit describing me as "insane"[8]--Caililtalk12:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Foz I could do with a little help here. I'm being accused of serious misconduct by this dynamic IP. No uninvolved sysops are willing to look at this one way or the other. But in my opinion being called "insane" is pretty uncivil. The accusations of WP:GAME being made are untrue, as you know, and still the IP is given free reign to continue to attack me. What can I do?--Caililtalk12:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I asked another administrator to comment on this, if you have any more such comments let me know or the admin who commented, and I'm sure either of us will block the IP on sight (the problem is that if we don't get to it for several hours, then we run the risk of blocking innocents, because of the dynamic nature of his IP) . SirFozzie (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Foz. And I do understand about the issues with blocking a dynamic IP. It's just quite frustrating that we can't hold this type of IP user to the normal WP:EQ rules--Caililtalk16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Wikipedia's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Wikipedia's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues. Actions related to the articles involved, including naked short selling, overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, have been repeatedly disruptive and have had serious implications both on and off wiki. Any current of future editor making substantial edits to these articles is direct ed:
(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;
(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;
(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and
(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.
Any uninvolved admin may impose reasonable restrictions, after warning, upon involved articles or editors. Knowledgeable and uninvolved editors are urged to review these articles to ensure accuracy, fairness, and adherence to wiki policies. User:Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1 in the decision. User:Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.
Thank you, but it was truly a team effort. My role in it was probably on the lower half of all of this. We all did what we could. While the result wasn't quite what we wanted, I think all we can do now is wait and hope we don't have to deal with this again. SirFozzie (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If you (or any admin reading this) aren't too busy
You call the comment made by User:Privatemusingshere a sign of good faith...it looks like baiting a banned editor to me and not something I condone, especially from someone who was banned themselves for 3 months. I could be mistaken, but asking Mantanmoreland if he wants to continue editing smacks of greasing the skids if you ask me...especially considering who was doing the asking.--MONGO18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have a concern about an editor, MONGO, why not take it up with them directly? Nineteen minutes ago before your comment above, you wrote that people should be more willing to assume good faith, so it might be good to offer the same to Privatemusings, and let him address your concerns himself. alanyst/talk/19:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I won't edit war if you restrike it but I'm not going to revert myself. We have confirmation from a highly trusted user that this is another legitimate editor who is afraid of someone who has repeatedly outed and harassed Wikipedians. We should have a mechanism for allowing trusted, legitimate users to say what they want and have their voices be counted. Allowing such a temporary account blunts the force of ColScott's standard terror practices. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
DRV
Heya. Please don't strike out other folks comments. You can comment directly below it to cast doubt if need be, but leave the comments alone. It ain't RFA. Kindly, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, misunderstood. In RTFA's case.. see this [11].. I kept what I consider the important part of it, the information he provided. But I will step aside, since I'm hearing it from both sides on this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
ROARR at beep
Request, rant, discussion, threat...? Is all..? Is not proper leave ROARR at beep? 'Zilla admin now. (Yeah!!!!!!) Wish to learn fine admin manners before running for 'crat. [See here request plus threat: little Fozzie support Bishzilla crat? ] bishzillaROARR!!11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC).
Replies
Thanks Virdae and Risker. I'm just keeping it pretty much on the down low for the next bit. Thinking what I want to do. I've been pretty much argued out of vanishing at this point, but trying to figure out what to do next is the hard part.
And wonderfully stupendous 'Zilla, congrats on getting the largest mop in the history of Wikipedia, and of course I'd support you for 'Crat.. To slightly modify someone said on your RfA.. "Most 'Crats judge consensus based on the weight of the various arguments. Bishzilla would decide consensus based on weight. Her weight. (IE, what she says, is consensus).. SirFozzie (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's 7:00 PM and I'm on my way home. :) Maybe I'll hit SopCast and watch the cricket and work on it when I get home. (it's useful background noise) SirFozzie (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
GFDL issues aside, as they can be fixed rather than speedy deleted....is it still an A3 do you reckon? It's mostly a linkfarm, and there's a category that does the job with much less spaminess. One Night In Hackney30319:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Page has been protected after Traditional Unionist got involved in an edit war with me. I edited the page accordingly with a valid source and engaged in discussion with the afore mentioned individual. What is the problem? The last update I did was factually correct and did not contain anything potentially libellous or otherwaise.--Reggie Yoof (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw your BLP-Lock post on the Village Pump. You may like to know that serious progress is being made on the FlaggedRevs stable versions extension. You can try the public beta to see it in action. It looks like it's very close to becoming a reality! GarrettTalk23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
