User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 19

Jon & Kate Plus 8
I'm fully aware of what you claim, but unless you're going to point out exactly what part of RS the citation violates (and why this would justify the removal of the whole section, you may as well not say it at all. I'm not blind reverting, I'm reverting because you're removing a whole section of an article.

Cite for me, exactly then, why the source is unreliable. --Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And there appears to be a group of people out there hellbent on making sure no one says anything bad about their show. Further more, at least half of those citations in the story section also come from a self published site, or missing citations altogether. Finally, I'm well aware of the 3RR. --Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Further more, I've never liked removing information if one doesn't like the citation or lack therefore of, because look here's a third party doing a story on the show! Amazing! Of course, I somehow doubt you'll accept a YouTube video as a source, but haven't the faintest clue where one would find the original video, I've tried searching CNN's website, but perhaps you know some tricks I don't.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Idea / Bad Idea for stability while task force completes ?
Hi, there's been a few anon editors changing text between using the term "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" in various articles. Some have resulted in 3RRs on some articles (although no 4RRs as far as I can tell). A solution that appears to have worked with the term "British Isles" is to ban removal/insertion while the WP:BITASK task force is completing. Perhaps a similar ruling might work while the WP:IDTF task force is completing? --HighKing (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ping - you may have missed this --HighKing (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, HighKing. I've been trying to avoid all Irish-related issues (you may see below) due to "battle" fatigue, so to speak... I have no problem with the suggestion, myself. SirFozzie (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries. Return stronger.  It doesn't appear to be a big problem at the moment - the suggestion was really to preempt the activities of a few anon IP addresses and the inevitable reverts leading to edit warring, etc. --HighKing (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Question
Fozzie, can you confirm that you are no longer involved in the whole issue of "Troubles"-related articles and are taking no further part in enforcing Arbcom or other decisions in relation to this area? Sarah777 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At least at the moment, Sarah.. I have other things that I need to focus on. (On and off WP). I am keeping an eye on things and will act if I deem necessary, otherwise I will let others take the lead on things if need be. SirFozzie (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that on my talk page. -- Domer48 'fenian'  11:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Recorded debates and discussions
Candidates and the community,

Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email

There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.

01:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiVoices

Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review

ArbCom Candidate Template
Hello, fellow candidate! Just so you know, in an effort to announce our candidacies and raise further awareness of the election, I have created the template ACE2008Candidate, which I would invite you to place on your user and user talk pages. The template is designed to direct users to your Questions and Discussion pages, as well as to further information about the election. Best of luck in the election! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Stalker question
Hi SirFozzie, As you are admin, I wanted to ask you about a current problem I am having with a wikistalker. This individual has been creating user accounts with names very similar to mine (like snapy56, snappy55, snappy56.1 etc). Then they edit and vandalise article that I have recently contributed to. It's more tiresome than anything else but I was wondering how to get rid of them, since I was hoping they would go away but they seem to have alot of time on on their hands! When I become aware of the similar sounding user accounts, I report them to WP:UAA and they are quickly blocked. I have also pre-emptively created some doppelganger accounts but there are lots of variations on a name so I can't get them all. I'm not sure how to get this very sad individual blocked/banned, I don't think a checkuser is needed, but I'm not sure. If you can point me in the write direction, I'd appreciate it. Tx, Snappy56 (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Snappy: The only way we can stop him, I think, is with a rangeblock. I'd file a checkuser request (sadly, it's necessary), and request the checkuser investigate whether the series of accounts are on a common IP range and what, if any collateral damage there would be to rangeblock it. Hope this helps.... SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll file a checkuser request. Snappy56 (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Collateral damage
I visited a convenient coffee shop just now and tried to edit here on Wikipedia, but was blocked by the usercheck block on 99.11.227.184/29. I can understand why such things are necessary from behavior I have witnessed here, but am wondering if such blocks can take into account length of edit history? Maybe if an editors history is >= the time until the block is dropped (my case, 7 months?).

Its not the end of the world for me, but it would be nice to enjoy wikipedia over my coffee. I'll be watching for an answer on this page. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Unfortunately, the reason for the block on the IP address is due to a rather bad banned user in that area who tends to use the coffee shops and other such free Internet places to continue harass people here on Wikipedia (the official word from Jimbo himself is that this banned user is "remarkably unwelcome".). I will bring it up with the checkuser who instructed me to do the block, but I don't hold out much hope. SirFozzie (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood. Reviewed history here a bit.  Will be more aware of my surroundings.  Thanks.  (John User:Jwy talk) 04:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom Election - Questions
Hi. I've posted the remaining General Questions to your Questions for the Candidate page; Please answer them at your convenience. Best of luck with your Candidacy, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What's going on at Giano & Cate
Hiya SirFoz. I'm getting the impression (I hope erroneusly) that Giano is Cate. What's going on. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are the several other checkuser who have invaded my privacy? WHO? Giano (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Begging on my knees, with tears in my eyes; Who's Cate? GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano, I can't say with certainty, but I think I know at least one other checkuser than DG who made the connection, but I'm trying to figure out more here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I know now & I'm disappointed by the discovery. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have even discussed her openly with 3 checkusers, there was no secret at all, it was pure fishing? Giano (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget it, Giano. I'm not sore, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

G'day again Fozzie :-)
Hope you're good - I haven't popped into your candidate pages recently to see how you're going with the mountain of questions, but I'm rather proud to be up-to-date on that front! If you've got heaps to go, then good luck! and if you're several steps ahead of me, then good on yer, and well done!

I'm actually here though because I noticed a comment of yours on Wikipedia Review, and wanted to follow up - you mentioned that you had a suspicion that all candidates for arbcom were being checkusered - I wondered how seriously you meant that? It immediately sort of rang true for me, but also raised an eyebrow a bit... would love to hear your thoughts :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have any proof if that's what you're asking, although it's very logical when you think about it. After what happened with Essjay, I'd be very surprised if they DON'T do as much verification as possible just to cover their own backsides, and checkusering candidates to make sure that we do not elect someone who's running a series of vandal accounts, for example, seems just like common sense. SirFozzie (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

W. Frank
Please would you unblock me so that I can contribute to our Encyclopedia?

I am one of the very few editors on Wikipedia who have proved his real-life credentials and if you examine my contributions I believe I can contribute positively.

I would be more than willing to submit to any reasonable terms for probation if that were thought appropriate (eg not contributing to or discussing PIRA related articles).

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not and have never been a sockpuppet of Alice and I find it bizarre that anyone would ever think so!

W. Frank, Glasgow, Thursday, 20 November 2008

PS: I would have signed but I find that I am blocked from even editing my own discussion page when I am logged in!

78.146.141.249 (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Frank, please take it up with ArbCom via their mailing list. SirFozzie (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the procedure. I think you know in your heart of hearts that blocking me and not allowing me to even edit my own talk page is rather extreme and unfair. I have been very patient before I made this request and I ask that you act as my advocate if you feel that it does not serve any useful purpose to maintain this block.


 * As a candidate for Arbcom I would have thought you could behave honourably in this matter after such a lengthy block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.141.249 (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Frank, there was very good reasons for the block. Let me get how to mail the ArbCom-L for you. Take the checkuser up with them that linked your accounts. One minute. SirFozzie (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This link will let you email ArbCom-L, and reference this edit for the terms. SirFozzie (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano vs David
You were correct Fozz. The case was rejected. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A shame, really, even though others were going to turn it into a hearing on Giano, but I understand why it was rejected. Oh well. C'est la guerre. SirFozzie (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At least we can be assured, there'll be no more dramatics relating to Giano. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh if we only knew............. *facepalm* SirFozzie (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
 * 2) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
 * 3) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * 4) How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year?  Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why?  Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
 * 5) What is your opinion on confidentiality?  If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case?  Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
 * 6) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year?  Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why?  Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
 * 2) What is your opinion on confidentiality?  If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case?  Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
 * 3) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya SirFozzie. I believ I voted for you last year. Did ya run then? GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ran last year for Admin, this is my first run at ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)