Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GregJackP (talk | contribs) at 23:14, 29 August 2010 (→Christopher Monckton: tho a nice ale would be ok too...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please sign (~~~~) before you save. Beware SineBot!

Archive Index

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar-Sep Oct-December 2010 Jan-Mar Apr-May May-July Aug-Dec 2011 Up Through August 2011-12 Aug '11-Dec '12 2013-16 2013-Jan '16 2016-20 Then to now

Vacation

Hi folks: Please note for the next two weeks or so, my editing will be pretty much non-existent, as I'm taking a vacation. If you need to reach me, emailing me may be quicker. I've instructed the clerks to put me inactive on any new cases that come in till I get back. SirFozzie (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And.... I'm back. Gonna take some time to get back up to speed, however. Thanks :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

You have some. Jehochman 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

Could you re-enable WMC's talk page access? Also, I think we should clarify he can fiddle with comments on his own talk page. The sanction should apply to every other page. Jehochman

WMC

Cannot edit own talk page?  ? You sure? Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Noticed your alteration of the block, just wanted to make sure that you intended the settings to be account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page. (My reading of your comments on Sandstein's talk page suggests otherwise; thought it would be easier to drop you this note than to dig through all your contribs to figure out if you changed your mind somewhere else). Guettarda (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the catch. I hate that "Check box to allow default activity" when we should be checking the box if its something outside of the norm (like disabling talk page access) SirFozzie (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha Ha. Complex stuff clearly! :P Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• grumbles*... :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to mention that when you said, "if I put the block back to the original 48 hours and re-enabled WMC's access to his talk page under the following conditions", I assumed "under the ... conditions" to mean that you would first ask William M. Connolley whether he would abide by the conditions of his restriction and then, if he agreed, scale back the block. My agreement did not extend to what you did, i.e., simply reduce the block and ask him to abide by his restriction. I'll not ask you to undo what you did, but think that this manner of proceeding is not consistent with a predictable and effective enforcement of sanctions.  Sandstein  04:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Here William M. Connolley explicitly rejects your conditions. In view of this and your comment here, where you say that "if he refuses, and continues to be Point-y, then obviously it's a necessary step to stop the disruption," I ask you to reinstate my block and talk page access removal in the event that William M. Connolley continues to edit others' comments on his talk page (as indeed he has done again), or to confirm that you have no objection against me doing so. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann problems

SirFozzie, I'm getting increasingly worried at the vitriolic attitude of some of the participants on Michael E. Mann (a CC BLP) and I have a strong feeling that the article is about to become yet another scene of edit warring. I've been under repeated attack since yesterday for fixing an obvious factual error by another editor - which she hasn't acknowledged - and the dispute has spread to other completely unrelated articles, apparently in retaliation. Could I suggest that - as with the Monckton article - the Mann article should be protected for a period to head off further trouble? That is probably the simplest way of defusing this situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view, it has been ChrisO who has been problematic on several articles. While others have taken a step back, he has been particularly aggressive in the last few weeks. ATren (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, whenever ChrisO is editing a CC article, it ends up being protected because ChrisO cannot edit collaboratively and will edit war to get his way. That failing, he starts forum shopping to enlist support. He's tried to make his case on the talk page and was overruled by consensus. He took it to BLP noticeboard and failed to get the response he was looking for. He resorted again to edit warring and talk page wikilawyering and was again overruled by consensus, so now he appeals directly to a recused ArbCom member. And this is all just the latest in the Mann article but its a pattern he has engaged in repeatedly on other CC articles lately. Minor4th 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could say Minor4th is incorrect. But twice in the last couple of days I have come very close to issuing a block for tendentious edit warring on Chris's part. I think Jimbo had it right when he commented on perception. Chris gives every appearance of being agenda driven. So while I wish I could say it, I cannot. Minor4th and ATren are correct. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this sniping by partisans is at all helpful and it's not remotely accurate concerning the Mann article. The issue in question has nothing to do with any recent BLP discussions, so Minor4th's claim is just plain wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So what's the issue du jour if it's not the BLP issue? Minor4th 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this was your talk page - I don't appreciate comments from the peanut gallery when I'm trying to discuss an issue with the owner of the page. If I wanted your input I would have asked you, so kindly go away. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL Are you banishing me from SirFozzie's talk page? If you're going to mention me, I'm going to respond, even if it's on someone else's talk page. Please try to deal with it or don't mention me, k? Minor4th 00:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: "the peanut gallery" is pejorative. Please refactor that comment. This is a well watched page (just like mine) and that means lots of folk comment. I sometimes don't appreciate comments from third parties on my talk page... but it's my place, not the third party, to point that out. If you want to speak to SirFozzie privately, I suggest you email him and ask for a commitment not to disclose your convo. Otherwise, it's a wiki. We do things publicly. Deal. And stop with the apparent powertripping. ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

pointy

Isn't this a repeat violation. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, just let it go. This method of responding to people isn't something that WMC is doing to piss people off; it's just how he responds. Read the comments section in his blog, for example. It's a trivial matter, and harping on this makes one just as guilty of dramacreating as WMC. If you ignore it, then the drama goes away, and then the goal of a hypothetical block is accomplished anyway without actually requiring a block! NW (Talk) 18:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

NW, So if I chose to respond by dropping the "f" bomb in all of my comments, that would be acceptable also? He can learn to follow the same process that the everyone else has to follow - or pay the piper. SirF, I apologize for responding here, but it was his editing of my comments that started the current CC/RFE that ended up with the current block. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to offer the string of good faith (yes, he calls what I said trolling, but, I just consider the source here). He did remove what I said, if not the time stamp. I'm not going to be the one sanctioning him for it. (he was and is allowed to remove statements from his talk page) He's been made aware that the sanction still applies. We'll see if he wants to color within the lines, or if he cannot edit constructively under those terms. SirFozzie (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. I see he left some of my post. He should know better. Block on its way. SirFozzie (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think thats a good move, at least until the CC arbcom decision is unveiled. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Doh, you took the bait. Per WP:ROPE you should have given him a chance to do something harmful to the encyclopedia. Shame, you giving him what he wanted. Jehochman 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Doh, that's what they've done - given him WP:ROPE and he used it. What he did was and is harmful. Look at the consensus on the issue by uninvolved editors and admins on the ANI - overwhelmingly in support of sanctions. GregJackP Boomer! 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, if this were the first time he's edited comments, letting it go (even the pointy stuff) might be advisable. But this is the continuation of a long term pattern of disruption. He pointedly violated a sanction, which itself was a renewal of a previous sanction, which in turn was imposed after a lengthy pattern of behavior. Personally, I've seen him refactor/remove comments in content disputes for at least a year, probably more, both on his talk pages and elsewhere. Frequently, those behaviors needlessly inflamed tensions in what is already a very highly contentious topic area. Sanctions have not stopped that disruption, so blocks are in order. This is what we would do to any other editor, so why should WMC be any different? ATren (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

As far as I can see you originally brought this arbcom case so you must have seen the Arb comments like "Let's face it. Blocking Giano is the administrative equivalent of touching the third rail. Few admins survive unscathed, and there is inevitably drama. Therefore the decision to block Giano or any other high profile editor should take into consideration opportunities for alternate actions (e.g., deleting the offending edit, discussing at AN or AN/I, giving a warning), whether the benefits of blocking outweigh the drama that will result from the perspective of the community at large, and holding Giano to the same standards as other blocked longterm editors (not a higher or unrealistic one), who as a group have a propensity to spout off on their talk pages. In particular, the escalating blocks were poorly considered. Risker (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)". Do you think this is relevant to your indef block of WMC? The irony of WMC turning into Giano mind you is delicious. --BozMo talk 20:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As to your last sentence, the irony is so thick you cannot cut it with a fork and knife. As for the other substance: As I stated on the ANI notice (I just reposted it, it got lost in the shuffle).. (...)I have blocked him indefinitely. Please note, this is not an "indefinite as in forever" block, this is an "indefinite until he puts down the stick and backs away from the horse" block. (....) If someone can get through to him and get him to agree to cut it out, go ahead and unblock him at that time. If he's willing to actually abide by the restriction, he can be unblocked now. He has apparently decided that it would better serve his purposes to continue to act in that way. The way to deal with sanctions you disagree with is to discuss with the community/Committee. The wrong way is to state that since you disagree with the sanction, you have the right to ignore the sanction. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This should not be a big deal at all. The "sentence" ends whenever WMC decides it ends. He holds the key and can unlock himself whenever he chooses. He has to choose which holds more value to him: making a point and creating controversy, or editing the encyclopedia. That is apparently not the simple choice that it would appear to be for most editors. And by the way, I think Risker's assessment is wrong. It's never a good idea to let a bully hold a whole community hostage. Minor4th 21:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC) sorry for butting in ....

Knowing William, he won't do that. He is right on the issue from any reasonable POV and thus won't waste any efforts arguing that formally. I think that's the right approach as it will lead to Misplaced Pages correcting this error, which is good for everyone. Count Iblis (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He is right on the issue from any reasonable POV -- assumes facts not in evidence. Or a flawed evaluation of "reasonable". No reasonable point of view about policy sanctions repeated disruption, regardless of contributor value... no free passes. ++Lar: t/c 01:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume CI means the blocks were technically wrong, which they undoubtedly were (his talk page is not subject to CC sanctions, so the first block was out and if we accept established editors swearing blue murder on their talk page after a block we certainly accept them being a bit childish in other ways) however it has got to the point where in my view no one (including me) has the energy to defend him, mainly because this is a completely avoidable Wikidrama and personally I hold him as the Prima Dona. I do not doubt he is in the right, technically. He is usually in the right, technically. He has to learn being in the right is not enough. --BozMo talk 11:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

IIRC Bozmo I plainly stated that 2over0, without even going to the enforcement board or through an enforcement request, couldn't ban me from user talk pages since user talk pages weren't under the scope of the CC enforcement. This was an argument that WMC had made before and which you agreed with, but rejected when I used it, and yet you are now saying is technically correct again. Of course, in my case I get a draconian 6 month ban plus another 3 months for speaking on Lar's talk page, to you in fact, and a rather Stazi-esque "thought police" type of block that had nothing to do with civility, refactoring or any such nonsense - 2over0 basically just told me to shut up. But then again, you've stated I'm the most annoying editor on wikipedia - perhaps you should've recused if you felt that way? TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the fact that I happen to find you more irritating than I happen to find anyone else is of much relevance. I get irritated rather rarely and not very deeply. As elsewhere, I do not see any value added in going through the series of line by line errors in what you write above, sorry. Better if you work out the differences yourself. --BozMo talk 16:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh you don't think such strong personal feelings are relevent? Good to know, as for my "errors" they are documented in my evidence and following the links (esp. the first one) backs up what I've said pretty nicely. You are more than welcome to correct my errors though - perhaps you can borrow Doc Brown's Delorean for the task? TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You have added three more... my feelings about you are not particularly strong, not personal and as you might realise on reflection are about you, not about me. As I say I do not see any added value going beyond that, you will learn better thinking it through yourself. --BozMo talk 17:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it'd be better if I went to RfE, ask to have my restriction limited to the scope given to the CC sanctions and showed the many admins and editors on ANI who agree that the sanctions don't apply to user pages - Jenochman and just said there is consensus that is the way the rules are interpreted. I can then watch in utter amazement as those many editors and admins vanish in the wind or change their mind. Shall I waste my time in the attempt? TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• What's especially relevant here is that I convinced WMC to voluntarily recuse from all CC editing until the case closed. His opponents then followed him to other places, and then lobbied for administrative sanctions. Regrettably, a few uninvolved admins proved pliable, and now we have the current situation. Add to this an ArbCom suffering from a case of the slows, and it's quite the recipe for disaster. Jehochman 16:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Which "opponents" followed him, and to where did they follow him? ATren (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's one: . As I said, administrators should not allow themselves to be used in a dispute. Jehochman 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, the polite notification that WMC had pointedly violated a sanction for the third time after a long list of uninvolved admins had commented in support of the original sanctions -- now that's a good example of the ubiquitous "opponent harassment" WMC is always subject to, yes indeed! In fact, let's just say it about everything he's done, every blight on WMC's record is the fault of his pesky "opponents" -- his civility sanction, his 1RR restriction, his comment-editing restriction, his lengthy block log, his article ban on Fred Singer -- he'd have none of it if it weren't for those darn kids! ;-) ATren (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And he voluntarily choose not to abide by that recusal and linkspammed his friends blog a bit . TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For discussion

Do you think the following is relevant to current events? Jehochman 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is a apt description of what WMC et all have been doing to anyone they deem a "skeptic" for years now. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(removing picture links) Not particularly. Especially since I was the one who reduced the block and reenabled talk page access in the first place. Oh, and stated that if WMC agreed not to do it while it gets rationally discussed, he'd be unblocked immediately. Or suggested I was not opposed to unblocking him for the purpose of participating in the case. People over there are ascribing motives to me that quite frankly, exist only in their own head (also, the amount of "gloating" I tend to see from editors who have placed themselves in opposition to WMC is unseemly and needs to cease). SirFozzie (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The more apt question is, SirFozzie, do you mind being compared to a dog? :-) ATren (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To mangle a popular aphorism: "On Misplaced Pages, everyone compares you to a dog". SirFozzie (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In Mother Russia wikipedia edits you! (is that original?) TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dogs are quite likable. SirFozzie, my point is that WMC has been hounded, goaded and harassed. His behavior would probably improve greatly with support and counseling, rather than tasering. Once we realize that WP:GS/CC did not apply to the The Wordsmith's block, we should erase the entire sorry situation. The original block was not valid, so everything that came after should be undone. WMC should be reminded of his voluntary pledge to stay out of CC until ArbCom rules, and the swarm of editors trying to bring him down should be reminded to stop gloating, and moreover, should be blocked themselves if they persist in hounding WMC. Jehochman 16:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think just as much as houndED', goadED and harassED, the other part: houndING, goadING and harassING. I'm not saying anyone comes out of this CC situation looking particularly well (including you and I, if I'm going to be brutally honest). It's a Two-way street. If he wants to be unblocked, it's simple. Just agree not to edit other people's comments. No pointy disruption. It all follows from there. SirFozzie (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, since my centijimbo rating has probably gone up, I'd suggest everyone mosey over to the General Discussion CC page. I've posed some questions on the future of this area, and how General Sanctions enforcement goes (specifically, does it have the same inviolability as AE actions). I would like to see what EVERYONE thinks. SirFozzie (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You have 8.7 centijimbos. (I'm at 14.9.) You've still got a ways to go before you can claim to be a drama monger. Jehochman 16:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank God for that, Jehochman ;) But seriously, I'm interested in your response to the questions I posed. The parties and the people who got sucked in along the way need to figure out if General Sanctions are still going to be needed after the ArbCom case, ends (assuming of course, there is an end point, and not just the heat death of the universe), and very specifically, how General Sanctions are supposed to be enforced. SirFozzie (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to end up in a protracted debate over the details and what not, nor am I going to restate what I have already said at the ANI. That said, I will bring your attention the possibility that part of the answer was already provided in July. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion, Minor4th? Don't do it. As I say elsewhere, there's been enough sturm und drang about this issue that people shouldn't ratchet it up any higher. Obviously, I don't agree with Atama's action, but I'm not going to contest it. I acted as an administrator (not as an Arb) here, the action's been overturned, and we go on. The PD will come (eventually :)), and people will move on from there. Just be patient. SirFozzie (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Scibaby socks, is WMC enjoined from removing Scibaby edits - which will necessarily include talk page comments from time to time? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

He's not enjoined from REMOVING posts, even on his talk page. Just editing them. Never was enjoined from removing posts. SirFozzie (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my understanding too. Just wanted to clarify this lest his legion of admirers (ahem) start jumping on him next time he undoes a Scibaby edit. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why arbcom is the only body which can effectively deal with an editor like WMC. Even when it's clearly inappropriate behavior, his supporters will spin the situation and eventually get another admin to overturn it. Even the argument that it was a bad sanction (which is taken as fact as the basis for unblocking) is highly dubious, since the sanction itself was worded unambiguously, and at least one other editor has been sanctioned for user talk page behavior (TGL). So what is the result? The community challenged an editor on a very basic point of civility, but when push came to shove, the community blinked. And now that editor is emboldened to further engage in such pointy disruption in the future. And SirFozzie and TWS will now surely be labeled as part of the "anti-WMC admin faction", along with Lar, LHvU, Tedder, ArnoldReinhold, etc, as well as the arbs who voted to take away his admin bit. That's the tactic I've seen played over and over, and admins will never be able to stop it, it has to be arbcom. Unfortunately, I don't think they will. ATren (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Patience, young padawan.. I do not know what is in the PD, or when it will be up, but I suggest that a bit of patience would probably serve you well. No sense in saying 'Oh, no one will handle it' until you see it. SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Talking about dogs, has anyone here seen this program on National Geographic Channel? Count Iblis (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Not sure if you have my user talk on your watchlist or not, so this is just a heads up to say that I have replied to you. NW (Talk) 18:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Premature unprotection?

FYI, your 1 month protection of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has expired. I believe your intention was to leave it protected until the case was over, so you might want to take a look at this. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Misplaced Pages policy, the Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton

I've no dog in the CC fight, but I'm concerned by this BLP. There are elements of OR, and selective quotations here. Frankly, he may be a nutter, but that doesn't excuse a hatchet job. The article is protected, and to remove that is likely to cause an edit war. It is good to freeze the article until arbcom has finished, but freezing a BLP at a version that's IMO piss poor isn't so good. I don't want to get into a content fight, but I'm wondering about invoking admin discretion and editing through protection to do an aggressive stubbing until the close of the case. Rather than get into a line-by-line argument, I'd be removing most of the CC material on the grounds that no material is better than BLP material that's open to question. Thoughts?--Scott Mac 19:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The CC material is waaaaaaay too long, for the usual reasons. We don't need a blow-by-blow account. I agree that it would be better to sh*tcan the whole section and start over, but someone other than SirFozzie should do it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to do it. I'm just covering my ass.--Scott Mac 19:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. If any of the science club/cabal/faction/whatever-Lar-is-calling-us-this-week gripes, send them to me. You're on your own with the WR/contrarian coalition. ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have his back with the all editors are equal / NPOV / BLP / follow-the-rules group (referred to by Boris as WR/contrarian, lol, ;p). BLP vios need to be redacted. (Sorry Boris, couldn't resist :D) GregJackP Boomer! 20:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem! It might be better if each faction/whatever chose their own name. I think "The Beatles" has a nice ring to it but someone told me that's already been used in the real world. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I stubbed it. Now I go hide somewhere.--Scott Mac 21:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This promises to be entertaining. Pass the popcorn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I just broke out a bottle of single malt, and intend to cheer on the team.... GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)