User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

User:Will Beback

I noticed that you and others are trying to keep this user's pages whole against the predations of vandals. I just skimmed by there, and the pages are, once again, blank. If they are protected, as the edit history says, how does this happen? (I am not looking for WP:BEANS; I am just puzzled, and curious. I tried to do an undo for one of the vandal bits earlier that failed, and froze my computer at the same time. (Now I note that the link is red, but perhaps I have just made a mistake somewhere in the user name. (Fixed error in name and User:Random832 appears to have refilled the page. I am still curious as to how it was deleted while protected. Bielle (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Bielle (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what happened is that the vandal moved the page, and SqueakBox started a fresh page in error, then I moved it back. Wasn't sure what the last good version was, so I let it stand :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the play-by-play. I could not work it out. Bielle (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page help. Hard-banned Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently discovered to snuck back and he's angry about being found-out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I saw something about that on Durova's page. If you need further help, just whistle. It's good exercise, swinging the banhammer ;) SirFozzie (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Found some more sock, too. I've updated the checkuser request - Alison ^❤ 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Advice

Thanks for your comment I will look into the RfC idea, I don't know how it works,but I feel this admin shouldn't be allowed to continue to abuse his editing privilages when he is involved in content disputes, I believe he has also blocked editors during disputes where he was involved as well. So any advice you can give me on how to proceed will be welcome.--Padraig (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Check user

Hi Fozz what happens with the check user that is being requested by TU regarding myself is there anything I need to do and can you publish results if that can be done thanks and wrap up well -23 not good lol. BigDunc (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dunc, Check Users cannot reveal more then any basic information (even if they want to). I'll see if the CheckUser in question will do it in the style of a RfCU report (IE, Unrelated, Likely, Possible, Confirmed, whatever), just to set all minds at ease. It's actually warmer today, which is good, but yeah, made the walk in from my car a little faster then normal! ;) SirFozzie (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats great thanks. BigDunc (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, checkuser case is now complete. Per policy, I cannot reveal any background information - Alison ^❤ 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "O"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "P"s through "S"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. (I know yours is already up there but hey, I didn't want you to feel left out) ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

The link is AFAR not AFA :).--Padraig (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blah :P Virdae already caught me :) Too many RfA's. Arb, Admin.. hmm there's an idea, anyone who goes for admin must go through arbitration.. hmm.. bad idea, right? SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed that this had to go this far, but his attitude towards the RfC dosen't leave any other option.--Padraig (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, completely agreed. You may want to post that on the ArbCom and no, don't get in a tussle with Aatomic1 over his misunderstanding, please ;) SirFozzie (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Foz - thanks for initiating that. I'm adding myself as an involved party. Statement + evidence + dispute resolution to follow later. Still ill here at home & trying to sleep. Bleargh! - Alison ^❤ 23:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you did most of the work on the RfC, I just piggybacked on that. Trust me, if I fall asleep now, I won't be in any shape to go to work tommorrow, and I've already missed the first three days this week due to this bug :P SirFozzie (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to ignore Aatomic as much as possible, he's playing his own little game to Point and has no real interest in this issue beside that.--Padraig (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Am so glad I read this thread before responding to the comment!! I just assumed it was an innocent misunderstanding :) ~Eliz81^(C) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

...*chuckles* that's right, laugh it up at the Fozzie's expense ;) (be sure I won't make that mistake again.. well.. until I make it again, at least! :D) SirFozzie (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. I saw your statement on the RFAR page, and noticed what's probably a typing error in point C. You say ...he must have been drunk or high while he edited, which he stated he did frequently. It probably should read ...which he stated he did infrequently. In R. fiend's statement about the Ed Poor block, he says It was a while ago, but there's a chance I was really really drunk when that happened (maybe even high) which happens very rarely, but, I admit, it does happen. Cheers, WODUP 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will fix it. SirFozzie (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the head-up about the ArbCom. I don't relish having a drunk who has blackouts being allowed to block users for no reason. I don't recall seeing an apology on my talk page; I wish he would 'block' me for 1 minute with a note saying "This is to apologize for my erroneous block of (insert date here)." At least that would clear my record. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Ed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this seems R. fiend is now giving up Admin, so what will happen now.--Padraig (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it may still go ahead, in "fait accompli" mode, as they need to close the case and make a judgment regardless. Personally, I'd like to see them make a statement on the Ed Poor block, for his sake. That was so unfair, esp. given that he was on parole. It's a pity that it's come to this; one of my ArbCom proposals was admin parole (as first choice) and not de-sysop - Alison ^❤ 02:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this will short circuit the whole thing, as I'm sure ArbCom will accept it and rule that he has to go through another RfA to get it back. (Controversial Circumstances, etcetera). I applaud his decision. SirFozzie (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As do I, although I didn't want a de-sysopping coming out of this one. I don't think anyone wanted an arbcom case in the first place, to be honest. Remember the last? That took so much out of everyone - Alison ^❤ 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If arbcom do decide to close they should at least remove the block from Ed Poor block log.--Padraig (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Padriag and Ali, check out the proposed motion I posted on the Workshop page, and sign off on it if it works well.SirFozzie (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsed. Hopefully, that will be the end of it, esp. that Brad has now weighed in on it - Alison ^❤ 03:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're feeling better, too, BTW :) - Alison ^❤ 02:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Feeling nearly human again, although other events have conspired to remove any trace of a good mood. SirFozzie (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... I just checked my mail. I'm so very sorry. I'll pmail you later tonight - Alison ^❤ 03:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)`

It's ok, she came out of the sedation today.. still has a breathing tube in, and they won't let her sit up (her mother has a hell of a time keeping her from trying!) but it's still a long way ahead of her. SirFozzie (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to WP:AN

I have unresolved this. I think you may have missed the comment by wikipeace. I have restored it and warned BoL. Thanks, M-ercury at 05:10, January 13, 2008

It was POV-pushing in a memorial thread. I won't war with you, but I don't see anything wrong with the actions. SirFozzie (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a comment at the AN thread. I don't want to war, and I won't revert again. Thank you for looking into it. Regards, M-ercury at 05:24, January 13, 2008

Your block of Chinese3126

Hello. Chinese3126 (talk · contribs), recently blocked by you, requests unblock. I am inclined to grant his request, because I can't see what vandalism the user is supposed to have committed. Did you mean his deleted redirects to New York? I see no reason not to assume good faith here, and wonder why you felt the need to delete these redirects out of process. (I realise that "Jew york" is offensive, but it is a possible typo.) I'd appreciate a comment by you on Chinese3126's talk page. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(duplicate thread) Could you comment on this user's current unblock request? Reformed vandal or not, it seems a bit alarming to suddenly block an apparently experienced, diligent contributor without anything in the way of warnings or discussion (that I can see, at least). Nothing about their edits seemed quite that inherently bad or urgent, at first glance. Is there something I'm missing, here? Has this sort of behavior been a problem, before? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at his other deleted edits, as well as maintenance of a hoax wrestling article. To my eyes, this is a pattern of unproductive, vandalistic edits. I recommend against unblocking, but I leave it up to you. SirFozzie (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For the reasons mentioned at the user talk page, I recommend that you unblock this user. I think he was acting in good faith, if maybe a little misguided. Sandstein (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree, I will not reblock if unblock is granted, but I don't see the value in the edits. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend injunction

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in this case. R. fiend, the subject of the above-linked case, has indicated that he will resign as an administrator, thereby resolving the main issue raised by this case, if the case will then be closed. Accordingly, this case is suspended for a period of 72 hours from the adoption of this motion. If R. fiend is voluntarily desysopped during that period, this case will be automatically closed without need for a further motion or proceedings and with a pre-worded determination, viewable here in italics.

If R. fiend does not resign his adminship within 72 hours after this motion is adopted, the case will resume and this motion will have no further effect. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit

Hey, could you calm it down a bit? I agree that it was a bad block but Archtransit has been an admin all of 4 days. It might be better to calmly explain where he went wrong than to start shouting at him... WjBscribe 18:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I will strike through my comments. SirFozzie (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Hi Fozz could you have a look at these edits on Talk:United Kingdom I removed what I felt was vandalism from anon ip here it was reverted by Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) saying it was a good faith addition to talk page which might be right it was then signed by sinebot as user Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) which he removed here. Is it possible that sinebot makes mistakes or is the anon ip and Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) the same. BigDunc (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

SineBot signs the post for the person who added it. Since Pyrospirit reverted, it signed it as his post, even though it was originally from the IP. There is nothing in SineBot's actions that suggests the IP and Pyrospirit are the same editor. Rockpocket 22:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clearing that up for me Rockpocket. BigDunc (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Because R. fiend (talk · contribs), the subject of this case, has resigned his adminship, this case is closed. If R. fiend wishes to seek administrator status again in the future, he may do so only through a new request for adminship. The Arbitration Committee finds that R. fiend's unexplained block of Ed Poor on October 1, 2007 was unjustified. An arbitrator will make an appropriate notation in Ed Poor's block log reflecting this determination.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

B'ham pub bombs

Sir Foz - what exactly does "under probation" mean? The edit war version is now locked in place! Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, Aatomic1's probation means the following.. he's limited to one revert per WEEK on all Northern Ireland/Troubles related articles I deliberately didn't look at the content of the page when I protected it (72 hours), because I have to be neutral in all of this, I agree with you that it kinda falls short of what the mediator initially suggested, but if I edited it and THEN protected it, I would be doing the same kinda thing that cost R. fiend his mop. SirFozzie (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whike yer at it - how long am I on probation - I'm such a good boy!!!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You want a safe answer, or the honest answer, VK? The safe answer is, you can ask ArbCom to take you off the Probation terms at any time (you are a very specific case because the ArbCom placed you on probation, the other ones are done non-ArbCom admins). The honest answer is, "Considering, the events which led to you being put on probation, I wouldn't expect them to grant a repeal of your probation for at least six months or more." Considering the alternative, I don't think it's that bad , mind you ;) SirFozzie (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The shackles dont hurt but I fear they could unintentionally trip me on occasion.--Vintagekits (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

M62 coach_bombing

Fozz could you check this out. It is my opinion it is related to the above dispute re Birmingham article. Not going to edit war on it. --Domer48 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This one's on me this time, Foz. Reckon you deserve a break. User(s) blocked. for gross 3RR violation - Alison ^❤ 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Something VERY suspicious about that IP popping up, Ali. Probably not anywhere near enough for a CU, but are you thinking what I'm thinking? SirFozzie (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Had my suspicions relieved.. Thanks for the assist Ali! SirFozzie (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just giving a heads up this article, this has been discussed before as outlined in my edit summary. The page history could also be reviewed this edit, struck me as intresting.--Domer48 (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Coming to an admin's page instead of using the talk page? Hmm. Now, pray tell, Domer, why are you highlighting my edits there? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair point indeed. Domer?? - Alison ^❤ 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Intresting why? Because rather than remove the additional information, they insert information which would create a problem. Why? Fair point ? ? --Domer48 (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) What sort of edit summary is that anyway. --Domer48 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :It read "Hired coach" for months. A compromise. In the course of the edit war with illiterate anon-IP, you restored to that, and later GiollaUidir added more. I added more again. You went back to 'Hired coach carrying members of the British Army' (so why didn't you remove the additional information?). I went back to 'Hired coach' and BigDunc went back to 'Hired coach carrying members of the British Army'. None of this answers my question above. But as stated on the talk page, I'm happy to stick to the compromise 'Hired coach', or use 'Hired coach carrying members of the British Army and their families' and let readers draw their own conclusions. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the edit summary - similar tactics to those you used on Easter Rising are showing themselves again here. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok folks, I don't mind the discussion on my page (it's better then edit-warring, etcetera). But if you're going to make my "You have new messages" bar do Saint Vitus's Dance, I ask that you comment on the content, not the contributor. Keeps my blood pressure from rising :) Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, SirFozzie - apologies. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi Fozz I am working on an article about process states in a UNIX System and I want to put a diagram in to help explain it but dont know how to do this. Could you give me some advice on it. It will be circles with arrows connecting them. Thanks in advance. BigDunc (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way to do it is to whip up a graphic and link the graphic in the article, I don't know any way to do flow charts like that in Wiki-markup, Dunc. SirFozzie (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff thanks Fozz.BigDunc (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do pretty flowcharts here, if needs be. Just do a rough outline & I can draw it in OmniGraffle - Alison ^❤ 15:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A Request

As per your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes, please teach me how to work on an article that has been redirected. Thanks! Captain Infinity (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page, Cap :) SirFozzie (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation restore

Thanks for that. You asked when we'd be finished with page so it could be deleted again - can't speak for the others, but I'll have what I want copied by tomorrow evening (Irish time). But, on principle, I object to such deletions. A lot of us, from both camps, put a lot of work into that mediation over a period of months, and a lot of the points, diffs included, etc., would be useful to refer to in future - both for participants, but also surely for other mediators - and editors, too, in the case of similar mediations arising. I'm pretty sure I asked before on one of the Mediation 'home' pages, and don't think I got a response, but is there not some sort of 'graveyard' or archive where such cases can be moved to when closed, off userspace? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I just put archive templates around it to basically close it off. It's in DreamAfter's userspace, so he's allowed have it speedy-deleted. I think what you say is a good thing, though, and stuff like that should be moved over to wikipedia-space and then stuffed into an archive like Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case is - Alison ^❤ 15:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(1)Thank you Sir Fozzie (for your help in restoring lol!); (2) Is it simply possible to move the page out of Dreamafter's personal section? Aatomic1 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(1)You're welcome, glad to be of assistance, and (2) I'm honestly not sure how it would work. I need to talk to the mediation folks to see if this is a page like this is normally archived, and how. Not saying no, not saying yes, saying let me get more info when I have a moment :) SirFozzie (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(2) IMO, the answer is "yes", simply because the text is GFDL licensed and isn't "owned" by anyone. Is it useful? Yes? Then keep it! What makes sense would be that it be archived so people like yourselves can reference it later and that others know of a centralized place to look for it. The latter part is really up to the mediation folks, though. In the meantime, I say copy it to your userspace (though you won't get the history) - Alison ^❤ 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Working on redirected articles

Thank you for the tutorial! That is very easy (I've never clicked on the "redirected" link before). And yes, please, instructions on a personal sandbox would be most welcome. Thanks again. Captain Infinity (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Created one for you :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, most appreciated. Just out of curiosity, how is it done? Captain Infinity (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I searched for: User:Captain Infinity/sandbox and one off the options on that page is to create it. Try it with adding a 2 to the title, place User:Captain Infinity/Sandbox2 in the search bar on the left side of the screen, and you should be sent to a page where you can create a page for yourself :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's super. Thanks again! Captain Infinity (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

As other admins have said, no edits should be made to the article, including removal of any content once it was protected, until Arbcom renders a decision. I'd suggest following that recommendation by referencing here. But you're the admin... ALLSTARecho 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, admin or not, such sweeping edits to a protected article are clearly contrary to the protection policy and should be reverted. ➪HiDrNick! 05:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've self-reverted, but please note, BLP is an issue that needs to be resolved. SirFozzie (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And it will be at the Arbcom case. Thanks. ALLSTARecho 05:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom, last I looked at, was only considering user conduct so far. But hopefully, they take a scalpel to that article. Some of those links are quite firmly NOT NPOV. SirFozzie (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Don't touch it, it's evil! Aatombomb (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you! --Bhadani (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall

Hello. Could you detail under what circumstances you would be open to recall? Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've linked it from the criteria page, but here's a direct link: User:SirFozzie/Accountability. SirFozzie (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made such a request. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Any particular reason? SirFozzie (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's transparently obvious that I am a returned user. I am distinctly concerned that a regular contributor to Wikipedia Review, given the existence of the dramatically better wikback has access to deleted revisions. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And I think your concerns are grossly misplaced, that I have not and will not abuse my administrator rights. But it's your right to bring it up, even if I think this is the latest round of "OMG BADSITES, Shun!" SirFozzie (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can assuage my concerns. Why do you participate at that site, yet you do not at the wikback? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a user there as well, I just have not elected to participate in any threads as of yet (Same user name: SirFozzie) SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed your full contribution history in a number of areas before making my request. Can you tell me why you have chosen to participate in one forum and not the other? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Because no discussion has caught my eye. I don't spend 24 hours a day reviewing WP, WR and WB. SirFozzie (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I am on record as having reservations about some of the discussion on Wikipedia Review, but we have no policy against administrators or any user contributing to that or any other website as long as they do not engage in overt harassment of Wikipedia editors. To PouponOnToast, I am concerned that pressing ahead with your attempts to recall SirFozzie and/or Alison will simply draw undue attention a website that you heartily dislike while stirring up the feelings of hostility and enmity that already exist among certain of its contributors. While I am certain your concerns are in good faith, I do not believe that your pursuing these recalls will be in the best interest of Wikipedia and its editors. Please give this matter some further thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A lack of policy is not a lack of community consensus. There is no possible way to decrease or increase the attention level that that site gets through any sort of good-faith action I could possibly take, and it is not my goal to do so through bad faith actions. At the same time, however, our users should be aware that participation on those sites is at odds with positions of authority here. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, SirFozzie has good sense and wouldn't hand out deleted revisions to trolls. He's smarter than that. What do you plan to do next, POT, recall One of our best admins/checkusers because you don't like where she discusses Wikipedia? I respectfully request that you (PouponOnToast) withdraw your recall request. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read this, Keilana. SirFozzie (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, read that, that's why I came here. I was doing some clerking for Alison and saw that mess. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see specific evidence that he is smarter than that, with all due respect. In fact, engaging with trolls is specific evidence evidence of poor judgement. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And there, I think we'll agree to disagree. Have a nice day. SirFozzie (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This will be my final post here. However, in the interests of fairness, it was this comment that led me to my evaluation. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So defending a friend of mine, who had been harassed on Wikipedia by a now banned user, is trolling, Good to know. SirFozzie (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why I'm not open to recall. I have an account at Wikipedia Review too (same username). --Deskana (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you now, or have you ever been, a communist? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The American State Department was once alleged to have 57 confirmed Communists; likewise, there are 42 active Wikipedia administrators registered on Wikipedia Review. This includes 5 current or former Arbcom members as well as 7 people with checkuser access. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting bit of trivia there. Fozzie, you have my total support here. It is incredible that someone thought you should be recalled because of a post you made at Wikipedia Review. The comparison with McCarthyism is a valid one, because in both cases trying to defend the community by automatically shunning people for their participation in an organisation without reference to their conduct will not lead us to good outcomes. If a total and final refutation of WP:BADSITES was needed, this is probably it; by complaining so vociferously here about your conduct in another place, and including links to the other place, Poupon has ensured that many people (such as myself) who would not have been aware otherwise of the other conversation, now are. I didn't see anything you said there that would merit recall, or even close to it. However, this may be a signal that you might do well to tighten up your recall criteria. Best wishes, --John (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John. I apologize for the small kerfluffle we had over R. fiend's ArbCom case. I'm going to look at my standards, I might just leave them the way they are, even though Poupon is a reincarnated user, he could be considered a user in good standing. It's a principle thing. I want to be as open to people with legitimate problems as possible, while not enabling people to harass me. SirFozzie (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is I who should apologise to you. The tension and conflict in the Troubles-related articles can tend to bring out the worst in all of us. I think we were both agreed on the severity of the mistakes he had made; I just felt that giving a second chance would have been better than in effect inviting him to fall on his sword, which was what happened. I was sorry to see someone who had admitted a health problem like that be treated by the community with so relatively little forgiveness, when we seem to extend umpteen last chances to other editors. I stand by my views on what happened, but looking back on it I could have expressed myself in more diplomatic terms. Never mind; as he acknowledged himself, he didn't do himself any favours in the situation. Anyway, keep up the good work, --John (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall...

I saw your recall petition and I want to encourage you for being a standup person, and allowing it. Now that it is done, I want to encourage you to withdraw from that voluntary category. While it was made with good intentions, it is far to risky and prone to trolling, especially with you loose requirements. Administrators need to be accountable yes, and need to be able to make the tough calls. There needs to be a balance. I don't see why an editor can't use dispute resolution without resorting to CAT:AOR to pull the tools from you. If you are a stand up person, I see no reason to believe that you would not relinquish the tools if you felt the community no longer trusts you. You don't need CAT:AOR for that. Regards, Mercury at 18:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your message (I was going to leave a message on yours and Dunc's page thanking you for your support, but work got in the way :)), but right now, despite some negative experiences I've seen with recall. (Durova's as well as some others), I think it's the best way for me to be accountable to the community that minimizes conflict and drama. SirFozzie (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is this recall request? You are a great admin SF. Viridae^Talk 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was at User:SirFozzie/Accountability (check the previous revisions for the state before it was withdrawn). And thanks for the compliment, Viridae, I'm just trying to do the best job that I can. SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That was short lived. :) Viridae^Talk 20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see that is over and keep up the good work, i'm sure you will. BigDunc (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your block

Your thoughts here would be appreciated. Rockpocket 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to consider what I will say, Rock. Thanks for making me aware. As I keep saying, VK is a good editor, CONTENT-wise, (Even I, who prefer MMA to boxing, and never been to Ireland (either one) in my life, can see that he's making quality contributions. But the civility wise (where it's been brought up to me privately some quotes that were sure to get his dander up, that's no excuse..) I don't know what to do. I just don't. He's listened to me before, but.. I don't know if I can get through to him. *sighs* SirFozzie (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I really applaud the work you are doing here Sir Fozzie. It says a lot for you that you would go to such lengths for Vk. --John (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replied.. and thanks. I don't feel like I've done anything particular to be applauded for, but the sentiment is appreciated. SirFozzie (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with John. Patience of a saint! Vk is a good content editor. I don't dispute that. I was once dubious he could edit any articles without being incivil. While he has had his moments on boxing articles too, it appears the situation there is non-controversial enough that he can do good work without too many problems. This is why I would not support an indef block for him anymore. But like the Giano situation, the question becomes how much disruption do we permit tolerate the harm overwhelms the good content? In Giano's case its a hell of a lot, because he is a superb contributor. But even he is pushing the envelope now. We need to find a way of harnessing the good while minimizing the bad. To me that points towards a topic restriction, voluntary or otherwise.

I am beginning to find this distressing, because clearly I have become part of the problem. I am now the touch paper, like John before me. I know I could help the situation by removing all those articles from my watchlist and, when I see a classic Vk spelling mistake, or good faith by misguided edit, just ignore it and hope that someone else will fix it. But the I ask myself, why should I? Why should good editors be asked to sanction themselves, and thus the project becomes worse off, just because problem editors can't act like a civil human beings. I'm a pretty stubborn guy, and its just not right that after all the abuse, the threats, the name-calling I have taken from Vk, that I should change my perfectly acceptable editing just so he doesn't get upset.

But its more than that, if I am the one that takes action and avoids Vk (which is essentially what John did for his own sanity) all it means is that when another editor comes along and makes an edit not to Vk's liking, that editor will be the problem in Vk's eyes. That is clear from how quickly he turned on Alison when she indef blocked him that time. There will always be a cause of Vk's ire. It was John, then me, then Alison, then me again. If I go away, the ire will go away for now, but the underlying problem will not. Rockpocket 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hell, who knows, maybe this block wil focus him on me instead of the rest of you.. an editor who has no ties at all to Ireland :/. I've made a couple suggestions on the talk page of the arbcom case, Rock. Got anymore ideas? SirFozzie (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think we should tolerate a situation where a user can use emotional blackmail to scare other users away from participating in articles, or invoke WP:STALK just because they cross paths. If an editor makes a good edit, then their action is acceptable. I think that applies to all parties, and for that reason also if an editor such as Vintagekits makes edits per, for example, WP:MOS to articles such as baronets or nominates a weak article on them for AfD, he also deserves support. Vk has done some good work in this area and he too should not be scared off. The bottom line is - is it in the interests of creating an encyclopedia? I think as admins we should adopt pretty much a zero-tolerance approach to this situation. Vintagekits' recent edits have displayed a completely unacceptable level of incivility that should have received an instant block, as indeed I applied soon after the ArbCom case. This was truly preventative and I said that its overturning would only send the wrong signal and lead to trouble ahead to Vk's disadvantage. That is exactly what we are now witnessing. I don't intend to apply such a block myself again, but would certainly support anyone who did. The terms of the ArbCom probation are quite clear:
Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.
This is not a difficult problem to solve. No one wants to see Vk indef blocked. Instant short blocks for an infraction will serve the purpose. I suggest starting with an hour.
On that basis I propose unblocking Vk now, if no one objects, with the proviso that the block gets reapplied immediately maybe for a couple of hours next time, should he continue to be uncivil.
Tyrenius (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, I think any incivility = instant 30 minute block. Then there's no need to wait till it builds up to the bigger 24 hour or longer deal. It's then up to Vk (or any other editor in similar position). They can be insulting if they want: it's just that they will have to twiddle their thumbs for 30 minutes afterwards. An innovative approach to the situation. What do you think? A sub page could be created which could be watch-listed to get any admin's attention for the purpose. Tyrenius (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ty. Zero tolerance on the civility issue and encouragement and tolerance on the content. I think Vk's comment here speaks volumes. He clearly saw the ArbCom as some sort of victory for himself, rather than the pretty damning conclusion of his actions that it was. I do think he took great heart from the way Ty's block was for civility was overturned just days after being put on civility parole. He feels that these sorts of comments are acceptable. Why? Because we have sent a message that you can make them without consequence. We have given an inch, so he takes a few more. Its pretty inevitable, really.

I think your proposal is admirable, Foz. I have asked for clarification, though reading my comment back it sounds a bit self important and pompous, so apologies there. I was trying to reinforce the point there remedy burden should be on the source of the problem. I would worry about the load you could be taking on over it. It also can't solve the problem, it is more of a finger-in-the-dyke kind of solution. Vk isn't going to change, he is not going to forgive and forget on this so it may end up being indefinite. Still, if you are willing to do it, then it could be worth a try. I also like the idea about civility mini-blocks. His situation could be perfectly suited for that. A 30 min cool off, knowing that you come back pissed and carry on in the same vein and you will get exactly the same thing again. Rockpocket 04:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The useful thing about mini-blocks is that they can be applied to mini-infractions, before the matter escalates. And they can keep on being applied. There is no excuse for incivility. If someone has a sound point they can couch it in reasonable language. It will then be treated in a reasonable way and the substance addressed (not necessarily agreed with) rather than the packaging. Tyrenius (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've copied from my first post down to here to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The_Troubles#Recent_Block_of_Vk_by_SirFozzie, so conversation can be continued in one place. Tyrenius (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

All clean

Hey Foz, - now that you've a nice clean page again, I have to come along and mess it up :) Would you like me to fix up your archives and use a custom archivebox and stuff, just to make it look pretty? Here's my one - Alison ^❤ 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Twubblemaker :) Yeah, that would be great, much better then my kludgery! SirFozzie (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

' Déanta' - there! All done - delete/modify if you think it's awful - Alison ^❤ 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Watching all my troubles go down the drain

For the next bit, I'd appreciate if any "troubles" stuff didn't land on my page. I'm going to try to refocus my energy here. SirFozzie (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you for your note. I am sure you are sincere, and mean what you say. I am also sure your intent is to help Wikipedia. I hope you can accept that when I say something, I am also sincere and have the same intention. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Troubles ArbCom enforcement

FYI there is a dedicated page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests, shortcut WP:TER. Tyrenius (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)