User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CEM dead?

Since you have now archived this and this and the subsequent section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SirFozzie/Archive_5#The_undersigned_conscientious_editors_consent_to_Community_Enforceable_Mediation, I consider that my self-denying recusal from editing articles with an Irish theme is now ended.

It's a pity that your idea didn't fly - it certainly wasn't from lack of effort on my part and with good will from all sides I think it could have helped us make a better encyclopaedia...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 23:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that is premature to say the least. The problem hasn't suddenly gone away, you know. Even if the section is archived, the idea remains a good one I think. --John 23:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur that there is a continuing problem and it would be better to seek a structural mechanism to ameliorate the problem. However, what I've read here about SirFozzie being both tired and disillusioned, coupled with his archival of the list of editors that subscribed to this idea, infer his opinion. If I'm corrected by him and the relevant archived material re-appears in the active discussion area, I will be delighted. All the best!...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 23:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's going to be at least several weeks before I have the ability and strength to even try to get involved in this more then quick look ins. A recent trip to my docs didn't go quite as well as I was hoping.. nothing quite awful, but it's one of those things where I need to watch myself so it doesn't GET to be awful. I strongly urge you all (all being as narrow or as expansive as you wish) to come up with a solution on how to deal with it, or else one will probably be solved for all. Good luck. SirFozzie 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh. :( Hope it's nothing too serious, Foz. Get well soon & come back to us when you're ready. I'll keep watch where I can - Alison ☺ 20:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
My best wishes, SirFozzie!...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


VintageKits

Seeing as the comment wasn't picked up on VintageKits talk page i'll repost it here so you can see it incase you didn;t due to the mass amount of comments:

"SirFozzie your conditions set above contain a massive loophole. VintageKits has come into conflict on articles that aren't just WP:IR or political. Its also articles to do with Britain and Britishness that conflict with Irish republican ideals. So i'd suggest a ban on him editing WP:IR and ANY article (politically and non-politically) that deals with Ireland and Britishness and Britains role in foreign territories. Irish republicanism and anti-Britishness go hand in hand. Mabuska 13:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)"

Mabuska 12:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical Update 8/10

Getting better slowly. The fact that I had a wisdom tooth pulled this week doesn't quite help, either (would grin, but it's hard to do when your face is all puffy!). Thanks to the people who emailed me good wishes. Hopefully, soon I can come back to editing more full-time. SirFozzie 15:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good news. take yer time mate.--Vintagekits 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by....

Assuming you're recovered, keep an eye on Paul John Ferris for me please. Have meant to email but been busy with various things, feel free to drop me a line though you know where to find me! Glasgow Two 20:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Verdict

Hi SirFozzie, hope your getting better. I've created a long term abuse page for Verdict seeing as his socks are still here editing on Wikipedia. If you want to add anything, add it here. Thanks! Davnel03 17:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Posted my statement. Thank you. SirFozzie 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Feeling any better Fozzie? One Night In Hackney303 22:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Kinda Sorta, I had another flare up while I was on my vacation, which meant I spent the last 2-3 days in my hotel room, which I'm really bummed out for.. I just returned to work yesterday. I'm trying to stay stress free.. never so easy these days :) Glad to see you, btw. Been too long since we chatted. SirFozzie 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Go anywhere nice? Trying to stay stress free? I'd suggest giving the ArbCom case a rather wide berth then, assuming it is accepted. I see nobody has taken care of this yet :( One Night In Hackney303 23:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Went to GenCon. I'll probably stay as clear of the ArbCom if I can, but I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to be pulled in. I'll take a look at it that diff in a monent SirFozzie 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned

Thanks for naming the IP, someone just reverting an unnamed "banned editor" isn't gonna cut it; it helps when someone actually mentions who the IP is claimed to be.--Isotope23 talk 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/216.194.2.0. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 18:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sock Sanitized. Talk Page Semi-Protected ;)

Back

Yayyy!!! :) - Alison ☺ 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • grins* Figure if I can't resist checking in on WP a few times a day, it's hypocritical of me to leave the break thing up ;) SirFozzie 20:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, you are a good man here. I really hope your illness isnt life-threatening (as someone who has suffered debilitatinhg illenesses but never anything life threatening and seen my Dad in the same boat just recently). Best wishes and hope my overall reaction to VK is to your liking, SqueakBox 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not life-threatening or anything, just me needing to take care of myself before it could really become an issue. Irritating, and at times, it puts me down and out for a few days (missed part of a vacation last week due to it), but otherwise I'm pretty much normal (well, as normal as I get ;)) SirFozzie 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your note

There is no 3RR limit for removal of links to attack sites. Crum375 01:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SEE Fozzie, now read for your self;

"You have a mistaken interpretation" Not in the slightest, here are the important bits out of WP:HARASS;

1.4 Posting of personal information Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

AND

2 Off-wiki harassment Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. As per WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks, off-wiki harassment can and will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.

Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule. Repeated or deliberate inclusion of such material can be grounds for blocking.

and i've highlighted one of the important bits for you to make it easier. Now enforce policy on CYDE his put all those links back up AGAIN.(Hypnosadist) 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PS i noticed this post was before you said i was wrong. (Hypnosadist) 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And you are still wrong, Hypno, and if you continue to edit war and disrupt WP, you will face blocks. SirFozzie 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy is there in black and white as is you one sidedness on this issue, try enforceing the policies as they are writen as oppossed to what you want them to be. What part of

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule.

are you having difficulty understanding, i'll go word by word if i have to. (Hypnosadist) 02:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, see, for that to be applicable, we'd actually have to be dealing with any sort of "off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians" — and since we're not, 3RR immunity doesn't apply. Ted Frank had his identity public for a year, while he was publishing those articles attacking Michael Moore. It's only when Michael Moore turns around and realizes that Ted is editing his articles and calls him on it that Ted suddenly wants his anonymity. Which is of course impossible, because he's already long exposed his identity. --Cyde Weys 02:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Read it again; It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

See "because he's already long exposed his identity" means nothing! (Hypnosadist) 02:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy also makes no mention of it not applying if the person is supposedly a public one. It would apply as much if i posted links to MMs home address etc. Also the CoI case has been and gone and you lost that one as well. (Hypnosadist) 03:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Arb page

You may want to ammend your recent post on the arbcom page. I suggest you check my and User: David Lauder's recent edits. I'm almost giving up on this, one can't help these people. Giano 20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Thank you for your comment on the Vintagekits ArbCom page. I still believe that it is for the editor concerned to follow the instructions and if he is wrong then an admin can deal with that. Giano is not an admin. Do you consent to this sort of self-appointed anarchy? I left a complaint on his Talk Page and he then moved to my Talk Page. Naturally I deleted it because the correct forum was his. He has now interferred with my Talk Page. Just why do we have to put up with this sort of thing on WP? David Lauder 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly man, check the times we were cross posting and David Lauder actually deleted my comments from his page. His are still on mine. I have no need to hide the truth. Giano 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(would post this on User:David Lauder's page, but the section has been deleted) David, if you want, I will move your comment to a section of its own... I am an administrator (you can confirm this :)), that way it's all nice and official.. I'm trying to keep things damped down. Giano's actions, while hasty (as you say, he could have let you know on your talk page) to have you move it yourself), are correct, instruction wise. Let's not quibble over small things, k? SirFozzie 21:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reluctantly decided that I must add a comment into the ArbCom case because the suggestions there of 'them and us' all being equally disruptive are simply untrue, at least in my case. David Lauder 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry for that, but there is a discussion on the issue in the talkpage but Astrotrain refuses to accept that the Union Flag is representative of all the flag lists in that template and a neutral image to use.--padraig 21:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Myself and others have tried to compromise with him- but he refuses to. Until he learns to compromise, a solution will never be reached. Regards. Astrotrain 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This nonsense again. Quite frankly, no flags is looking better and better. What a pity both sides are engaging in partisan politics on-wiki instead of devoting their energies into more productive areas - Alison ☺ 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that no flag images be used on flag pages? I have tried to compromise with Padraig by including his wording, expanding areas and adding other "official" images that he harps on about- but still he reverts to his preferred version. Astrotrain 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Where have you tried to compromise, your idea of compromise is that we ignore WP policy on NPOV and allow you to insert incorrect information which breaches WP:OR and WP:POV, you have been ask to support your claims with sources which you can't, your whole edit history consists of edit warring on this issue, you have been blocked about nine times in seven months for either making personal attacks or edit warring over this, any other editor would have been giving a long term block by now for this, all you are doing is being disruptive.--padraig 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you have never edit warred on this or any other issue? You need to learn to compromise to reach consensus as I have. I have tried to include your opinions and referenced these to reputable sources, and included both favoured images but again you keep reverting. I do hope you reconsider and look at compromise suggestions with an open mind as I am keen on resolving this issue. I had hoped that giving the Union Flag the lead with the official tag and the UB as second in an unofficial tag would be acceptable to you- together with appropiate references. What does Sir Fozzie or Alison think? Astrotrain 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, first off, I'm no expert in this field, Astrotrain, so this is an area where I might fear to tread. I protected the template on M:The Wrong Version, because I didn't know what the right answer was, but wanted to stop the edit war (I think you were both on or close to 3 reverts). I think I suggested seeking a 3rd Opinion on this, to try to get someone not emotionally tied to the issue who might know more then I did on this. SirFozzie 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I might have a look at a 3rd Opinion. I do have some other ideas to reach a consensus position if others are willing to listen but I am off for a few days so I will return to the issue at the weekend. Meanwhile, I notice that Padraig has ignored your warning and continues to edit war on various pages... Astrotrain 12:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well maybe you will discuss these in the talk page first before hand.--padraig 12:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Astrotrain you have failed to provide appropiate sources or references, this is a template on lists of british flag lists, the Union Flags is the Official flag that all these lists have in common, therefore that is the image to use, all you are trying to do is use the Ulster Banner which is not a national flag, and for which you have provided no sources to support.--padraig 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


I should think Astrotrain [1],[2], would like these articles locked also. This seems to be the patteren they have decided on. --Domer48 22:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not So

Hi SirFozzie, sorry, I have to correct you. Although I would find editing some of these warring-pages tiresome, that is not the reason why I retired from WP, maybe I'll come back later on in the year, it all depends. Neither do I see myself on any side, I suppose one could say that I'm on Wikipedia's side. I think there has been an awful lot of damage caused by Vintagekit's current predicament. The parameters last month were very strict, and I knew that they wouldn't work out. Did you? I said it at the time, and you didn't respond to my question, but I know you haven't being feeling so good, and maybe you missed it. I hope you are much better now, and on the road to full recovery. Short blocks, in Vk's case, if warrented, would have been much better than than those conditions imposed. He was actually pressurised into flipping his lid and there are some people here who would need to examine their own consciences regarding the same. Personally speaking, I wouldn't do that to anyone. However, the situation can be retreived if only some have the bottle to say, "I'm sorry". User:Gold_heart23:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gold, VK was lucky to a point that he was allowed back in.. I fought my hardest, and had to convince other admins privately that VK could be a net benefit to the project. Alison has shown me the diffs in question (before they were oversighted).. if *I* made those threats, Gold.. I'd be de-admined so fast my head would be still spinning at the time they indefinitely blocked me. VK is a good guy, I like him a lot. But the ArbCom case is going to be a rubber stamp, plain and simple.. they have the diffs as well.. the best we can do is use this case and hopefully trim the roots of the edit war. SirFozzie 23:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ye, I see the present difficulties, and I'm basing my my case above on what went on immediately before he was blocked, it's on his talk page. Remember he wasn't blocked at that stage. As I said in the Arb, that aspect can only mitigate, but Vk's outburst, or whatever label one wants to call it, doesn't absolve everyone else involved. Personally speaking, I have lost a certain confidence, maybe I'll get it back. User:Gold_heart23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just one other question. You say, "I fought my hardest, and had to convince other admins privately that VK could be a net benefit to the project". Who were the other admins in question that you fought so hard to convince? I thought that you were in charge things at that stage. Were, what I referred to as the "SirFozzie Parameters", your input solely? User:Gold_heart 02:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
GH. I was the blocking admin therefore, by convention, I suppose I was "in charge" at that stage. At least, inasmuch as I was responsible for the block and it was unlikely anyone was going to unblock without consulting me first. I did however make it clear I would support the consensus decision.
As an aside, going though some of Vk's old edits, I noticed this edit, the significant of which hadn't occurred to me fully previously. The meaning behind Tiocfaidh ár lá is obvious enough, but the suggestion YA@LL GET WHAT BILLY WRONG DID went over my head to begin with. That is, for else intents and purposes a death threat. And while not quite as overt, the same sort of coded message led to the block this time. The reason I bring this up is because I have heard a number of people suggest Vk's block(s) were as a result of reactions to provocation. I wasn't involved in any editing dispute with Vk prior to that first threat, and the recipient of the second threat wasn't involved in the controversial block that you refer to above. Therefore I struggle to see how the direct link between the reason Vk is blocked (making threats of violence) and the provocative editing that he and others engaged in. The threats were aimed at the wrong people.
I am all for using this juncture to focus attention of all those who edit provocatively and disruptively. I really am. While I agree Vk's actions "doesn't absolve everyone else involved" neither does the actions of anyone else involved excuse Vk's. It works both ways. Rockpocket 05:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, it somewhat explains a bit better some items regarding the process. Everything seems "behind closed doors", and instead of the community managing WP, sometimes it appears to be run by admins emailing each other behind the scenes, not a great method of building community confidence. Also your quote, "neither does the actions of anyone else involved excuse Vk's. It works both ways", it would be an error to suggest that I haven't looked at both sides of this equation, which I am still trying to do now. I am not excusing anyone's action in all of this, but it still perplexes me that an editor with over 12,000 edits, and the vast majority of them unquestionable, was not helped by WP to iron things out. The conditions last month stank, and anyone could have seen that, I tried to have some input, but I was ignored. I suspect Machiavellian Strategy at play here. It sends out the message that Wikipedia doesn't value its editors, and maybe it doesn't, for there are lots of them. Being pretty much a pacifist, I wouldn't shriek in horror if someone "lost it" a bit, sometimes it's good to get it out. Really, I think that is all it was with Vk, just a mouthful. Think it was Churchill who said jaw jaw, is better than war war, that would be my motto. My angle on this is that the "rules" of WP need further formulation, some other day perhaps. User:Gold_heart 11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Part of the reason things are done behind "closed doors" sometimes, is because when they are done on wiki it turns into another partisan, insult-throwing contest. Admins are trying to discuss how to deal with this escalating situation, meanwhile each side are sniping at each other and accusing any admin that dare take action against one of their own, of being biased. Then, for example, Vk gets more and more worked up at the discussion he sees on wiki and starts lashing out. So we discuss things on-wiki and we are guilty of provoking Vk into action and we discuss off-wiki and we are guilty of a cover-up. Honestly, you can't win. Add to this the fact that an individual's person details are involved, and this individual already has a fear for his or her personal safety. If I was to explain Vk's actions I would have to reveal that person's private details, thereby leaving me in violation of WP:HARASS and liable for a block myself. In that situation, what would you do?
Regarding the conditions of Vk's parole. As far as I'm aware SirFozzie came up with those by himself and, don't forget, Vk himself was happy to adopt them. Moreover, apart from the subject specific ban, those conditions were not particularly restrictive beyond how every editor is expected to behave around here. There was no Machiavellian plan behind that other than what I expressed quite openly. If Vk can adhere to these behavioural guidelines then our problems with him are solved. If he can't, then he will be blocked, and our problems with him are solved also. Of course that sets up a scenario where inciting Vk might pay dividends if your goal is to get him blocked, but Vk got himself into that position with, literally, years worth of prior bad behaviour. So I have little sympathy for his situation. In addition, no-one actually invoked the restrictive conditions of his parole. No admin banned him from a talk-page, no admin extended the subject specific aspect of his ban, no admin warned him when he actually did edit one or two Republican related articles. I was watching all of these things, and if my goal was to get him blocked could easily have played hard-ball with him on all those conditions. The only time I commented was when Vk started being abusive again, unacceptable behaviour from any editor and completely irrespective of the conditions of his parole.
Finally, regarding your last point. That is an interesting proposal - that we permit, encourage even, those to "lose it" because its "good to get it out". That Wikipedia is not therapy notwithstanding, if everyone did that it would be carnage.But of course everyone wouldn't fo that, what I think you are really proposing is that certain editors be permitted extra leeway because thats the sort of person they are: a bit excitable. We do not and can not make exceptions for people. Everyone must be held the that same standard. Vk's behaviour has been over that line for so long that we have all began to accept as normal behaviour that is already against our policy. The real question here is not, why is an editor with 12,000 edits blocked? The question is how on earth did he managed to stick around long enough to amass 12,000 edits with his history of awful behaviour. You might note that the genuinely uninvolved editors that stumbled upon his page over the last week or two actually expressed that very question. Rockpocket 18:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your interesting proposal, it happens all the time on WP, haven't you noticed? I wasn't recommending it as you claim I have, so wrong again. Last sanctions used by BHG to hammer VK, she says it on his talk page. Are you are being disingenuous? Well I don't mind. Also thanks to SirFozzie for use of the space. User:Gold_heart 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of BHG's reasoning was that she blocked him because he threated to continue to make edits that she considered to be purposefully disruptive. I don't know enough about the subject to comment on whether that was the case or not, but I don't think that has anything to do with SirFozzie's parole conditions. I could be wrong, but that was my take ont he situation. If you are not suggesting we excuse Vk's semi-regular bouts of "losing it", then what do you mean by I wouldn't shriek in horror if someone "lost it" a bit, sometimes it's good to get it out.? No-one was "shrieking in horror", we are simply protecting the security of all our editors by taking action to stop them being threatened. Are you suggesting we don't do that? Rockpocket 02:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Think it was George Bernard Shaw who said something about putting all the philosophers in the world end to end and never reaching a conclusion, maybe we'll have to differ, and really Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not that important, one of my favourite essays. My understanding of human nature is probably different than yours. If the rules of WP were different, we may never have had this conservation, we may never have even crossed paths, and Vintagekits might be an Administrator, or maybe even a Bureaucrat. One never knows these things. Hey, I'll see around WP no doubt, and may I pay you a compliment, like your writing skills. User:Gold_heart 12:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To add to above, just read what I write, don't take any subjective meaning from it, you are mis-interpreting some of it, maybe that is my fault for not expanding some of the sentences. User:Gold_heart 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not that important, which is why the very fact that people feel the need to insult and threaten others is beyond me. Of course, one could argue if it isn't that important then why should we care? I think you are probably correct in that we simply differ in our wider outlook. Nothing wrong with that. After a somewhat rocky start, its always been a pleasure discussing issues with you, GH. With apologies to SirFozzie for hogging his talkpage, I guess we should probably agree to disagree. Rockpocket 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Because many of those edits are nuisance edits, or otherwise tiny and meaningless. An edit does not always mean ten paragraphs. David Lauder 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

IP sock

Beat me to it. We ECd on the talk page :) - Alison ☺ 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wanna help me write up a CU report? :) SirFozzie 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a bad Idea as I had a number of anons reverting all my edits a few weeks ago that were reported, so a CU would help.--padraig 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

nothing to hide...

nothing to fear. Biofoundationsoflanguage 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Advice

Thanks for the advice on my page, now if you wouldn't mind, I'd just like a bit more. What is the standard procedure in a situation where a editor reverts, refuses to fully explain himself, deletes requests for answers, and continues to revert (often with a group of followers to take over after his 3rd revert for the day)? I refer specifically to User:Padraig and his edits here, here and here?. He actually lied to me when I asked him why he had deleted the reasonable requests; no I didn't and please don't revert any edits I make on my user space. It seems he has taken the attitude that he no longer needs to explain himself. I would appreciate your help with this matter. Conypiece 23:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Coneypiece I have told you before that user talk pages are not an instant message service, also you where told not to post a message on my talkpage everytime you post a question on an article talkpage asking why your answer hasn't been answered within two minutes of you posting. As for me removing material from my userspace I have a right to do so, you on the other hand don't have a right to revert edits I make on my userspace. And the reply I give no I didn't and please don't revert any edits I make on my user space was in response to your edit summary asking did delete your message by mistake. As for answering your questions I and other editors have answered your questions.--padraig 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually I normally waited 2/3 days for you to answer, in some cases you did answer sort of by then, in many others you didn't. I would have thought 2/3 days would have been plenty of time to answer me, considering you spend most of the day on Wikipedia. The questions remain btw. Conypiece 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Guys - the appropriate forum for dealing with three-revert violations is WP:AN3. I suggest you take the matter there. Furthermore, if you both insist on bickering here, I'll block both of you for 24 hours, equally. Far better off if you both explained yourselves to the ArbCom when the opportunity presents itself, which it will - Alison ☺ 23:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie, this is a one off, and I'm never coming back to Wikipedia after this, my last entry ever. Allison, by inference, was saying how dangerous vk "could possibly" be. Then she told about his loud-mouthed fans, so that connects me with violent-republicanism. That was very hurtful, as a victim of violence myself, I am totally antiviolant, and never had any support for that, and often felt physically sick at the news of such. SirFozzie, you have been nice in the past, so a warm thanks. I won't even wait to see you block me here..02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.130.135 (talk)

  • My personal details are known to a few people on WP. I am worried as to the direction of the ArbCom, references to possible arson attacks, and fans/supporters, and all that. My photo is on my talk page too. That's why I am asking to apply my right to privacy, and extinguish my account. Please, I will appreciate it very much if you proceed as soon as possible in that regard. Thank you.06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.130.135 (talk)

Done. SirFozzie 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Team editing

I dont like your assumption that I am team editing on the Orange Institution‎ article. I have provided a reference for the claim I made which was then backed up by another editor, no team work no conspiracy. BigDunc 07:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SirFozzie for both your and Alison’s intervention.[3] Ideally I would have liked it noted, that I have added no content what so ever to that article, and have confined my edits to the discussion page. But thanks all the same. --Domer48 11:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do wish you had written to me direct. I would have answered you myself. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Check user

I see the checkuser came back that Astrotrain was possibly the IP reverting my edits, I must say I am disappointed that you have not taken action against him for this seeing his past record for being blocked for making personal attacks on me and other editors along with his blocks for edit warring [4].--padraig 17:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion, Padraig, is that while there's the possibility that they're the same, there's no conclusive evidence. It would be unfair to block at this time, IMO - Alison ☺ 18:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Padraig, let me explain some things here. A) It is possible (not I didn't say probable, POSSIBLE) that Astrotrain did not realize he wasn't logged in when he made those edits. B) I am an involved party in the ArbCom case, which would be a BAD thing if I blocked someone that is also in the ArbCom. I'm talking "possibly leading to de-adminning" bad. I had to pre-emptively post notice of the three page protects that I have done. C) I have brought it up in the ArbCom, with a link to the CheckUser result, and posted my belief that it shows further Astrotrain's edit warring modus operandi. SirFozzie 18:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't realised when I posted above that you had added the info on this to the arbcom, I think that is the best way of dealing with it as I intend to mention Astrotrains past personal attacks against me and other editors, I also intend to include User:Conypiece and User:Biofoundationsoflanguage in my statement to the arbcom.--padraig 18:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology...

very big of you indeed. [/sarcasm] Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you seem to be asking for it. I'm sorry that the person who was reverting to your edits was your co-edit warrior (that I also listed), not you. Oh.. you may want to check the ArbCom case that Astrotrain is already in. There is a proposal to add you as well. SirFozzie 18:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You're a relatively new and inexperienced administrator. So much is clear from the discourtious way you 'speak' to minions on here. Astrotrain and I do our edits completely independently of each other. I doubt very much that the same is true for the 'other side'.
Whatever "ArbCom" case Astrotrain is in is not my lookout. If you think it's worth adding me that's absolutely fine by me, but I'm not going to take it as a threat. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I was making sure you were aware of it, because the Arbitration Committee can ban up to a year for various offenses. I didn't want it said that we had ambushed you with it. SirFozzie 18:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm confident that my frankly superb contributions to wikipedia over the past few, sacred months are not ban-worthy. Certainly I've done no more to deserve a ban than anyone else involved in this dispute. I didn't come on wikipedia with the aim of being wrapped-up in this dispute either. I was quite happy editing British Overseas Territory articles and genral speeling misteaks before I crossed paths with the flag disputers. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you not also adding User:Barryob? He has been the main supporter of Padraig. Astrotrain 17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Doing more research on folks here, Astrotrain. If you don't want to wait till I'm done, there is certainly nothing stopping you from doing exactly what I have done (making the statement that he should be added on the /Workshop page, and then adding evidence as I have with diffs that show his activity). SirFozzie 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The article Great Irish Famine is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. Further terms of the mentorship are contained in the decision and will be amplified on the article talkpage. Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. MarkThomas is placed on standard civility supervision for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 21:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Yeah, I have never been good at formatting that kind of stuff, and I only made it worse by saving the information off-wiki and then copying-and-pasting. I am going to go fix it now... ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Orange Institution

None of your foreign spelling please, organisation is correct for this article and it used earlier in the lead. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen me bucko, to me, you're the foreigner. Besides, if the rest of the world has a problem with our spelling, they need to remember who has the bomb ;) (Yes, I did make the change requested) SirFozzie 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I refer you to aluminium ;) One Night In Hackney303 02:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And I refer you to... gah. I can't come up with something that is printable in this space. *laughs* A the great Johnny Carson once said, "May you bite the southbound end of a northbound camel." SirFozzie 02:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And speaking of camels One Night In Hackney303 02:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
..... I hate you sometimes. The Mental images will not go away. *laughs* SirFozzie 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea. This is one thing that could unite the Irish/British factions. Lets start an argument about spelling and they can all pile into the Americans, thereby forgetting their antagonism towards each other! Genius. If you do it right, we could have another Great Yog[h]urt War on our hands. That one has just settled down after years worth of arguing, the American Revolutionary War was shorter and less painful. Rockpocket 03:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm still popular One Night In Hackney303 03:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • groans* That's all we need. More "Oh you Yanks can't know anything about soccer/spelling/etcetera" stuff? :P SirFozzie 03:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Football not soccer, thank you very much ;) One Night In Hackney303 03:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(goes on a Taz like rampage) See what I mean??????? SirFozzie 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

SPA

WP:SPA tells you everything you need to know. How did you get the mop? ;) One Night In Hackney303 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gorram, I think I'm gonna put charges that you're wikistalking me :) Thanks SirFozzie 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Either that, or you happened to ask for help on a page I had watchlisted. One Night In Hackney303 18:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but let's not let facts get in the way.... SirFozzie 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The template you are looking for is {{spa}}. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sir Fozzie, can you quit with the SPA templates on the Don Murphy AfD. He's a weirdo that likes to go apeshit and stalk people from time to time, indeed, he's successfully forced an administrator to leave. I don't particuarly want that, hence the reason I'm using a more anonymous account. I would therefore ask you remove the SPA template you've added below my comment. Algie The Pig 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A) The template is true, isn't it? and B) It'd be a bit hypocritical if I posted tags on one side and not the other... C) I agree with you that we don't need to be giving in to demands like this. SirFozzie 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
B) The template isn't true, which is why I removed it. I intensely dislike anybody trying to reduce the perceived importance of my contribution to this deletion discussion. If you look carefully, you'll see my account here is several months old and has been used for more than contributing to this discussion. It serves several purposes, one of which is to provide enhanced anonymity. Algie The Pig 20:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the explanation I just felt we were going around in circles and as you say a little frustration crept in. I am aware of the arbcom you are talking about. Lets hope it put's a stop to all these silly edit wars. And talking of edit wars could you have a look at the FIFA 08 war that is going on and help out with a constructive settlement thanks again. BigDunc 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie could you have a look at this [5], [6] and [7]. As usual, I provide references, cite policies and get this crap. An Article that they were never next to near it and I got this [8]. I know you don’t have to, but could you watch me like a hawk, save me from myself if you will! Or if not, suggest some hard nosed Admin, who will not take crap from anyone. And to be blunt, tell me to go fuck myself and block me, if I mess about, but do not let me have to put up with this! --Domer48 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Emm put up with what Domer? Oh did I ask for references, did I correct spelling mistakes, did I ask you to answer a civil question which I had asked you over a week ago. I have nothing to apologise for, and anyone who looks at the links you provided will see that. Conypiece 17:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that SirFozzie, I will take the advice, and if I’m in the wrong, let me know before you drop the hammer. --Domer48 18:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been loved by Alison

Hey there! Alison has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. Remember to pass it on to all your friends by adding {{User:Arknascar44/Love Cabal}} to the top of their pages. Don't forget to add your name here! Love and best wishes, Alison ☺ 18:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could you have a look at this [9], thanks --Domer48 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Enough

Enough. If you're still warring on this, get a 3O. I'm tired of my talk page being BattleGround #194124214 in this thing. SirFozzie 23:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

understood

but i appreciate you looking at it.Traditional unionist 20:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I...

Propose editors to be added tothis?. User:BigDunc and User:One Night In Hackney to be specific. Conypiece 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Conypiece, which do you mean, do you want to add to one of the existing remedies (the Revert Parole?), or add a new proposed remedy? SirFozzie 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Add them to whichever one it is that they are then reviewed and if necessary in their case, punished. Conypiece 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just add it in the way we have (make sure you copy and paste the template to leave one open afterwards). SirFozzie 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps not.... One Night In Hackney303 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok I thought you meant a whole new template, Cony. I modified it slightly, if you don't mind? SirFozzie 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, I should have been clearer in what I requested. Thats fine! Conypiece 19:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate you attention

Here. Conypiece 18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

looking. SirFozzie 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lauder

SirFozzie have you seen this is User:David Lauder allowed to do this.--padraig 14:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Had not. Fixed it. SirFozzie 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You'd hope people could actually get my username right and not add my sig..... One Night In Hackney303 14:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably cuz your user page is 404-compliant right now. SirFozzie 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
404s are no fun compared to 303s though :( One Night In Hackney303 14:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That's.... not what I meant. Never mind. SirFozzie 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I knew that ;) One Night In Hackney303 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You enjoy winding me up, don't you. SirFozzie 15:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I like to bring the light-hearted frivolity, makes a change from the current stress. One Night In Hackney303 15:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say keep it up, but we all know you don't need the encouragement :) SirFozzie 15:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Special Award

The Special Barnstar
I, Thepiper, award you the Special Barnstar for dealing with events in a sometimes engaging, but nevertheless, amicable manner, and to let you know, that we too are aware of the pressures that you Admins are under! Thepiper 12:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Love and tickles

Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road;
Every life must have its burden, every heart its load.
Why sit down in gloom and darkness with your grief to sup?
As you drink Fate's bitter tonic, smile across the cup.

Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet;
Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet.
Do not make the way seem harder by a sullen face;
Smile a little, smile a little, brighten up the place.

Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves
O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves.
Though you meet with loss and sorrow in the passing years,
Smile a little, smile a little... even through your tears!

Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Love (and lots of tickles!),
Phaedriel
13:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for Recall/SirFozzie

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for Admin Recall that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Closed early due to WP:SNOW - Alison ❤ 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This Administrator has placed himself open to Administrator Recall. Should five editors in good standing request it, he will relinquish his "status" as a Wikipedia Administrator. Indicate below if you wish him to be recalled.

1. I've absolutely nothing against you in any way, shape or form. I don't even know what this is all about. But the invitation to wield some arbitrary power and play havoc with the editing privileges of Wiki administrator types just can't be passed up! MuhahahahAHAHAAH! Aim Here 09:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Failure to use admin tools in a neutral and evenhanded manner. Failure in mentorship of Vintagekits- leading to an escalation of the "Troubles" dispute(s) Astrotrain 19:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
3.
4.
5.

I assume good standing doesn't include people looking at bans in the current ArbCom case? One Night In Hackney303 00:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
any 5 unbanned editors. SirFozzie 00:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone, said a better man than I. Who has the gall? Rockpocket 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! One Night In Hackney303 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-recall

  1. . Phaedriel - 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. - seconded! - Alison ☺ 00:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. - Ze more ze merrier. One Night In Hackney303 00:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. No cause whatsoever for recall. Tyrenius 02:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. No one who matters wants you to give up your bit. I count myself in that number ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. --padraig 02:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. You blocked me! But you were right to. --Domer48 09:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Agree see below. BigDunc 09:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Maxim(talk) 23:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. SqueakBox 19:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as, ummmm, the talk page). No further edits should be made to this request.

Decline invitation to Recall

I have had my disagreements with SirFozzie, but wish to express my wholehearted confidence in his competence to perform the duties of a Wikipedia Administrator.Traditional unionist 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought I would never say this but I agree with a Traditional Unionist. BigDunc 14:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoa!! :) - Alison ☺ 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

SirFoz

See you are trying to connect me with GH. That's not your problem. We'll see what happens. The plot thickens!!! ;)) Thepiper 02:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that!

Fair play SirFozzie for that. I noticed the new name on it alright, and when I went onto their page to explain the situation, I noticed a comment that was a bit, well in my opinion a bit smart. I went onto another article that they were being pulled on also, and found their contribution to a discussion had been removed. Felt the newbie was being bullied, so I stuck in my oar. Will take the advice though, and thanks. P.S, I’ve been checkusered already, came out clean,(I think) I was accused of being Sarah, BigDunc and Papin. Seriously though, I can get myself into enough trouble all by my self, don’t need a double. Thanks again --Domer48 18:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I should have said it earlier on, take care of yourself Fozz! And don't feel you have to keep me stright, like I said before, set me up with some hard nosed f***** sit back, and say, watch what you wish for:). --Domer48 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

I can assure you now that I have not broken any guidelines or policy and would have no problem with a check user being done on me. If there is a way I can prove my identity to you please let me know thanks. BigDunc 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta

Hello, Thank you for volunteering to be a part of the Atlanta Wikimaina bid southeast team. We are holding meetings weekdays at 7:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. If you are able to make it, that would be great.

We now also have Google group for coordinating this bid. To get updates on the bid and our progress, please join the Google Groups mailing list at Google Groups wikimania-atlanta.

There is also a group on the social networking site Facebook in which interested parties can express their support for the bid.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these notifications about the bid or would rather they go to a talk page on a different project please change m: Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/Notify_list --Cspurrier 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Orange Institution

Could do with some wise words on the Talk Page Traditional unionist is taking the stance and I am not being incivil of a typical unionist NO NO NO. Every source that has been provided is according to him nationalist propoganda and no one is a neutral observer proposals have been put forwardall to no avail and yet TU will not provide one. This page has been protected for long enough and I would like to create a new section on the historical backgroun to it's foundation thanks. BigDunc 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to stereotype me. You have no idea what I am like. I have provided evidence that the sources provided are not the work of neutral authors. You also should have thought a little harder about which admin you bother with your squabbling.Traditional unionist 20:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence, despite repeated requests. However Fozzie should not be bothered with this, let's keep the discussion in the correct place. One Night In Hackney303 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He is the blocking admin is he not? BigDunc 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's also quite ill. Can you guys either sort it out civilly or maybe ask another admin to take look? - Alison ☺ 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware that he was ill SORRY. BigDunc 21:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, to put it succinctly, I am in a position where I am supposed to be avoiding stress, not in the middle of it. My doc was rather unamused early this week when I had an attack (acid reflux etcetera).. he's made comments that he would like to see me out of work for three or so weeks if he could.. That's not possible, unfortunately.. but I'm going to TRY to avoid the situations for a couple weeks and just spend a lot of time resting when I'm not at work. SirFozzie 23:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My sincere apologies again did not now you were ill.BigDunc 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you didn't know there's nothing to apologize about, Dunc SirFozzie 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, Foz. It looks like Encyclopedist may have some new competition :) Thanks for looking out for me - Alison ❤ 15:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent request for adminship recall

Dear Sir Fozzie. I regret to inform you that I have closed your recent RFR (Request for Recall) due to WP:SNOW. Unfortunately, it didn't have a chance of succeeding, largely due to your good demeanour, fairness, honesty and ridiculously high edit count. However, don't be put off. If you start a good regime of rouge block actions, random deletions and trolling RfA, you can come back in a year or so and hopefully do better. Sorry, but you get to keep your admin bit :-D - Alison ❤ 15:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick favour

Can you restore Seamus Clarke to my userspace please? One Night In Hackney303 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And Tommy Crossan. One Night In Hackney303 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
User:One_Night_In_Hackney/Seamus_Clarke First one done. SirFozzie 21:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
User:One_Night_In_Hackney/Tommy_Crossan 2 for 2! SirFozzie 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, just what the doctor ordered. One Night In Hackney303 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Vandal Whacking Stick

This might come in handy. One Night In Hackney303 02:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta meeting

We will be holding a meeting tonight at 9:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. Please try to be at this meeting as it is one of the last ones before bidding ends and we still have lots that need to be discussed. --Cspurrier 19:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Matrix(mathematics)

Hi Fozzie is it possible you could have a look at this for me dont know how to make the text more readable if possible could you fix it for me or if not you might know someone who could thanks in advance another admin I asked failed so hopefully you can sort it. Text Problem. BigDunc 09:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do when I'm off work tonight SirFozzie 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem thanks a lot. BigDunc 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you have a look at this for me? Still imposible to read.BigDunc 22:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Trying tocome up with something. Maybe put it in a graphic or something. SirFozzie 23:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The now-traditional RFA thank-spam

Secret Barnstar

Here you go! You earned it!

The Secret Page Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to SirFozzie for finding the secret page on Some Person's user page!
Great job!

—Some Person 18:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Ballbots (the game)

I am seeking a further detailed explanation to the deletion of a recent article, Ballbots (the game). I believe I provided a plausible arguement for keeping the article online. Skippy crunch 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For your "Troubles"

The Wiki Wiffle Bat
For those special occasions that you're frequently having to deal with when a normal cluestick just won't do.... One Night In Hackney303 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Trout pout

What's your problem with trout pout? Plenty of room for expansion (so to speak!) Astrotrain 19:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A) I may be overly bureaucratic, but the article that you restored, was the version that was unanimously voted to redirect, and I'd rather see it go through Deletion Review rather then just overturning an AfD decision, and B) I think it would fail BLP due to Undue Weight SirFozzie 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefblockeduser User:Professorpain raised concern about Wikipedia policy

So how the heck are Wikipedians supposed to discuss it with him if you and other admins continually burn the bridges (such as salting said user's talk page)? — Rickyrab | Talk 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's SALTed his talk page. I assumed good faith about the guy and blocked for a short period of time. He vowed to continue disruption and attack other editors ("FASCISTS!!!"). Now he's indefinitely blocked (not banned nor infinitely blocked). He can appeal to unblock-en-l if he wishes his block to be reviewed - Alison ❤ 21:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
How dare you protect his talk page, you...you....you "FASCISTS!!!" One Night In Hackney303 21:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This person didn't want to raise concerns, he wanted to vandalize Wikipedia with some nonsense. We are not a site for social justice, we are an encyclopedia. Since he promised to continue his disruption , I removed his ability to disrupt. SirFozzie 21:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr Lob Socks

Hi Sir Fozzie, is is possible to tell if User:The Bold Guy is another sockpuppet of Mr Lob? He has been reasonably well behaved, but there is some behaviour very similar to the old set of Mr Lob socks. Graeme Bartlett 09:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't see anyone by that name.. got a better link? SirFozzie 09:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that - should have been User:-The Bold Guy- with dashes around the name. Graeme Bartlett 21:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitty

People have received long bans for less than that - and you know it. Giano 18:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because you and I were looking at it differently, AGF and all that. But since my advice was unwanted, I've stepped back, and you may go back to the battle if you wish. SirFozzie 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No I could not care less either. Not my country so not my problem. I'm not gay so not my problem. So who will care I wonder. However, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that if certain people cannot or will not see what is blatantly going on under their noses, then they deserve all they are undoubtedly going to get. I have been backing off from this case for some time now, I obtained for it some publicity and ensured it was going to take place - now I shall begin to watch the colours emerging. Giano 19:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Giano, people also get bans for trolling. Take care. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
All getting a little too close for comfort now isn't it? Giano 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, anyone challenging a troll is likely to find themselves added to the target list. It's a well-documented trolling technique. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Troll appears to be your favourite species of the moment. Well you seem to have enjoyed their company for long enough so I wish you joy with them. The case is almost over now, so we can just sit back and see what the Arbs decide to do. I am delighted with the way it has gone so far - I became involved because it was fairly obvious that many people wanted VK to carry the can alone, well he is not doing so now - a lot of background has emerged and many personalities have been shown to be not quite what was originally though and believed. I now know what was wrong there - so that is good. Sometimes one has to break a few eggs to make an omelette, lets hope too many don't now have to choke on it. My job is done there now it is in the hands of the Gods, or at least the Arbs. From what I've seen if I ever have to work with either group - I think I'd go with the Irish - at least they are upfront. I won't go on further. Good luck with your future Wikipedia work, I suspect you are going to need it - I doubt our paths will cross again - rather different ends of the Encyclopedia. Goodbye. Giano 14:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Giano, trolls are not my favourite species at all, but I used usenet for long enough in the pre-web days to know a troll when I see one, and to know how destructive they can be. I don't get to choose the people who edit in the same areas of wikipedia that I edit, but I will be relieved to avoid you if that's how things works out. Pointing out unaddressed problems can be done with civility and without snideness, and I'm always relieved to avoid people who ignore that, and in particular to avoid people who use the classic trolling technique of setting out to goad and then act indignantly when thy finally think that they have found evidence that someone else has responded in kind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I realise you are an expert on the subject. I am reluctant to be drawn and engage into further conversation with you and you friends thus encouraging you to make further ridiculous allegations. Please desist. Giano 09:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm...

Why wasn't BigDunc added?! Conypiece 20:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred said all you had to do is place a notice on his talk page and place the diff on the evidence page that they were aware. Let me get you a diff from when I did just that for Biofoundations of Language. [10] SirFozzie 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
And the link you gave me didn't work. humph! Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You have mail

As above :) One Night In Hackney303 17:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's taken care of. SirFozzie 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SirFozzie/Archive_6&oldid=1035462684"