User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Irish Premiership

Please do not delete the "Irish Premiership" page. The Irish Premiership is the national football league for Northern Ireland and should have its own page. The Irish Premier League has been superseded by the Irish Premiership and should redirect to the "Irish Premiership" page.

The information contained on the "Irish Premiership" is the same as that which used to be on the "Irish Football League" page and is accurate and comprehensive: moreso than the "Irish Premier League" page.Mooretwin (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

:( Viridae^Talk 00:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmfph. Bad enough an answering machine...but a "snarky" message too! Have a good unwind. Risker (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recall criteria

Hey Foz, just FYI I've written up one of my own at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Recall, based pretty much on yours. Gimme a yell if you have any issues with this. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Srarh777

Hi SirFozzie. Now that (at last) some progress seems to be being made with Sarah, especially that she's agreed (a) that the block was called for and (b) that she won't continue to revert the "X in Ireland" merges, I suggest that we unblock her. Because the block, and Sarah's behaviour, attracted some discussion at WP:ANI, I've started a thread at WP:AN#Unblock of User:Sarah777? so that other admins can input. Please share your thoughts there. Cheers, Waggers (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you'd already seen it! Cool. Waggers (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie, just to give you an update, there seems to be gaining consensus for an unblock with a conditional reblock if there are any further issues, up to one year. Allison and one other administrator is willing to mentor Sarah, and I am in agreement that, with restrictions (I outlined this on the talk page), that Sarah be unblocked. Your comments, as you are the blocking administrator, are warranted at her talk page. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Given that Sarah has agreed to the conditions requested of her, I think we need to go ahead and unblock her. I'm happy to do the deed if you have no objections as blocking admin? Waggers (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it, Waggers :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dzonatas

I was contacted today by User:Dzonatas over IRC, apparently this user's upset over their block, and I quote: "I was being harassed, and another user that I after interacted with for two years stepped in and escalted the whole thing against me. Now I can't seem to get anybody to look at my original reason to draw attention on AN/I.". Not sure what to do here, I'm horrible at resolving disputes, but it sounds like this user attacked others after his block. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an exact copy of the email he sent Durova, where he uses the phrase "G__ D__n" several times, which was after he was blocked indefinitely by Moreschi (I just reenabled the block with email disabled) . The ANI discussion has been archived. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dzonatas for a discussion on Dzonatas's behavior. This editor had forum shopped, edited others comments to make it look like they attacked him, and had generally been one of the more Disruptive Editors I have seen lately. I see no reason that he should be unblocked. I denied his first unblock request, and R.Baley denied the 2nd one, and retracted numerous attacks from his talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ONIH

Allegations are being made about a "retired editor" over at this AFD. As far as I'm aware he's not online any more after moving house. You seem to know him pretty well, could you just confirm that? Thanks.-RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Off Wiki Decisions

This is not on Sarah777's talk page as it might be considered stirring that specific pot. Elonka claims that she and Alison are "seeking concensus" (between themselves, Elonka says) on User talk:Sarah777. The rest of us have been told, essentially, to go away and play while the grown-ups deal with this. This makes me very uncomfortable, but, being neither an Admin nor an editor of any great moment, perhaps my view is not the mainstream one. Are you comfortable with two, having elected themselves or, to be fair, having been elected by Elonka, deciding for all? I usually ask Rockpocket these types of questions, but he is away at this time. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned, I have great respect for both of them (and Alison is one of my best friends here. Also, I'm not concerned about the situation, sometimes discussions between folks can get disruptive, and if we can avoid that or "stirring the pot", then I'm for it. It's only a side conversation, not the main one. SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design RfC

At this RfAR, you've expressed an interest in a RfC on behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC notice

Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B, where you may want to participate. Odd nature (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a two for the price of one special on RfC's! As things happen to be, I was typing up some information right now. Thank you for the notice SirFozzie (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *sigh* - it's BADSITES part deux :/ - Alison ^❤ 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, not much surprise, they've made their feelings clear. SirFozzie (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it's tarnishing them more than us, I've taken the liberty of having a bit of fun. :p Sceptre ^(talk) 00:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just came to see what you were up to SirFozzie and let me tell you that this RfC has kept me entertained for a few dozen minutes now. Teach the controversy indeed. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Building a Bridge

I read your comment on the talk page of the live ID RFC directed at Filll, which read, in part "I offered another olive branch on the deleted RFC talk page. I admitted that I had lost my temper and said a couple things I shouldn't and apologized for them." While I assume this was at the still-deleted talk page of the multi-user RFC, did you offer to stop taking your dispute with the listed editors off-wiki? That seems to be a major concern of theirs, and mine. As an aside, I deleted my outdated userspace page per your request. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, PouponOnToast, thanks for two reasons, one, for your request to Filll to take down that section, and the reduction in sturm und drang that followed, and the 2nd for living up to your word that all we had to do is ask nicely and you'd take that page down. It's appreciated. As for the other situation...

I've actually made only four posts regarding the whole situation. (I know you don't have a WR account, but in case anyone does, here's a link to a search for all my posts [1]

[2] Letting Giggy know that the 2nd RfC had been undeleted (he missed it)

[3] Admitedly, a bit frustrated that I was going to have to copy my RfC post to a third RfC (like others, I was not happy that the 2nd RfC was deleted, I thought that it was a situation where WP:IAR could have been used, since ArbCom wants a RfC done before taking a case. No offense to the RfC you created, but it started to feel a bit like "Here we go again", you know?

[4] I just ran into the ID folks on a couple threads, and they rubbed me the wrong way, and seeing what they're doing certainly LOOKS like off-wiki collaboration. Explaining why I felt like ArbCom should look at the situation. As you've seen from the various RfC's, there's a lot of people who have good faith concerns about personal attacks and what appeared to be collaboration/bloc voting on issues. (and no, they're not all WR folks :D)

I say later in that post... I'm just afraid, right or wrong, they're going to point to Sceptre's thread here (not quite BADSITES, but pointing at his words) to try to Chewbacca Defense the whole thing. Um.. I think I can mark myself down for the full point here, isn't that exactly what happened?

[5] My first post on the whole thing. And again, I hit the mark, don't I? While I think Sceptre has done himself no good by saying what he has here, I do think that it needs to be looked at, I just disagree with him that it should go straight to the ArbCom. Later, getting frustrated with the attacks the other editors in the ArbCom request presented as their defense, I changed my mind, and thought that ArbCom would be useful on it, because it'd be a gosh-awful mess of a RfC. (and uh, yeah, it is.)

That's the extent of my posting on WR about this situation. You know what my other posts on WR have been about lately? Calling a couple of the more... exasperating users of WR on their behavior, and talking about my diet. SirFozzie (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

Think you might remove "vile" from one particularly vile bit? Actualy that whole fragment could go as it does seem to violate WP:NPA. I know I've explained this before, but the communication with VO was completely private, until he chose to make it public. I've also explained the circumstances. X-ref to your comments on my talk page.  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the particularly vile bit at your request. SirFozzie (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland talk page

Hello SirFozzie, I come to you because I am not sure where to take this and you are an admin. There has been a dicussion/argument over at the Scotland talk page. Two editors in particular are arguing strongly for one view and without saying anything I had a suspicion they were one and the same. The users names are Fonez4mii and ip address 84.13.166.40. I now believe he/she has tripped themsef up with this diff, [6]. I would appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks! Jack forbes (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't have enough time to review that (It could be something for a check user), but I've protected the page and invited more admin eyes on it. SirFozzie (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Jack forbes (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, you mention above it could be something for a check user. Is it possible for this to happen? I have been avoiding the Scotland talk page due to the accusation of this user and am convinced he/she is a sockpuppet user. I notice the user accused me of sockpupperty on the page which I confess made me laugh as I believe he/she is only trying to deflect attention away from himself. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS, if you could find the time I would be grateful if you could read through the thread Constituent country and among other things if you think I was making innapropriate comments or guilty of any other wrongdoings I will take it on the chin. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again SirFozzie. I hope your not fed up with me coming to your talk page. I have made a report Here of sockpuppetry against Fonez4mii and hope you take a look in. You might find the conversation interesting. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Moulton's talk page was protected because he used it to repeat his "outing" of another editor. Unprotecting that page is totally unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As numerous people have stated on the ANI Discussion, they see the block as incorrect, so it is quite acceptable. SirFozzie (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about the block - this is about a page that was protected because the editor had repeatedly posted personal information about another editor. This poses an unacceptable risk. Guettarda (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If the block was incorrect, following on and protecting the talk page of an unblocked user is rather.. novel interpertation, isn't it? SirFozzie (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So now you're arguing that a blocked editor, who was unblocked to allow him to do a specific task should not be re-blocked when he outs another editor? I see. Guettarda (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, first, it's not about the block, and now, it's about the block? I have not unblocked him, there's no consensus to unblock him, while there is consensus to unprotect the page. I have posted my reasons on ANI about my view on the whole thing. SirFozzie (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm...what? I said it wasn't about the block. You said "yes, it's about the block" (since you seem to be saying that your rationale for unprotecting the page is your opinion that the block was incorrect). I'm simply trying to figure out your rationale. Guettarda (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fire away. But I probably won't get to it tonight - I have some work to finish before bed. Guettarda (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of undertow's recent article

The article had 4 citations. How can this claim be upheld? The article is most certainly notable. — _Maggot^Syn 11:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't even fucking edit my own talk page. Can someone unprotect it, and lead me to DRV? the_undertow ^talk 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I posted this on the wrong talk page. Cheers. — _Maggot^Syn 11:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I did so, Undertow. However, I have to say I support the deletion personally (I read it when I got back to my computer, sleep is not going to happen today apparently). Of the four citations, one is his own page (WP:SELFPUB) , 2 about his actions on Wikipedia (which is to be avoided) See: Wikipedia:WAWI#Writing_about_Wikipedia_itself. and the Legislative Officer, um.. I don't see it, honestly, ESPECIALLY considering the history involved here. I understand your frustration, the undertow, but I really hope you don't push this one, it can do no good at all. SirFozzie (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On strict policy grounds both the deletion and the protection (of the redirect) were out of line. However argue that and you will be called a policy wonk. Viridae^Talk 12:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Viridae: If that's the case, this is a PRIME example for WP:IAR. SirFozzie (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not in total disagreement there. Viridae^Talk 12:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. It only mentioned he is a wikipedian, so it didn't go against WAWI at all. — _Maggot^Syn 13:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out to SynMag, there's also AFD precedent for it. [7]. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone listen when I bothered to be rational?

All you have to do is look at my block log:

• 23:18, 4 May 2008 Hersfold (Talk | contribs) blocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: email abuse, talk page abuse, continued harassment despite warnings)
• 23:18, 4 May 2008 Hersfold (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (extending/changing terms)
• 10:15, 4 May 2008 Sam Korn (Talk | contribs) blocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 09:11, 5 May 2008 ‎ (reducing block length -- new user, good faith)
• 10:15, 4 May 2008 Sam Korn (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (unblock to change duration)
• 09:11, 4 May 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing

It's been firmly established that I'm a worthless trouble-maker. And there's a permanent record, which anyone and everyone can access at any time whatsoever, to prove exactly what I am.

--Blechnic (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If I act well? If I behave? You're missing the point, which everyone else seems to be missing: I wasn't blocked for misbehaving, I was blocked after I stopped misbehaving. This gives the firm message that templates should not be minded, because you'll be blocked regardless of what you do. It also gives the message that blocking is simply a punitive measure by pissed off admins.

Frankly, no one wants to hear it, and I know that, because no one listened to a damn thing I had to say about when it was happening, and no one heard a word until I got belligerent and hostile. That appears to be what Wikipedia wants: to punitively block users who actually listen to the warnings, and only listen to the loud. I'm glad to assist with that. A

And, now, amusingly, Ryulong apparently is going to stalk me on Wikipedia--by showing up to counter my FP delisting, to Wikipedia's loss. So, what exactly do I have to gain by calming down? If I calm down, I'll be blocked, I'll be gang banged, I'll be taunted, whatever. Ryulong never meant to apologize and is appears to be starting a stalking campaign.

Not a single thing has been done to address the issues I raised. But a whole lot of people would like them to go away, so MBisanz can continue vindictively and punitively blocking the non-established editors, so Ryulong can continue harassing the non-established editors, so Gwen Gale can continue scolding those editors for "templating the regulars."

Ryulong's made it clear he won't leave me alone, no matter what. And you're at my talk page advising me to, well, to what, enjoy being harassed by him? Well, actually I am, because it was such a sad and poorly armed attempt on his part, but I'm sure he intends to provoke me, just like he did before.

So, here I am, with a firmly established record of being a dirt bag, getting harassed by Ryulong again, and here you are telling me to cut it out. Why don't one of you tell him to cut it out? Why don't you look at his posts and continued badgering of me on AN/I, at his sudden decision to comment on biological FP deslisting? --Blechnic (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Link.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2Fdelist%2FImage%3APlant_cell_structure_svg.svg&diff=219668360&oldid=219460567] Go look at how many times Ryulong's edited that page in the past. Also, check out his response to my accepting his apology: continued harassment. But, here you are, suggesting I should cut it out. But I understand: he's the admin, as he bosted in his edit summaries: so he wins. Let's not continue your support of Ryulong by scolding me. I've had enough of it. --Blechnic (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

since you've blanked the section on your talk page, and you've decided I was there to attack you, I won't bother you any further, but I hope you reconsider. Wikipedia can use all the good editors it can get. SirFozzie (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then it ought to act like it when a good editor comes along, instead of relentlessly attacking them, and firmly establishing for the permanent record that they're crap. I'll take your talk page off my watch list also. I was pretty sure, as sure as Ryulong is, that his new-found stalking mode wouldn't interest you or anyone. --Blechnic (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FM/outing

This request by FM seems reasonable, since he has clearly shown that Moulton revealed his own identity before FM did. Gnixon (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

O Rly?

[8] Out of curiosity, wouldn't it be kind of painful to hold one's feet while stomping them? Risker (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Risker, obviously I need to wake up before I start posting. SirFozzie (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The really sad part is that I had to read it several times to figure out what didn't fit. :-) I have now started caffeine replenishment therapy too. Risker (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't even do THAT. (rassenfrassen diet, I can't drink soda!) SirFozzie (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Soda is bad for your bones, anyway, or so they tell me. Try making your own iced tea - get a high caffeine one like Irish Breakfast, make a huge pot of it extra strong, then put it in the fridge overnight. You can even make ice cubes with it so the iced tea doesn't dilute - or freeze them to take in your lunch and have iced tea slushies. A couple of drops of lemon juice and you're all set. You *are* allowed to drink tea, I hope... Risker (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! Feel like cutting me a slice? Viridae^Talk 23:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer48

Fozzie, could you please take a look at the page bans imposed on Domer. I really can't see where he has committed any offense after he was released from his last block and the Admins involved won't clarify the situation for me. Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The topic ban was given because of the incidents that led to the block, not for any instances after. It took a while for us mentors to come to a consensus about what the actual article ban should consist of and what for, hence why we issued it after the block. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that is useful information that isn't obvious from Domer's page. I realise Ryan that you want me permanently banned but until that happens you just might reply directly to my legitimate questions. Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sarah, I think Ryan was just trying to provide an answer to you so I could deal with the nine tons of drek that were dumped on me today that was going on at the time. I apologize for not saying so before. SirFozzie (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Giano

Say, could you have a look at Giano's talk page? He seems to have taken the admonishment to stop being POINTy to mean, 'take the next three hours and use your talk page for performance art'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's under discussion, hopefully things will calm down soon. SirFozzie (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I actuallly laughed out loud, it's true, at the beetlejuice comment. Keep up the good work. It's a tough spot, but the appearance of avoiding scrutiney (sp) for past behavior is not a good look for anyone. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as I am aware of the whole situation, Rocksanddirt, there is something to KB's request. Not sure I can go into it fully publicly (or indeed privately), but the reason for the new account had good intentions behind it. SirFozzie (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that. It's the appearances that are the problem. I'm sure there's a good solution, we just need to find it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this essay would be a useful read. I really do believe people have a responsibility to preserve their own privacy, and we're only enabling him by allowing this to continue. There is no "right" to edit Wikipedia, and given his past and recent behaviour, I am hard pressed to say that there is any responsibility for others to refrain from pointing out who he is. It isn't as if he had never been found to have socks acting against policy before. Risker (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of my post

I was not discussing the block itself, but rather the wording on the talk page. It amazes me that you can allow a smear of an editor to stand, and refuse to even allow a change in wording to be discussed. You are abusing your authority in this matter, and your sense of self-righteousness is entirely unbecoming. Jeffpw (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I just said on your talk page, I have made an ArbCom member aware of the section before I removed the section, and got permission to remove it. ALL discussion and appeals of these types of blocks MUST be made directly to ArbCom via the Arb-L email list and NOT via on-WP discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's NOT what you said on my talk page. You made a threat to block me if I discussed this in any form whatsoever, an entirely different construct than what you wrote here. I replied to you on my page. This discussion is concluded as far as I am concerned. Jeffpw (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you get an arbitrator to confirm this, please, or point to somewhere where an arbitrator has confirmed this? If we allow people to say "per Arbcom", we need them to be able to justify that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a arbcom case (I believe it was a case) that gives arbcom broad latitude in these matters. Either way I have just emailed Sam Blacketer about a different matter and asked him to give some guidance on this as well. Viridae^Talk 11:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the first time ArbCom says it directly. If need be, I can have the arbitrator I spoke with confirm it applying in this issue. [9] SirFozzie (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And a more recent confirmation: [10]. Viridae^Talk 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

and this [11]. SirFozzie (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. Fine. If you had said that in the edit summary, I would have known. I hadn't actually looked into the details here, so I was just going on the general principle that it is best to say why you are removing something when removing it, not just where the authority is coming from. Carcharoth (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a fair point, though. In general, if allegations are later shown to be wrong or based on a misunderstanding, it would be better to have the block notice not mention what is wrong there. Think about it - if it was you facing allegations like that (say you had decided to comment on articles on that topic, and ended up in a dispute), would you want that notice there while you appealed to clear your name? If it is person who edits under their real name, WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP might apply. Better to just note the block without any reason, and direct enquiries to arbcom. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is, then you might have an unknowing admin unblock the user, and then all the drama that would ensue. You have to leave something on the talk page (and probably protect it as well) as well as the block log directing all enquiries on this block to the ArbCom. I'd have no problem with that, btw. SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What issue exactly?

Why in the world would you unblank this? Kirill has said in no uncertain terms that the page is not speaking for arbcom, is unauthorized, etc. There is no possible advantage to having it unblanked. Anyone who needs to review it can do so from the history. On the other hand, unblanking it allows mirrors to pick it up, which if this page contains false findings of fact (libel) is a really, really bad thing. --B (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And we're taking Kirill's word over FT's for what possible reason? Look, I don't know what's going on. But there is no libel there, so that's a red herring. Until we get more info, running around like this solves nothing. SirFozzie (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with B here, everything on there said it was passed "without dissent". At the very least that doesn't appear to be true. And without the weight of the Arbcom behind it, it's just an attack page, and right now it's not legitimate. Please restore courtesy blank. R. Baley (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, see no reason to. Until we know more about this situation, running around playing Chicken Little isn't going to help. There's a discussion on ANI about this issue right now. SirFozzie (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)FOF #2 says "we interpret an overriding sense that Orangemarlin has aggressively attacked other users". If "we" didn't do anything, then that's a negative false statement about a living person. And do I take Kirill's word for it? No, not really, except that FT2 claims that nemine contradicente, a fact which is necessarily called into question by Kirill contradicente-ing the thing. --B (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I blind? What libel? I read it, I don't see any libel. _{1 != 2} 23:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you more or less about the actual decision page, there are several direct quotes of what "the committee" considered uncivil remarks directed at other users on the evidence page; of the two, that one is more likely to cross the threshhold. Having said that, it's probably best to leave things alone for a bit. One minor problem...how many Arbcom members will it take to convince the community that an action is being taken at the committee's instructions now? This is very disconcerting. Risker (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am told that things will be clarified in the very near future. SirFozzie (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know wiki code?

I would like to place a douglas adamsesque large friendly "DON"T PANIC" at the top of the AN subpage concerning the arbcom debacle. But I can't work out how to make it large and friendly enough. Any ideas. Viridae^Talk 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry - I remembered. Viridae^Talk 01:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Laughs... you're a cool frood who knows where your towel is, Viridae :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Stepping over the line

This is not acceptable. You're way too involved with those editors to be reverting such a controversial page. I suggest reverting yourself. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He undid mine as well on a separate page. Of course I discussed my blanking in this thread. There seemed to be little, if any, opposition (I think it stayed unchanged for all of 5 hrs or so). But, SirF seems to have taken it upon himself to be the decider of these things and I'm not going to edit war over it myself. After all, blanked or not, there seems to be nothing legitimate about FT2's postings today. In as much as they appear to reflect his own opinion, and not that of the ArbCom (Though, who knows, perhaps the page I blanked did have the support of Arbcom, it certainly didn't arouse the same level of outrage as the OM "case". . .). R. Baley (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

See above and all the other discussions that state, quite unequivocally, that they are discussing the issue, and will let us know how to handle it when they're done. ArbCom will handle it when they're done. Let's not take it into our own hands to decide the legitimacy of pages. SirFozzie (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you've made it clear that you consider it your call. And your dismissal of my concern when I came to discuss your revert of B on your talk page was apparent. But at least I came to your talk page, I didn't just revert you. Where's the chicken??!?, R. Baley (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In my line of work, I occasionally have cause to do a cost-benefit analysis. Well, there's no benefit whatsoever from unblanking the page. It does not help the encyclopedia in any possible way. On the other hand, there is a possible cost to it - it allows the material to be picked up by Wikipedia mirrors. The answer seems obvious - blank the page until arbcom decides what in the world they want to do with it. This isn't rocket science. Other than moar dramaz, I don't see any reason to unblank the thing. Obviously, arbcom is going to either endorse it or delete it in the coming days, but until that happens, no harm can come from blanking it. Harm can only come from not blanking it. --B (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

CAN EVERYONE GO AND READ THE TOP OF MY TALK PAGE PLEASE? Viridae^Talk 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I WASN'T PLANNING TO PANIC UNTIL YOU STARTED YELLING. CAN I PANIC NOW??? --B (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not going to your talk page, and what's with all the yelling. No chicken littles, R. Baley (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would think blanking the page unless an arbitrator would revert the blanking indicating that he or she certify the decision as a valid would be a good thing Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, leaving the pages up until an arbitrator indicates them invalid by blanking or deleting them is a better thing. There's no harm in leaving them up until it's discussed. Per notes, despite the time/date, the Arbitrators ARE disucssing this. Hopefully they come to a decision soon. SirFozzie (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it a better thing? You've given no possible advantage of it. The advantage of blanking it is not having falsehoods that are not endorsed by the committee replicated to Wikipedia mirrors. The advantage of leaving it there is ??????????????. --B (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Reduce teh drama by not pre-empting the arbitration committees decision on the matter. Reduce the drama by not performing actions by not performing actions that may or not be supported by others arguing in this case? The pages are unlikely to be up for very long and do not use his real name - and it may well be that arbcom finds that they are correct and they remain anyway. Viridae^Talk 06:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If the pages were in any way accurate, the committee would be upholding "their" decision. The fact that it's currently under discussion (after the fact. . .now? we gotta discuss this now? Wait a minute, I'm on vacation. . .) means it was not their action, regardless of what happens retroactively. R. Baley (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Your phrase: You mean, one where you can throw all the mud you want is not acceptable, it is in fact an egregious violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIV please consider refactoring your comment in a more constructive way Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, Alex. SirFozzie (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No Problem, when I'm approached properly, I can be a rather nice guy, despite what you might hear *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Answering Machine

"We're sorry. SirFozzie is not available to answer his talk page right now. Please leave your request, rant, discussion or threat at the beep, and SirFozzie will get back to you later."

Beep

*leaves request, rant, discussion, and threat* —giggy 09:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You take care, Foz! Take a well-earned rest and come back to us when yer ready - Alison ^❤ 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As above. Take care. Rudget (logs) 10:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a request, rant, discussion or threat to leave... just a notification. FYI: Your archive box was teh suck, so I made it not suck. Hope you don't mind... even more, I hope you like it. Enjoy your break. LaraLove|Talk 19:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oi!! I made that archive box! :-) - Alison ^❤ 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just can't keep away can you? ;) Enjoy the break :) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Saw it on watchlist and figured someone had to do it. too bad the WikiBreak enforcer doesn't allow me to keep my watchlist up, or I'd do it. SirFozzie (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Given the fact that we were in conflict when this tragedy occurred, I find it extremely noble of you to put that aside and attempt to comfort me. Your words have helped sustain me in an impossible time, and I will never forget your kindness. Jeffpw (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

coaching

Don't know if you're around Foz but if you are I'm thinking of postponing the RfA to do some admin-coaching. Just to get another set of eyes on my WP:AE, WP:ANI & RfAR posts as well as any non-admin closes I do at XfD. Would you be interested in doing some coaching for a few weeks? If you're time is over-stretched just say "no"--Cailil ^talk 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm going to modify this slightly and say if I pass the RfA would you consider being a post-RfA admin-coach and in the mean time keep an eye on my non-admin functions. I see little reason to post-pone things--Cailil ^talk 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)