User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 21

Happy New Year!

Dear SirFozzie,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.

The motions were trying to undo the sanctions based on the wording, or something, but all the motions at the time were, at best, findings of fact... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't undo something that was lapsed. The sanctions I was referring to was the (in my opinion only) completely misguided ones from E&C 2, which they are attempting to reinstate. I do not like the way this was handled, AT ALL, and I'm really disgusted that they're going to open a full ArbCom case against someone who's complying with Wikipedia policies. As I said there, the only "Remedy" that's needed is "Don't use ArbCom as a club against someone who's working within Wikipedia's policies just because you don't like their (deletionist/inclusionist) nature." We don't need a full case for that. SirFozzie (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:ThuranX

If you are about, could you monitor this page? I am attempting to negotiate with Thuran to unblock him. If he agrees to the discussion on his page, can you unblock him? I am getting ready to leave for the day and it will be several hours before I will be able to get back on. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm a bit ill at the moment (flu bug), but I will monitor when I'm around. SirFozzie (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get better soon. Viridae ^Talk 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm back on the case. Hope ya feel better Fozzie! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late ArbCom...

So close... :) Don't worry about it, ArbCom people just get criticized and get even less credit for their work than the average admin/editor. I think that after reviewing your edits personally, you'll be better off anyway. Cheers! ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sewell

Yeah that can be mentioned. Don't know why I removed that part. TJ Spyke 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

possible return of banned contributor

Hi, Sir Fozzie, don't know if you can help but you have proved useful in the past when dealing with this stuff. I think a banned contributor has started editing Planck units again, using the number plates 123.255.63.5 and 123.255.29.139 - the first 6 digits are familiar from previous edits he has made. It could be Rbj or Truthnlove, I don't remember now which of these 2 gents was using 123.255. last time. Anyhow somebody needs to keep a watch on this. Lucretius (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didiot

Hello, SirFozzie. You have new messages at MacGyverMagic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've responded on my talk and also commented on the arbcom request. I commend you for assuming good faith and not immediately asking for a punitive measure. I've seen a comment of one particular editor who would've done so if he was the first to respond. (Spartaz beat me to the redeletion) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		I hereby award you with a zen garden for patient demeanor. :) Mgm\|^(talk) 13:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How banned is banned?

Foz, just noticed your post on AN. Just hope a clear message is sent out from this - namely there is a huge, huge difference between what far too many people on Wikipedia call "harassment" and what really is harassment. I trust any account created by the individual behind Eco will be blocked on sight? Thanks GTD 03:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. If someone wants to throw Ecoleetage on WP:LOBU and cite me, I have no problem with this. This is undoubtedly harassment, and how banned is banned? About as banned as can be. SirFozzie (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If it hasn't been added by the time I awake, I will do it myself! GTD 03:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:OBO7

How nice of you to horribly twist my words. You sir, fail to see the bigger picture and if you weren't so smug up there on your admin pedestal you'd see unblocking me would be of benefit to Wikipedia in the long run. Instead of viewing this a personal attack, view it as an opportunity to prove me wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.160.159 (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering your latest IP for blocking, Wikipiere! But seriously if this hits ANI, your informal ban will quickly be converted to a formal one (the original unblock request decline reason stated as much). Let me make it as plain and simple as possible. You will NOT be unblocked/unbanned/whatever until and unless you show a willingness to comply with ALL Wikipedia rules by not sockpuppetting for a LONG amount of time (at least six months), and then at that time, request it. SirFozzie (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why not let me comply with all Wikipedia rules while still continuing to edit? That was the whole reason behind my unblock request. Surely a proactive measure to this whole thing would work better than 'go away and come back in a while'? What would that prove? Me not socking and complying with all the rules while still editing with an account would clearly be a better indicator of whether it'd work than merely doing nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.155.187 (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've proven you're not willing to follow the rules when it's not convenient for you? If we can't trust you now not to break the rules, how can we trust you to hold to anything, even if you "agree" to it? SirFozzie (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you'll have to use one of key principles of Wikipedia: WP:AGF. While of course that is hard for you to do you'll just have to do it if this is to move forward. Dialogue is how things are fixed. You can't be forever suspicious of people. One final thing could you please stop blocking the ips I'm using to talk to you? You haven't said you wish to cease discussion and the Wikipedia blocking policy says: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. I am not disrupting anything I am talking to you so that any misconceptions or problems can be ironed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.7.222 (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) If you're going to rules-lawyer, there's also the section that states that Blocked users are not supposed to IP hop to get around their block. Oh well whack-a-mole we go! SirFozzie (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue with your whac-a-mole, blocking this ip, but after that, because as I can't talk to Alison (page protected) or don't know who has a direct involvement in what happens to me, could you find out what the story is regarding my block? Alison doesn't seem to have done anything. So am I banned, unblocked or what's going on? Thanks.194.125.35.152 (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've proven my point, Wikipéire, that you could not abide by any terms you'd agree to. Come back in six months, if you're actually able to go that long without sockpuppeting. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes it's the same banned contributor

I've just reverted some edits to George Johnstone Stoney made this year by a banned contributor, in this case wearing the false moustache 123.255.63.50. I recognize his prose style, his range of interests, and the characteristic errors that his blinkered vision leads him into. He also made some edits recently to Planck units. I hope there is some kind of mechanism at Wiki for keeping track of this guy and his false moustaches. Lucretius (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that 123.255.63.50 was not the banned contributor I had in mind, despite some similarities in modus operandi. I apologize for this. Lucretius (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've been monitoring, and wasn't sure myself. So I was waiting. SirFozzie (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granard

Yo! Foz!! You might put Granard on your watchlist - some IP wants to censor all reference to Anne Lovett. Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipiere again

Exactly the same edit made by one of their sockpuppets has again been made by IP user 78.16.155.68 on Ian Harte, so just letting you know as it would appear to be the same person yet again.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately, it's probably likely that he's already IP-hopped, so blocking the IP wouldn't be useful. But feel free to revert at will, as long as you're sure it's him (reverts of banned users do not count against 3RR) SirFozzie (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Ah no worries, I noticed it was the one and only edit made using that ip. Thanks.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have declared Wikipéire banned.[1][2] Don't you have to post a notice on WP:AN for this? Cheers, theFace 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Serial sockpuppeter, there was pretty much solid support that Wikipeire was already banned, and this is just a formality. If you want to bring it up there, fine, but I'm fairly sure this is a "no admin will unblock" ban. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a prior discussion about a ban on him? - theFace 18:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [3]. As I said there, this is common sense. SirFozzie (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While visisted by many people, Alison's talk page is not the community's noticeboard. Left a small note on AN. I think that makes him really banned. Thank you for your time, theFace 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

Following this blatant and unsupported self-attack, I have blocked you for straying into bounds of behaviour forbidden at Wikipedia's no self-attacks page. Moreover, I find it highly worrisome you did this on a noticeboard, for all to see. Self-attacks harm the project because of the hopeless muddle they bring to long standing Wikipedia practices, supported by wide consensus, such as edit warring and newbie baiting. Please try to remember, self-attacks must always be supported by diffs and even then, it's always more fun to fall back on thick jargon. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding a yo-yo instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(grins) thanks Gwen! I'd un-lego-block myself, but I don't want to wheel-war. But if I have to, I will! See? I have the wheel right here! SirFozzie (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, very clever, as ever, but why would you even want to think about skirting a wheel war? I'm beginning to believe you have underlying "issues" here and truth be told, you might have a shufti at this handy guide on how to be a helpful admin. I mean, I think there is hope for you, otherwise I wouldn't bother bringing it up :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. you know, I've never thought about skirting a wheel before. Honestly, I'm not sure it'd fit, anyway. And it'd get so dirty if it did fit! SirFozzie (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for understanding and besides, I don't think fit is very meaningful when its on a hanger, so no worries there! Gwen Gale (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm

Friend of yours? Liveforever12331 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See deleted contributions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was thinking it's a certain banned user above.. but don't have enough to confirm it. Yet. Might have a private word with a CU SirFozzie (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed have a quiet word with a CU, and it's not the user I was expecting. SirFozzie (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halp

Could use some extra eyes as I work on this:User:Tznkai/desk/Reports/Report on administration enforcement Maybe even pitch in a hand, especially in the appendices. --Tznkai (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

I would like you to retract the personal attack here. This is the second such attack you have made against me, and I would also therefore like you to stop intervening to try and have my complaint dismissed. Please allow someone to investigate it. If the investigation finds that there is no merit sobeit, but please stop intervening against me. Thank you. Mooretwin (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack if it's the truth, Mooretwin. As I accurately reported, you had brought the same complaint FIVE SEPERATE TIMES, and none of the times so far has it gone anywhere. SirFozzie (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of User:Wikipéire

Whenever we find a new sock of User:Wikipéire where can we notify it so that Admins can take appropriate action? Eg. User:213.202.174.194 and User:81.184.71.32.

Also, please see:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Andy_Murray_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29

--Mais oui! (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]