User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Contents

RfA thanks

Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif

Hi SirFozzie. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance.

Jreferee (Talk) 08:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 Image:Admin mop.PNG

More IPs for you

220.133.101.64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) –– Lid(Talk) 06:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

blocked. Made a nice nightcap to a night out with my friends :P SirFozzie 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Alex Porteau Article

The article has recently come up for deletion and you voted for its deletion. I have since re-written the article and think that the article is now good enough to remain on Wikipedia. If you could have a look at the article and re-consider your vote it would be much appreciated. A-Dust 11:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo

Thank you for wading through the history and comments to come up with a considered decision that frees many of us up to focus on improving Wikipedia.--Epeefleche 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI comment removal

I apologise, this was inadvertent on my part; I was trying to tidy my last edit and hadn't realised you had inserted edits at the same time.

best regards Mark MarkThomas 17:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi SirFozzie , would not have a clue how to go about a Rfc, have not been around here long enough yet for that. The only Rfc I had experience of was Sarah777’s, and that was pure tripe, if you don’t mind me saying. I just came here to edit, and not have to engage in this type of BS. I do have a serious case of bias though, I can not stand hypocrisy, cant or BS, will put my hands up to that! Regards --Domer48 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I see you aren't being drawn SirFozzie, note this edit [1] that Domer48 just made regarding a perfectly sane and reasonable attempt by Sony-youth to label a previous unsigned posting by Domer48 as belonging to Domer48. The usual accusatory style, breaches of WP:CIV, etc. I have to ask - how much evidence is neeeded? MarkThomas 19:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No Problem SirFozzie, will use the head. --Domer48 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello SirFozzie, you may be right and I may have gone to town, a little overboard? I admit! But I have had the mother of all head wreckers with this! There is two issues, First, Sony, if they put their hand up and say I was wrong! I can not argue with that, and will have to accept it. That’s it case closed! Now as for the other Issue. That’s never going to end! I will be thwarted and scourged! If you all think that a Rfc will do the job, no problem, I’ll give it a go, sign me up. As for ArbCom, don’t know what it is, but would not have a problem with it. Any editor can review my contributions, and my comments! My contributions are all referenced, and my user page outlines my POV. My comments are rough and ready! If I think someone is acting the goat, I’ll say it. If someone is genuine I’m as polite and placid as they come. I will not suffer fools gladly! So that’s me in a nutshell. What ever you think, I’ll go along with it. I would like if possible that my comments and contributions on the sister sites be included if editors want a complete picture of me. One issue is resolved, i.e. Sony, just one to go. Regards --Domer48 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

PANONIAN

I have declined his unblock and pretty much told him next alternate account he creats I will extend the block. He probably just needs a cooldown period and 72 hours is not bad, especially with his 3rr history.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks, I've added my bit to the ArbCom. But a clarifier: the RfC on Sarah is unrelated to Ireland/Northern Ireland and endorsements of the RfC come equally from all quarters of British-Irish politics.

Also, my dispute with Domer has no relation to the RfC. I don't recall ever seeing the guy before a few weeks ago and then only on Great Irish Famine. --sony-youthpléigh 14:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm only intrested in having it sorted! I will be civil.Thanks for that, Regards --Domer48 14:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you review my statement on Arbcom, and let me know if it conforms to standard? I’m not supposed to argue my case there am I? If it would be better to get help of another Admin, let me know, or suggest one? Thanks, Regards --Domer48 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I Revised contribution, and made it as breif as possible. Regards --Domer48 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Sir Fozzie; I am a bit disappointed that you were selective in your choice of who to warn about WP:CIVIL of those you notified. I am thinking of one glaring omission in particular. Regards (Sarah777 09:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

AGPW/GPW

There appears to be two articles about the same fed, Atlantic Grand Prix Wrestling and Grand Prix Wrestling. Could you delete one and redirect to the other? Cheers. Darrenhusted 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work

You've already earned a barnstar from me or I would have given you one for your very sensible input about a certain IP address that had a history of vandalism. Congrats for keeping your wits about you while a whole lot of media professionals were losing theirs. Perhaps your quick thinking helped prevent a non-story from growing even bigger. Kudos! DurovaCharge! 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan Images

SirFozzie,

I come to you seeking assistance. I noticed that the Hulk Hogan article had several pictures deleted from it...or actually the images were deleted from wikipedia, but the links are still in the article. User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted the images saying "bad source" or "no fair use rationale." The images have been in the article for at least a little while now, and they seemed very obvious to me that they were low resolution screen shots or photos of a television (which I thought were free use (or maybe fair use...I'm so confused on the whole image use thing). Anyway, I don't know what the images were tagged as, but it was obvious to me what they were (and if the person uploading the images is like me, they probably had a heck of a time trying to figure out how to tag the dumb things). Anyway, maybe the right process was gone through to delete them, I don't know, but I thought they were free use, and they improve the article, and now they are gone. I'd hate to see this happen to too many articles. I don't know what or if you can do anything, so I thought I'd check with you and see if you had any ideas or advice or if you could look into if. Thanks! - T-75|talk|contribs 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected against recreation

Hey SirFozzie. First of all, thank you for your help with countering vandalism. I have a tip for you: instead of recreating pages with {{deletedpage}} and then protecting them, you can also include them in Wikipedia:Protected titles/July 2007. This way, they aren't "articles" (i.e. they don't get counted at Special:Statistics, you cannot end up at them when using Special:Randompage, and they show up as redlinks). Still, when you try to edit them, roughly the same template as {{deletedpage}} will display (try editing a protected page). Just a tip ;-) SalaSkan 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC) UTC)

Advice please

Hi SirFozzie, rather than get into a heated exchange, I thought I would run this by you first. As you are aware the Northern Ireland page was locked because of a revert war on the info box. I got feed up and left the discussion, [2] . Now someone had a brain wave, just lock the info box! No need for the whole article to be locked? Now I get reported for the 3rr and this goes on with not a comment, [3]. It is this crap, editors who just want to have a lock on an article! That gets my goat! If I do an 3rr I will draw down the wrath of …! That’s if I knew how to? But do you see what I mean? Regards --Domer48 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) P.s. just blowing off steam!

Yes, and note the intense incivility you used in your "got fed up" statement referenced by you - "you hear their knuckle dragging mates arriving to lend support. Like nodding dogs in the back of a car window, they will agree with any type of argument" - I am very curious SirFozzie, you are clearly an admin who takes an interest in the Ireland-related articles, isn't it actually incumbent on you as an admin to deal firmly with breaches of guidelines like this? Or is it that, like Admin Alison, your own opinions lead you to a different course of action? I note that now for example on Great Irish Famine, User Domer48 apparently has carte-blanche to destroy what actually was quite a well-worded article previously. No editor not of a particular viewpoint apparently dares to intervene given the position of the admins interested in the Ireland-related articles. Probably I'm wasting my time asking as you have specifically not answered queries of this type before, but why don't you check Domer48's repeated abuses of the civility policies? MarkThomas 09:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
While you are considering this I'd like your views on the input of the Admin User:Andrwsc. He seems to side invariably with the Unionist pov. As Alison has done in the Famine article should he not cease to partake as an Admin while he is manifestly also acting as a disputant? He is also becoming involved in an edit war on the "Symbols" [4] section of the NI article. (Sarah777 21:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
I have just looked at the history of the NI page; the article had been locked to prevent edit-warring and the status quo was "no flag" in the infobox. Having argued for the flag in the talk pages he here -
Revision as of 16:46, June 28, 2007 (edit) (undo)
Andrwsc (Talk | contribs)
pull infobox out into separate page as per discussion)
unlocked the box, inserted the flag and has now locked the box again, this time with the flag in place. This behaviour will have to be taken up at the highest level, unless you can see something I'm missing. regards (Sarah777 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
Dropping by to notify about below, but while I'm here, just letting you know, as one of those who had the "brain wave" to lock only the info box (see here), on my part, the suggestion was only so work could continue on the NI article while the infobox was being sorted out. NI had been locked for over a month before (was it longer?) only because of the dispute with the info box. Then it cropped up again with the same chance of dragging on for ever. Meanwhile, there was people posting messages about wanting to insert images in the article, but could not because the whole thing was locked. Anyway, that's why I proposed to lock only the box - just because it was possible, in that context, to naturally lock what people were disputing and leave what people were not disputing. (Oh, and by the way - regarding 'getting your goat' - this was the first time that I had ever suggested, or even vaguely wanted, and still don't, a lock on any article or any other such thing. Its no solution to a problem.) --sony-youthpléigh 08:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just looked through the history of the NI infobox template. That was actually quite shameful. I wasn't aware of it. My intended proposal was to lock it in the template as it was locked on the NI page. Obviously if it was being edit warred on the NI page it would be edit warred as a template too. --sony-youthpléigh 09:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi SirFozzie, thanks for the advice, I will “endeavour to persevere,” and will avoid comment. I consider your approach to date even-handed and fair, and regret the augury it has brought upon you. Thanks, Regards --Domer48 17:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Eh, Sony, the “Brainwave,” comment, was actually a complement! and to be honest, I did not know you suggested it, not that it would have changed my opinion.--Domer48 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't sure how to take it because it came with complaints about editors involved.--sony-youthpléigh 17:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom and Holidays

I'm going on holidays for a week starting tomorrow, so may not be around for the ArbCom. I'll send a post card :) --sony-youthpléigh 08:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No invite for the Abrcom, know why?

No invite for the Abrcom, know why? Could be they seen this [5]. I’m all over the place with this. Should I just stick with the Famine article (which this is), or expand it to other instances on other articles. Or is the candle analogy, back in play? Kind Regards

No problem, thanks for that, Regards --Domer48 22:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Domer48 should have received the notice. I seem to have accidentally skipped over him inadvertently, for which I apologize, and have given the notice now. Newyorkbrad 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
In light of this comment, [6] and this [7], and subsequently this one, [8], is it ok for me to use them in my case? In order to illustrate some points I wish to make? I just thought I’d ask? Sorry if I keep bothering you, getting the invite is a bit unnerving? Regards --Domer48 22:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh! Tickles!

Ahhhh! You couldn't have picked a more ticklish person, Fozzie! So keep that brigade away from me! ;) I see that the buttons suit you... it's almost like you had been an admin for months now, considering how many administrative stuff you're doing (and all superbly, btw! ;) Hope you have a beautiful, shiny weekend! :) Love, Phaedriel - 22:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews

Fozzie here is a copy of the messege I left with John/Gunniog - I thought I would keep you in the loop. Gunniog, can you have a look at this. User:Gibnews referred to myself and other editors of the Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) article as "rabid and others their running dogs". I consider that a direct personal attack, however, as its the "new me" and I am trying to avoid getting drawn into this type of conflict I asked him first withdraw it and apologise and I would forget about it. He deleted my messege, so now I am coming to have a word with you about it as you, Rock and Ty formally warned Gibnews here last week about it which he immediately then archieved.--Vintagekits 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi SirFozzie. As it has been a couple of weeks since the last warning Vintagekits refers to, I restricted myself to another final warning. Please let me know if there is a block required to prevent further deterioration; I think I would ask an uninvolved admin to enact the block, as I'll likely be seen as being too close to the dispute. Hope you don't think that's a cop-out; I did examine what happened fairly closely. Best wishes --John 01:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I do see it as a cop out and double standards.--Vintagekits 01:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked: User_talk:Gibnews#Block. He's already had the final warning. It will help all editors concerned here to know that personal attacks on others are unacceptable. Tyrenius 02:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Colin Cowherd edits

hey dick, dont fuck with my edits or I will fucking send you a big virus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubird4 (talk • contribs)

As this editor's contributions have been vandalism only, I propose an indefinite block. Would you have any objection? --John 05:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Be my guest :) SirFozzie 05:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I went ahead and did that. --John 06:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

One Night in Hackney

Although the editor has requested to be removed - does this mean that we can no longer view the contributions made by "One Night in Hackney?" I've attempted to retrieve the editor's contributions but am either doing it incorrectly or they are no longer available. Thanks. Drew30319 00:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the answer to this question, please?...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[9] Works for me. SirFozzie (what I said on that user's talk page, now archived) :D (Oh, just got up, so it make some time to respond to everything, I am not human until I get some caffeine into me in the morning) SirFozzie 11:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Partially.
Of course it doesn't reference comments/contributions made on the user talk page of User talk:One_Night_In_Hackney which, since they were some of the most offensive, are most relevant to the topic of whether the "Right to vanish" includes a right to be resurrected as a "brand new editor" with a 'clean record'....Gaimhreadhan • 13:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Not sure what I was doing wrong but thanks for the help! Drew30319 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your protection of Template:Northern Ireland infobox

[Remainder of discussion removed]

Just a heads up, Tariqabjou, 3RR includes reverting supposed sock/meat puppets. the only exceptions include BANNED users (not blocked users) and obvious vandalism. Threw me for a loop first time I saw it myself. SirFozzie 01:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Reverting actions made by blocked users evading their blocks do not count toward the 3RR, as stated in the fourth exception. About sock- and meatpuppets... yeah, that's not really stated directly. -- tariqabjotu 04:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

JB?

The usual thing with Burntsauce's homepage [10]. Darrenhusted 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure it is, but couldn't find any obvious signs of proxyhood. I listed it over at WP:OP SirFozzie 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice please

Hello SirFozzie, having real trouble knowing were to start with my contribution to Abrcom. I figure it should be as detailed as possible, if I wish it to be addressed accordingly and yet the more I look into the contributions the more examples I discover. If I confine my comments to just the one article, I would not be able to illustrate the pattern which exists and I consider this important. Any advice or suggestions? --Domer48 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Chuck Taylor (wrestler)

Yesterday the article was recreated 24 hours after being deleted, a user removed the CSD G4 tag and another started a second AfD (even though the article was a carbon copy). Looking at the rules I don't think the second AfD should have started and so I've reapplied for a CSD G4, either way could you look at the article and maybe delete it and take it to review so we can put an end to the madness. Cheers. Darrenhusted 00:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank thee! :)

Thank thee for blocking the guy who hath vandalized my talk page, Sir Fozzie! Thee are my knight in shiny armor :) Thy damsel, Phaedriel - 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits

I see this editor has repeatedly attempted to claim that Mairéad Farrell‎ was a 'Prisoner of War' Not sure what Wikipedia policy is on this, but it looks confrontational and an attempt to push a POV. --Gibnews 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

She was imprisoned for carrying out a military act during war - you are the one that has removed it twice without discussion.--Vintagekits 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly no state declared a war, so there was no war. For planting a bomb in a pub to be a 'military act' the person would need to be in someones armed forces.
PoW's have a protected status, but are expected to be in uniform when captured otherwise they can be arbitarily shot. You complain that the 'Gibraltar three' were shot, yet they were on active service in plain clothes and even IF HMG accepted there was a war and that they were a military force they are still liable to be shot. We could have discussed this first if you had mentioned it on the discussion page instead of sneaking it into the article as a category.
You will note I am avoiding using words like 'criminal' and 'terrorist' which have more basis in fact - can I suggest you cease trying to whitewash unacceptable activities by trying to hide their intent and pretend legitimacy, and also discuss things first. --Gibnews 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oistin MacBride

I know the 26+6 was him, but is there a chance you would reinstate the article on the above, I have actually been meaning to write it for some time. P.S. seems he's back already!!! *sigh* --Vintagekits 22:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hegertor

Hello SirFozzie. Could you explain to Hegertor (talk · contribs) the basis on which you indef blocked him as a sock? He is requesting to be unblocked, and I can't see anything in his edit history, or in the checkuser you linked to, that demonstrates he is a sock of RMS. Infact, Hegertor has only edited one article, and RMS doesn't appeared to have edited it previously. Some reasoning would be welcome. Thanks. Rockpocket 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:71.159.60.87

is a sock of Mariam83 (talk · contribs). She's currently opening the sock drawers to attack FayssalF principally and others. See the thread at WP:ANI#Harassment and more disruptions from socks of User:Mariam83 for more info. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Block

That's OK. We all have bad days. But next time please think twice before handing out an indefinite block, because plenty of new users would have left the project rather than going through the hassle I've been through today. Hope you get well soon.--Hegertor 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice please

Can you take a look at [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mair%C3%A9ad_Farrell&diff=143927505&oldid=143913617 this edit] he made please? Firstly, dead reference links shouldn't be removed. Secondly, that is not neutral editing. After removing the dead reference, a "fact" tag has been placed on the part about them being unarmed and trying to surrender. However the parts about, for example, the Semtex being found in a car Farrell has keys for hasn't had an "fact" tag added. Surely if he's going to remove references everything that was references needs a "fact" tag adding, not just picking and choosing parts? That is not neutral and fair editing in my opinion. Not going to go of on one but please! --Domer48 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No Problem thanks for that anyway. Take Care, Regards--Domer48 18:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Long levi

This is a recently-created user who might be the banned User:Tecmobowl reincarnated. His topics of interest and his choice of words are similar, as well as obviously knowing his way around wikipedia very well. I don't know what the rules are in this regard. I had many clashes with Tecmobowl, and I don't want to cross swords with him again. So instead of hassling this new guy, I'm taking this question to the admin who blocked him. It's worth pointing out that I complimented him for fixing some problems in the Hall of Fame links. That was good and needed work on his part. However, his zeroing in on and deleting references to the fangraphs site, which was a major point of dispute between Tecmobowl and other users, is suspicious. Also, the new user is highly interested in Hank Aaron and home runs, as the breaking of his career record nears. Tecmobowl was based in Atlanta. Thank you for any help you can provide. Baseball Bugs 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The 75-something IP that you blocked a little bit ago is part of a Verizon Wireless range. As he himself had admitted on User talk:Long levi: "My ip for this edit is 70.223.193.159. That is owned by verizon as i use vzwireless to connect ... NOTE: I am now editing this page from 75.202.53.176, I simply disconnected and reconnected my internet connection." Baseball Bugs 15:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits 2

Hi again SirFozzie. Thanks for all your patience and kindness to this user, who, in spite of what he seems to believe, I have got a lot of time for. The issues of the capitalisation of "volunteer" and the insertion of the POW category into articles on IRA members are just the sort of problematic behaviours that have led him into trouble before. In both cases there is an obvious solution, endorsed by other users in a spirit of compromise. In both cases, VK seems to believe that his opinion carries more weight than policy or consensus, or even (in the case of the capitalisation issue) something he has previously agreed to. He has just asked me not to post to his talk page. I had already decided to ask you for help in this issue. Obviously what action you take will be up to you, but I fear that if things are left unchecked they will only deteriorate further. Best wishes, and I hope you feel better soon. --John 19:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do have a serious problem with you - the main issue is that you are an admin but you dont act like one. I wouldnt listen to you more if you werent directly in the middle of every argument that you claim you are trying to sort out. As for the Volunteer issue, Tyrenius left that issue open for the editors to agree - we did this in accordance with his issue - the end. regards--Vintagekits 19:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have sent an email to John regarding my feelings on this, but as things right now stand, VK and John, I urge you both to force yourselves to deal with each other. As things stand, we have one ArbCom case going on because editors with similar viewpoints as you guys can't agree on the time of day with each other. I don't want to see a second one.
VK.. a suggestion. Without touching on the Volunteer/volunteer thing, I would like to see you admit you were wrong that you were saying "Look at the MedCab discussion" when you meant to say "Look at the discussion I had with Tyrenius after the MedCab". I like the fact that you discussed civily the issue.. perhaps if Tyrenius agrees, we can get this settled? Don't forget Consensus Can Change.. But both sides need to look past the past squabbles and the past issues and get things settled. I don't want things to go to Arb.. but I have a sneaky suspicion that the two sides are destined to use up a lot of valuable time edit warring and snarling at each other (and VK, yes, I do mean both of you on that). Sooner or later, enough will become too much. SirFozzie 20:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The sole reason we have an arbcom is because you (SirFozzie) advocated it instead of dealing with the issue - gross incivility by one particular editor, whose POV you very visibly support. So you ever-so-gently reprimanded him for absolutely flagrant breaches of the policies and are now actively counseling that particular user in ways to have a pop at me, and you called for an Arbcom which is confused and pointless. Why don't you do as you say and try being an NPOV admin yourself? MarkThomas 15:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

if you think I'm not NPOV, bring it up with ArbCom, Mark. SirFozzie 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will. How's things going with the Boston Irish by the way, do you guys still hate the Brits? MarkThomas 15:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering I'm a footy fan (Follow Cambridge United in England as well as my local MLS side), Rugby Fan (League AND Union), and even catch a bit of cricket from time to time, I don't think I exactly hate the brits ;).. And for your information, I'm part German, Part Irish, and Part Welsh. I have no "dog" in this fight. SirFozzie 15:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It shows! MarkThomas 16:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno quite what you're trying to say there, Mark. Except maybe because I have a drop of Irish blood in my veins that you think that I'm some kind of slavering POV warrior. Which I'm not. SirFozzie 16:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I think we have to conclude that you simply didn't actually look at the history of Domer48 and Sarah777's antics given the way you behaved around them. Note that Domer48 is continuing with his charming tactics, which consist of determinedly POV edits followed by quite unjustified attacks on other editors, together with blatant distortions and lies when challenged, here [11] for example. Looks like your gentle reproofs have not worked. MarkThomas 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you and I are obviously going to disagree on this.. while not exactly "Happy", there is no violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA there.
I could have just brought the case without listing myself as a party, but figured that in bringing it, I deserve to have my edits scrutinized with the same fine comb that yourself, sony, Domer, and Sarah are under. If you have problems with any of their edits, or mine, in fact, you are fully welcome to list them at the ArbCom case, and let ArbCom decide who is violating what rules here on WP. 16:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:MarkThomas

Hi SirFozzie, I am having to deal with some on going disruption from the above user. Although I see you are having the same issue I should point out that they have done this [12] and this [13]. This is going beyond a joke and would like you to give me some advice on how I should proceed. --Domer48 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok will do. have it locked if you must but it is pure disruption. Thanks for that --Domer48 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello SirFozzie, could you possibly ask the Abrcom what their view is on this article. I have not gone near the area of contention, this user played no part in the subsequent discussion, and is now trying to prevent the only editor who is actually adding material and citations and tidying up the Article from editing any section of it. This review is of editor’s behaviour on the article, and not the article? I know you are just trying to keep the peace, so if it is at all possible, could you suggest to an admin to monitor my editing of this article. If they consider that I steped out of line, they can drop a block on me. I do not see why one disruptive editor should be allowed to impede the work of another. A rock and a hard place I know, but, what dose not kill ye, makes you stronger.--Domer48 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
OK then, will leave it for the time being, on the advice of an admin, but under protest! --Domer48 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You alright?

How you feelin big man?--Vintagekits 18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Like a truck hit me... but at least now it's less like the truck was part of a parade of steamrollers.... (yes, I know that's a rather.. bizarre way to say it). About a 2.5 on a scale of 1 to 10. SirFozzie 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I was once run over by a plus-sized woman. Ironically, her name was Lorrie. Baseball Bugs 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

JB IP

72.204.241.148 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) –– Lid(Talk) 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What now, he says

How many edit summarys like this should I put up with, [14], or [15] or even better comments, [16]. Look I know you have enough on you hands, and I can let all this slide. Even all this [17]. I will not even edit the famine article, but something has to give? Any suggestions? Or even pawn me of with another Admin? On Irish related article they seem to burn out quick. Thanks, rant over, Regards--Domer48 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Take care

Your right I know, I'll cop on to me self and leave it out. No need for it [18]. take care --Domer48 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it ok if I line up my ducks here [19], [20],[21], thanks SirFozzie, will just bit my lip, and say nothing:). --Domer48 16:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I made this edit [22] and got this back [23] I see a pattern but not sure, would did have anything to do with Abrcom? --Domer48 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoption?

Would you be interested in adopting me? I'm not an idiot. I can find things myself, usually. I could use a helping hand occasionally.

I was a bit confused about notability because there are a lot of seemingly non-notable articles. I then spent some time at AFD and gave my opinion early to see if it matched the later consensus opinion. I think I have a better idea about that subject. This is an example of how I became less of an idiot and how I won't depend on you for everything. Fineday 05:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Caprice Coleman

Why was the page for wrestler Caprice Coleman removed? Jdblundell 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because someone had put a WP:PROD on it, for lack of Verifiable, Reliably Sourced notability, and that states you have five days to improve the article or risk an admin deleting it. The five days passed, and I deleted the article. SirFozzie 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits 3

I believe you are watching over this user's parole. This breach of WP: CIVIL may interest you.--Jackyd101 21:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You'd love that would ya, I have been the one that has been driving a compromise situation is this despite the fact that many "republican minded" editors refuse to allow any compromise and then you attacked me - which is what my reply is to.--Vintagekits 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't wish to make a big deal about this but for the record, this is my "uncivil" edit which prompted your response. --Jackyd101 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Correct - that was completly uncalled for is what is a sensitive and heated debate - there was absolutely no need for you to fan flames, especially after I had just a few posts before that requested others to listen to what you had said and to come to a compromise.--Vintagekits 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Just go with the flow, roll with the punches, take it on the chin, play by the rules, both sets! And accept the standards, doubled of course. Should we request to disappear, or as we say in Ireland “Get lost?” Is this the standard of discussion? When you can not handle an argument, you report your opponent? I don't wish to make a big deal, why report it then? --Domer48 22:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


(two days later) Hi SirFozzie. Glad to see you back. I don't see any evidence that you took any action (even a warning) in response to Jackyd101's complaint. Do you plan to do so? I notice you did manage to block another editor who Vintagekits was in dispute with though. I'd be grateful for a clear statement from you here; are you in fact still supervising Vintagekits' parole? --John 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had an off-Wiki word with VK. I told him that if I saw another comment like that, he's gonna be taking an enforced wiki break.. being baited in other cases doesn't excuse incivility, period... And in Gam's case.. he's lucky that it was me doing the block. I asked a couple other admins to look at the case in question.. I was told that normally, Gam would have received a 24 hour block for the Civility issues, and another 24 hours for breaking 3RR. SirFozzie 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification, SirFozzie.
I realise my first name is difficult but Gam means something very rude in my neck of the woods. Perhaps you could use "G" if you can not cut and paste "Gaimhreadhan"?
I actually agree with you that 3 hours was rather mild if it was intended as a punishment for incivility. I have re-read the policy now and I see that I am in a quandary: How do I civilly point out to Vintagekits (without causing him stress) that he should cease to use the revert button except for simple vandalism? He (and other members of the team) consistently refuse to point out the actual (non-existent) passages in WP:MOS or WP:MOS-IR which ban either the plain English (not legalistic) use of the words "Murder" and "Torture" in Irish articles or forbid the use of the more exact abbreviation (since there are many different flavours of IRA) "PIRA" rather than the generic "IRA".
Tell you what: I'll voluntarily recuse myself from editing Irish articles if you actually do your mentor's job and point out in the relevant article's discussion pages that WP should not be deliberately obfuscating the identity of the protagonists/ perpetrators and what actually took place according to the sources...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is going beyond a joke now - Gaimhreadhan stating that "we should not allow these Green Nazis to twist WP's policies" is beyond the pale.--Vintagekits 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not an over-reaction if SirFozzie is, as alleged, telling blatant lies in order to manipulate. Please clarify SirFozzie at what point, as you alleged, User Gaimhreadhan made the allegation you referred to. MarkThomas 17:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You think its OK to refer to Irish editors as "Green Nazi's"??--Vintagekits 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd much prefer figuring out a way to get everyone editing in.. well.. not harmony, but at least without the constant editwars. :). I honestly apologize, Gaimhreadhan, for typing your name wrong. That was an honest mistake, and I'll do everything I can to keep from typing too fast (like I did before), and mistyping it.SirFozzie
I realise that, SirFozzie. Now can you please understand that I have not (and probably, never will) Witch Hunt by calling people Sock Puppets. Apologise for that and we can move on. (I do genuinely believe that it is an abuse of process for someone to give bureaucrats a lot of work to do by exercising a right to disappear and then reappear less than a month later on the very same articles where he blew his top and left in a huff. However, I have clearly stated that, like the US Navy with Nuclear Weapons, I can not find a policy that states Brixton Bombers has to confirm or deny that he recently edited WP using a differently named user account(s). However until BB does deny my reasonable assumption/allegation, I, and everyone else, are surely entitled to treat him as the knowledgeable editor he clearly is and not as a newbie) Gaimhreadhan
What I'd love to see is the name-calling (such as your Green Nazis comment. (Yes, VK, I already saw it, just I take too long to type sometimes)) cease immediately. Both sides. Completely and utterly. No snide comments. No using edit summaries to sneak in a dig at each other. Finished. COMPLETELY. SirFozzie
I can agree to that. Can you agree to my proposals? Gaimhreadhan
Perhaps a trip to WP:CEM and voluntarily agreeing to 1 RR on ALL sides and to hit the highest levels of civility when dealing with each other is in order.SirFozzie
Good idea! Can you confirm you already have VIntagekit's, BB's, Theoldanarchist's and Domer48's agreement to this proposal?...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 18:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've now quickly read the article on Community Enforceable Mediation and I think it's a great idea! Except that it seems to be limited to two editors. I would like to see most of the editors who regularly edit Irish themes articles included. Then at the end we can add the mediated results to WP:MOS-IR. Thanks for the constructive suggestion!...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll ask User:Durova, who was the driving force behind CEM on this. I had a long reply typed up on other issues.. but I lost it in an EC. Time to retype :P :) SirFozzie 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response, Sir Fozzie!
I hereby voluntarily recuse myself from editing irish themed articles for a minimum period of 7 days or until team CEM commences (whichever is the earlier date).
Now will you confirm that you will actually do your mentor's job and point out in the relevant irish-themed article's discussion pages that WP should not be deliberately obfuscating the identity of the protagonists/ perpetrators and what actually took place according to the sources for a minimum period of 7 days or until team CEM commences (whichever is the earlier date)?...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been assuming, SirFozzie, that you were exercising your Mentor skills in Swan mode - ie not much visible on the placid surface but a great deal going on in the dark and murky waters below.
However, your comment below:
(Are you still interested in CEM as an option in the dispute? If so, can we go ahead and list it at /Requests (pending acceptance by all parties)? Regards, Navou banter 13:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Right now, just about all the editors signed up are from one side of the "conflict", so to speak. I will ask a couple folks if they're in or out, but right now, it just doesn't look good. *sighs* [unsigned at 00:15, 24 July 2007 by SirFozzie])
doesn't exactly inspire patience or confidence in me (and, possibly, other editors impatient with the biassed editing and abrasive tactics of some of the team when editing "green tinged" articles).
I'm still continuing my self denying offer to "voluntarily recuse myself from editing irish themed articles for a minimum period of 7 days or until team CEM commences (whichever is the earlier date)" even though the deadline has now expired - but my self-control will not last indefinitely.
I have assembled some references for the notion that Jean McConville was both tortured and mutilated before she was murdered by the "Green Nazis" (which I think will substantiate the majority point of view in Ireland) but I would prefer it if some consensus could be reached in the MCEM process that has not yet started...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)



That comment jumped out at me as well SirFozzie/Gaimhreadhan - are you sure, SirFozzie, given your pretty clear POV, that it's really fair of you to admin Irish-related articles? I think the way you take over in the issues stops recourse to other admins, which is why you do it. It's a misuse of your role and you ought to consider backing off being an admin in these issues. MarkThomas 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, SirFozzie's involvement in no way prevents anybody from recourse to other admins' help. Please assume good faith on SF's part, and please be patient. It is ok to have a POV; one must merely try to listen to and understand the POVs of others. --John 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe SirFozzie may be trying his level best.
I will self-revert after Akradecki's self-revert.
MarkThomas and John: would you also self-revert the two comments above to allow SirFozzie time to either
  1. achieve a breakthrough or
  2. announce defeat as a "Parole Officer" (so that conscientious editors can then apply other methods of education/banning)?
...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Mark.. I was actually praising you guys for signing up for the CEM as a way foreward. I am disappointed that Domer, Padraig and VK (to mention 3 of them), have either stated their misgivings over CEM (over the Kittybrewster thing), or flat out not even replied to my request.
Once again, I have no POV on this, because quite frankly, until I got involved with the issues, I haven't had anything to do with.. well.. anything around it.. (well, almost anything, me and my fellow season ticket holders for the New England Revolution had a grand old time chanting "Where In Ireland Is Glasgow" when Celtic FC came to town last year.
And since I'm being quite honest, there have been quite a few times in the last few weeks, where I've gotten tired of the arguments (especially when two people have used my talk page to continue an argument started elsewhere) and wanted to throw up my hands and say "A plague on both your houses"... but that's not solving the issues, because the incivility on BOTH sides is not going to stop unless action is taken. Whether that action is people modifying their behavior (again, BOTH sides), and/or administrative blocking of those who view this as another place to continue their feuds.. is up to the editors in question. SirFozzie 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
SirFozzie, I haven't said I won't signup for this, but being ask to sign up to something without it being properly explained as to how it is intended to work is not in my opinion a way forward. I have ask for certain things to be setout so that we can see exactly what we are being ask to agree to, until that is done I won't give my backing to it.--padraig 18:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a reasonable position to take, padraig
Now why don't you also adopt the constructive stance of
  1. working out some concrete proposals for the structure of MCEM on your user sandbox
  2. using your good offices and powers of persuasion to persuade some of your fellow hold-outs?
...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I was not the editor that suggested this idea so it would be better for SirFozzie to set out his idea for us to discuss and come to an agreement on, offer changes etc, only then can editors decide if this will work or not. I have already put forward elsewhere on this page some of the concerns I have. I don't think its my place to persuade anyone else, they can decide that for themselves.--padraig 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
One would only have to look at the discussion below to see the reservation an editor would have, and to give this much power to any group “conscientious editors can then apply other methods of education/banning.” I don’t think so! --Domer48 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Brixton Busters really a new editor?

I have replied to you on Brixton_Busters talk page; please note that I have not made any allegations of sockpuppetry whatever. My question is exactly that in the heading since it is really not credible that BB sprung fully formed into action on WP with an intimate knowledge of Wikipedia mark-up and referencing styles right from his very first edit. I also note that that BB has chosen to ignore the question - as is BB's right and as should you if you have no light to shed on the answer to this pertinent question (raised not by me, but by Domer48's wrongful assertion that I was being impolite to a new editor.)...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately my reply referenced above was deleted, as were more recent comments made by both you and I: [24]. I will make no further comment so as to avoid any further stress...Gaimhreadhan • 09:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Gaimhreadhan, thats not true. As a conscientious editor I'd expect more. [25] --Domer48 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What's "not true", Domer48?
Here's Brixton Busters removing the replies on his talk page ("my reply referenced above") and here's "more recent comments made by both you" (SirFozzie) "and I being removed" by Brixton Busters
Now, as I've said before, if BB chooses to remove comments from his user page and not comment on my clear and obvious question as to whether he's a new editor (and, specifically, to neither confirm nor deny the obvious) that's a matter for him - unless of course you or others choose to keep exhuming the controvery...Gaimhreadhan • 08:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
What's not true? Your lies, another part of your campaign of harassment against me. You said - Unfortunately comments made by both you and I and my reply referenced above were deleted without comment by BB. That is not true, so stop lying. Brixton Busters 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon, Sir. I have referenced above where you, now known on Wikipedia as Brixton Busters, removed my comments (and those of SirFozzie) from your user talk page. You have also not commented directly on my clear and obvious question as to whether you are indeed a new editor (and, specifically, neither confirmed nor denied the obvious[26]). Normally that would be a matter for you - but since you and others have now chosen to exhume the controversy (and have just called me a liar):-
I don't see anything wrong with letting bygones be bygones; what would be wrong is giving an experienced and knowledgeable editor (now using a different user name) the same latitude and licence we would give a newbie. Blocks on WP escalate and I do not think it is fair for editors of a budhist turn of game to be endlessly resurrected, each time with a "clean sheet".
I think it would be very helpful at this late stage for User:Brixton Busters to confirm or deny that he previously edited WP using different user names to the name User:Brixton Busters that he is currently using.
If you, Brixton Busters, assert plainly and un-ambiguously that you are a genuine new editor and have not previously edited on WP using other and different user name[s], then I will say no more and, as I've previously stated, if you do instead confirm the obvious, (ie that you are not a brand new editor) then it's entirely a matter for you whether you choose to reveal those previous identities that you have edited under or not ...Gaimhreadhan • 20:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How Wikipedia has allowed this campaign of accusation and insinuation to continue this long is beyond me. This editor is totally obsessed, and fixated with a new editor. How long will Wikipedia allow this to continue? --Domer48 20:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I totaly agree, this is like a witchhunt, so what if this editor is new to WP or not, unless there is a problem with his or her edits then its what difference does it make.--padraig 20:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no accusation and there is no insinuation and there is no Witch Hunt. I've accused nobody of being a sockpuppet - unlike VK. I've said quite clearly and unambiguously that I am convinced that Brixton Busters is not a genuine new editor and has previously edited on WP using other and different user name[s]. I've asked you both politely to stop clouding the issue and let BB confirm or deny my belief and he has ignored that obvious route and now seems to be losing his cool by the using the defence of attack by calling me a liar. As I've previously stated, if BB does confirm the obvious, (ie that he is not a brand new editor) then it's entirely a matter for him whether he chooses to reveal those previous identities that he has edited under or not. Now let the man reply for himself or confirm my belief by his silence. What's the problem with issuing a clear statement ,303?...Gaimhreadhan • 21:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The editor Brixton Busters dosent have to confirm or deny anything to you, you are harassing this editor for no reason, now unless the editor concerned breaks any of the policies of WP you have no issue here.--padraig 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Gaimhreadhan you've been told previously that's a personal attack and uncivil: [27], I'm personally sick to the back teeth of your accusations. Why not ask Kitty [[28] about using a number of accounts? and leave editors alone who have done nothing wrong! --Domer48 22:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly, Gaimhreadhan, who gives a toss about your suppositions, insinuations, and accusations? It is the height of arrogance and obsessiveness for you to continue banging the drum about this, as if Brixton Busters or anyone else, owed you a bloody explanation. How dare you harass this editor, who has done nothing to deserve your paranoid campaign, which is inspired by nothing other than your obsession with former editor Hackney? Give it a rest already! ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 23:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thought you were still dead

so I have been updating Tyrenious instead. The guy has been all over me for the past 24hrs but I think I've remained calm enough. Can you have a look. regards--Vintagekits 21:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He's just been blocked. I'm not dead yet.. just haven't been on much. Let me investigate the 3RR breach too. :) SirFozzie 21:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, at least I am learnin to bite my tongue (a bit!)--Vintagekits 21:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Without jumping to conclusions surely this is a sock used to evade his banned, no?--Vintagekits 21:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It is, he admitted it on his talk page, and as long as he sits out his block, I'm not gonna go nuts. I have another admin looking at the 3RR (something you look a mite bit close to guilty of too, mate). SirFozzie 21:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I thin k Iam just about safe - also I was reverting to consensus and in line with the discussion so not sure if even edit waring can be thrown at me.--Vintagekits 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Just about is right.. just be careful.. the other admin I was talking with did say it looked like an edit war at first blush. SirFozzie 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
See here, back only a ferw hours and repeating this edit despite refusing to discuss or acknowledge the current consensus.--Vintagekits 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
and his continued accusations despite your request for him to stop it.--Vintagekits 16:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Gaimhreadhan

Ok... now that I've brought it up (and solved a couple minor problems here at work).. here's some thoughts.

Regarding your belief that User:Brixton Busters is One Night in Hackney returned: I do agree, you have been very concientious not to refer to Briton as a sock. However, referring to him as ONiH (and as his signature, 303), is still very basically, a violation of WP:AGF as it assumes that BB is lying to us about who he is. If it helps, I do talk to ONiH via email (we have a common interest in the "sport" of wrestling, although we're a bit disillusioned by recent events, as well as having both dealt with one of WP's most prolific vandals).. and I asked him flat out. "Are you Brixton Busters." He said, just as flat out. "No." I took him at his word. SirFozzie

I hate to be pedantic, but logically my position only means a presumption that either he is lying to you (where he can suffer no penalty if he is found out) or that there has been some misunderstanding in the exchange.
It's really very difficult to understand why, if he has not used the keyboard as another user account on the English Wikipedia ever before, BB can not put an end to all this fuss. He's had plenty of time to do the obvious and his refusal to do so is beginning to look like deliberate disruption to me - especially as I've clearly stated that, like you, I would accept his word in the matter.
Did he clarify if 303 is now editing under a different name to BB?...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You asked if I had Domer48, VK, etcetera's agreement to the 1RRR/Higher level of Civility suggestion. I could turn it around and ask if you had Mark's, Astrotrain, etcetera's agreement to it on your side. I would LOVE to have everyone sit down and hammer out something like that.. and I understand that we'd probably have to get a majority of folks to sign off on things to get it to work, that if it was just two or three editors, it probably wouldn't do much good. But heck, it couldn't hurt to try, right?
I don't discuss my edits in advance or co-ordinate them in any other forum or project. However I do take your point that it would be better if all of the above referenced editors could agree to Community Enforceable Mediation. I've already assented - perhaps other conscientious members of the Wikipedia team could add their assent below?...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I do ask to strike out comments like your "Green Nazis" comment on your talk page.. that's not gonna get us any closer to solving this long term so we don't have to keep doing this over and over again. It's a first step, at least. SirFozzie 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I did make a conciliatory gesture to try and reduce stress earlier today: [29] I must go and get some painkillers now ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that I see SirFozzie is now at last clamping down on the civility issue generally, I am happy to pack it in and stop being provoked, and would also be happy to attend a CEM, which is closer to the mark and more justified than an Arbcom. Thanks also SirFozzie for getting to grips with the situation on Great Irish Famine. MarkThomas 09:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a danger that, in inviting editors to participate in the CEM process, we may be seen as acting uncivilly and provoke further stress.
Do you think the following is appropriate language to use as an invitation?
"SirFozzie has suggested that, as a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here"
Is that wording appropriate, please? ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 21:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to press you, SirFozzie, but do you think the above wording of the invitation appropriate or inappropriate? (You might also like to correct my perception of the process here - I'm very anxious that we promote a mechanism for assisting editors to edit in an encyclopaedic fashion and get started while there is some momentum; if this is a non-starter then I will have to return to rectifying grossly biassed articles...)
Sorry, I like the wording (thought I made it clear by Assenting :).
I did not wish to use your name in an invitation without a clear approval of the exact wording. Please note that your signature below is merely an assent to a CEM process that starts imminently - nothing more and nothing less - so please delete it if you have assented to CEM by mistake...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps adding something like.. "If you have any questions on what it would entail, please do not hesitate to ask SirFozzie on his talk page or via email." The above unsigned comment was made by SirFozzie, honest!
Right. So the agreed wording is now:
"SirFozzie has suggested that, as a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here.If you have any questions on what it would entail, please do not hesitate to ask SirFozzie on his talk page or via email."
I have already issued a few invitations to conscientious editors using similar wording (and I see below that there are now the minimum number of editors to get stuck in). Please would you now start issuing invitations and also comment on the suggestions Sony made on my user talk page?...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


I will when I can. I'm a manager for a prominent computer company.. most of my WP work is of the drive-by type when I have a few minutes away from conference calls and the like. SirFozzie 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The undersigned conscientious editors consent to Community Enforceable Mediation

  1. assent ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 21:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Assent SirFozzie 21:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Assent MarkThomas 09:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Assent BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Assent BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Assent Kittybrewster (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Assent John 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Assent Aatomic1 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Assent Rockpocket 17:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Assent --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Assent --Jackyd101 13:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits 4

--- Also, After last night, I talked with Vintagekits and he assented that he would be willing to consider a 1 RR in general. I would be disappointed if anyone took this as a license to deliberately try to edit war by using the fact he's on 1RR against him in conflicts. SirFozzie 21:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits is a very prolific editor and, consequently, might have difficulties with "a 1 RR in general". Perhaps it might be more productive in the long term if he is a participant in the evolving process outlined above? Perhaps you can use your good offices to get some more editors signed up? What do you think of Sony's proposals here?...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 11:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Per what he told me, it'll be a few days before he's back on. But I'll see what I can do. SirFozzie 11:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you may be interested in his edit log, then...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 23:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for popping the question again today, SirFozzie, you're right in thinking that time is rapidly running out if we are not to lose momentum...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Gaimhreadhan, maybe you should refrain from harassing editors such as this User_talk:Vintagekits#Naughty_words, this along with your campaign against Brixton Busters, would give the impression that you are trying to provoke a response so that you can get editors banned. So maybe a little self restraint on your part may be in order and let things settle down.--padraig 18:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Hello SirFozzie, I've reverted that article because it is bang out of order how this is being sorted. The crap I've had to deal with, and not jack being done. I'm sick of biting my lip. Now if you want to block me no hard fellings. Your caught up in this and I'm not helping. --Domer48 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fozzie, when I saw Domer's edit I came here basically to complain. I now see his post above. He made huge changes to the article despite knowing that he was in a dispute over its content, and now he's reverted to them again. The content that was there had been built up by many editors from across the whole spectrum of opinion about the famine and Irish history. Now it looks like we've traded that in for sound-bite nationalism ("For 700 years preceding the Great Famine, the Irish had progressively become a nation of tenants in their own country." etc.). I'm not going to touch it because I have a poisoned hand with regard to the Famine article just now - but frankly, its shocking and I'd be grateful if you'd revert it. --sony-youthpléigh 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. I didn't look at the content involved, so don't have any opinion on the content itself.. I hope I don't have to do so again. SirFozzie 22:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice one SirFozzie, I know you had no choise but at least it was a reaction. As for --sony-youthpléigh comments pure crap, out stright, first of I referenced everything I added, and only removed unreferenced edits that had been there for ages despite me placing tags. Now this BS "The content that was there had been built up by many editors from across the whole spectrum of opinion about the famine and Irish history. Now it looks like we've traded that in for sound-bite nationalism" is just what you would expect from them. They will not provide and referenced information to balance mine and cry "sound-bite nationalism ." Sony I will edit that article when this is sorted, and you better get of your arse and do some research, and no more of you wingeing. Now the quote you used above, here is the reference "Edward Laxton, The Famine Ships: The Irish Exodus to America 1846-51, Bloomsbury, England, 1997, ISBN 0 7475 3500 0 ". Now what is the problem, SirFozzie with that, just because that lazy ... can't find a referenced quote to contradict it. Like I said SirFozzie you had no choice, Sony on the other hand has no excuse. --Domer48 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Domer.. please settle down a bit here. I have a suggestion. Why don't you create a sandbox page, copy the existing GIF page over there, and try to work on making the article better for when this ends. SirFozzie 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't know how to, to be honest? As to making it better? I'm trying, but lazy editors think that their opinion is better than any reference? any how, will not labour the point. Thanks for that, in any way. Just one favour, can you keep these .... away from me. They make statements, do not have to back them up and get away with it. What about this assume good faith, civil, and all that lark. As for sony "I'm not going to touch it because I have a poisoned hand" Its not a posion hand, its just they have not got a clue! You'd have to hang meat around his neck for a dog to play with him. Take care --Domer48 23:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's it. Irregardless of anything else going on, comments like your 2nd to last sentence is bang out of order. Consider yourself on final warning. I see another comment like that, and you will be blocked, either by me or another admin. SirFozzie 23:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Your right of course SirFozzie don't mean to put you in such a position, and will go back to biting my lip. I've copyed the article and have it saved. I expect all the name calling I've been getting to stop! Reaction is no excuse I know, inaction is no better, Thanks --Domer48 23:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankee!

Thank you for the welcome, sweetie! And don't worry about the cookies, I'm not hungry anyway... but I hope you kept a cold beer for me instead! ;) Love you, Phaedriel - 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that... anything I can help you with? I hope the shenanigans are gone by now ;) Phaedriel - 22:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

John

Fozzie, I believe he is behind baiting me and on occasions in the past he has encouraged others to bait me through his actions. Tjis sort of baiting from an admin is disgraceful and unnecessary. Can you tell see what you can do.--Vintagekits 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look.. not sure what I can do. SirFozzie 22:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
He's an admin but a bully - as an admin he is supposed to lead by example, he has been more abusive towards me than any editor and loves baiting me. I can provide diffs if needed the language he adopts when addressing me is unacceptable.--Vintagekits 22:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Far from baiting Vintagekits, I have tried to answer him as honestly as possible within the constraints of policy. I have now told him not to post anything at all on my talk page as our interaction was not benefiting anyone. I'm afraid I now want nothing to do with the matter of POV-pushing on NI-related articles, except that I will do my utmost to ensure the problem is properly sorted out, once and for all. I will do this by inviting comment from uninvolved experienced editors, as I don't have time or inclination to deal with those who are unable or unwilling to follow our core principles any longer. Best regards, --John 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 24 hours, already, and am preparing to discuss this privately with him. As I said to him on his user page, no matter what the provocation (I don't have time to read the situation more then a quick glance at the moment).. he HAS to walk away. Getting me involved to look at the situation, fine. I'll give my honest answer (as you saw above, with the v/V thing). That part I have no qualms about doing. But then continuing to get shots in.. not good. SirFozzie 22:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good shout. Maybe the breathing space will allow tempers to subside. I hope so. Best wishes, --John 23:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article probation

Hello , I have commented on the workshop section of the [30] and agree to the article being placed on probation. I disagree with the injunction, what happens now. --Domer48 19:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How would this [31] be viewed under Wikipedia:Article probation. Can I edit the article as no agreement was reached and you proposed Wikipedia:Article probation and when is Abrcom kicking off. --Domer48 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you Email me and give me a run down on how things stand?--Domer48 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

CEM question

Hi. Can I ask a couple of questions around this? I'm a little unclear as to what I'm being asked to sign up to. Is this in relation to a particular article or issue - or range of articles/issues? Also, the WP:CEM seems to suggest that its only open to requests involving two editors at a time? I'm not in dispute with anyone at the moment (discussion, yes, but not dispute). Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bastun. CEM is designed for two people at a time. I have a request in to User:Navou to see if it can be expanded to such a complicated issue as the series of articles that tend to be.. hotly contested.. shall we say.. by the roughly same group of editors. if not, maybe we can do it informally as well. Basically, without pointing fingers, these conflicts have already resulted in one ArbCom case (and I don't think even this will be able to shortcircuit that), and numerous blocks and ill will. I'm hoping to get a series of.. well.. not restrictions, but guidelines (although I definitely feel like agreeing to 1RR will shortcircuit some of the agression that's been happening) to try to guide all editors involved into remaining productive, rather than letting conflicts continue to take time and energy away from what we're all supposedly here for.. building an encylopedia. I hope this answers your question,. but if I've missed something (and I probably have, I don't feel human till I have my morning caffeine), please let me know. SirFozzie 11:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It does, thanks. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Happy Humphrey

Hi there, I noticed that you deleted the article for Happy Humphrey after someone prodded it. I've actually found a pretty significant Time Magazine article about this guy and was wondering if you could either restore the article so I can improve it, or else possibly email me the text so I can fix it up and then re-add it? The Parsnip! 18:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Done! SirFozzie 18:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The Parsnip! 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation

I recieved a message on my talk page regarding this, could you explain exactly what your proposing on this, and how you see this working.--padraig3uk 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you have a word with User:Astrotrain he is edit warring again, he constantly refuses to discuss changes in talk pages.--padraig3uk 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok.. Basically CEM is a fairly new process designed to try to keep conflicts from boiling over into Arbitration. Basically, the two sides (normally two editors, but we're trying something a bit different here), try to hammer out a series of volutnary restrictions that keeps editors focused on improving the encyclopedia instead of in constant conflict.

Basically, you can only propose restrictions on yourself, but CEM doesn't end until everyone involved either accepts the setup , or withdraws. There's usually a moderator/admin whose focus is to keep the case moving.

Here's an example (Very simplified)

"Moderator: OK, User A and User B, you guys have been edit warring with each other for the last couple months. You have been both blocked a couple times, so let's come up with a way to keep you both on the right side of things.

User A: My main problem is that User B doesn't discuss changes on the talk page.

User B: Well, I would, except you keep reverting my edits instantly..

User A: Because you're changing an important part of the article to say something that it didn't mean!

User B: Ok, I'll make the first offer. I will build consensus for any significant changes on the talk page before making them on the article.

User A: That's a good start. I will put myself on 1RR on any article dealing with widgets, which is the set of articles we've had conflict on. "

As you can see, it's a bit of give and take. Once this setup had been approved, User A would be blocked if he did any large scale changes on articles without building consensus, and User B would be blocked if he broke 1RR on any article dealing with widgets.. The results of CEM ARE binding on the users who accept the setup. SirFozzie 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In theory that sounds OK, one problem I see is when a number of other editors work together to keep restoring user B edits, knowing that user A is restrained by 1RR to prevent them, or is the 1RR rule only in the case of edits by user B and not other s. Also User:Astrotrain has ignored your warning and restored POV to List of British flags, he has also ignored the discussion in the talk page, I would rv his edit but that would bring me close to 3RR, also in his edit summary he refered to me as a RV-known POV warrior this is a breach of WP:NPA and is not the first time he has done this.--padraig3uk 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine

Please see here. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

IP stalker

Thanks again for removing vandalism from my talk page. I did a WHOIS lookup on the IP's that have been reposting the same crap over and over. It seems that they are coming from the same place. It does no good to place a warning because the same editor keeps changing his IP address. What can be done to stop this person from doing this again? --STS01 12:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll semi-protect your user talk page and user page for a couple weeks, give you a break. :) SirFozzie 14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed something

That Cartoon Network Blox logo needs to be speedied as well ... I initially slapped an IAR nomination on it since it was being used in a hoax article, but since it was uploaded by a sock ... Blueboy96 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Danny Daniel sock

Are you sure that User:Iabci is a Danny Daniel sock? Ususally when I found one, the sock would have made several hoaxes, many of them would be blatantly obvious. A checkuser might be needed to confirm this. Pants(T) 21:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

De-Stressing

Due to real life Stress combined with WP Stress, gonna take 24-48 hours and just chill out. Well, as much as I can anyway ;) SirFozzie 23:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Hey Sir Fozzie. I hope you enjoyed your wikibreak. I accorded you an accolade. --John 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you very much, but due to the harassment I have been subjected to so far I am unsure of the motives of the person initiating it and do not wish to take part. Brixton Busters 08:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Insult

Fozzie, Domer has altered me that I insulted you when I said "I would prefer if SirFozzie didn't do the checkuser as he is also involved in the ArbCom." Is this the case? If so that wasn't my intention. --sony-youthpléigh 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a check user on Frozzie is OTT. Questioning their ability to act impartially is a slight on their character and questions both their integrity and honesty. I may not like Fozzie's advice at time but I respect their opinion and position. --Domer48 08:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The check user is for all editors involved in the ArbCom. Edit warring was taking place - two apparent SPAs appeared, reverted the article, and apparently engaged in the edit war. Checkuser is hardly OTT in that circumstance. --sony-youthpléigh 10:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Sony's reasoning.
I deprecate the use of allegations of puppetry as some sort of Witch Hunt to try and block or punish editors of a differing PoV. We should concentrate on edits not editors.
However, in the proximate case there is strong circumstantial evidence that socks or single purpose accounts were deliberately created to circumvent both consensus and administrator's rulings and to avoid being seen to flout the arbcom process.
Furthermore I believe it is for the alleged subject of a perceived insult to complain; I doubt that SirFozzie is either so thin skinned or insecure in the impartiality of his position or the rectitude of his logons...Gaimhreadhan • 13:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I actually was a little amused at it, to be quite honest. If it was honestly thought that I had made the edits in question I would have used the old Bugs Bunny line, "He don't know me vewwy well, do he?". I think it's been well established that I don't have the level of knowledge to make such a detailed edit. I see it more as kinda just a "Let's clear the air, make sure that all the folks before ArbCom are not trying to get unfair advantage in our conflict.
In fact, I remember saying to MarkThomas during, um.. one of our disagreements, something like "I could have just initiated the ArbCom case, and stepped back and watched, but instead, I figured that since I brought the case, I figured I should have my edits scrutinized with the same fine toothed comb that the other four people in this case. Complaining, or being insulted by it now that it that someone's basically called me on my words.... well that would make me a hypocrite, wouldn't it? 15:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Games Workshop

Hi SirFozzie, hope you're keeping well. I'm having a spot of bother with what looks like a single purpose IP at Talk:Games Workshop. I let their first personal attack go, but at this stage I'd like someone else's opinion if they are failing to assume good faith. last week I started an investigation into some povpushing across a number of articles relating to the company Games Workshop. I found a series of unreliably sourced or just unsourced criticism sections as well as a potential COI with a Games Workshop company IP - I reported the IP to WP:COIN and I removed these unverifiable sections from the articles. My report is here.

Essentially the SPA IP is claiming that I'm making POV removals to make Games Workshop look good - they cite the fact (which is on my Userpage) that I play one of there games. I stand over my behaviour on that page as 100% neutral and within policy, if I had been making the company "look good" I wouldn't have reported the COI to COIN or have removed fan-cruft from the article. I feel that I have not introduced any bias to the page but I'd be much obliged if you could have a look.

Another fact in this matter is that this IP making these accusations has added nothing to WP other than its criticism of Games Workshop which was a piece of synthesis and original research. They used information from www.fool.co.uk (an investment/banking website) and from [www.rpg.net] (an RPG review site) to construct/reinforce the criticism (interestingly if you go through the refs they aren't being actually critical of the company). This is a link to the material that I removed [32].

I originaly mentioned this report to Durova about 2 days ago and she semi-protected the Games Workshop page, but as she's my admin coach I'd feel it better if someone else double check this situation.--Cailil talk 14:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look, Cailil :) SirFozzie 15:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that SirFozzie, I hope your comments helps the IP understand why I removed that material =)--Cailil talk

Conscientious editors

This conscientious editors concerned to improve Wikipedia[33]. Which ones? --Domer48 15:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what I suggested to Rockpocket, and hopefully Kittybrewster will work with Rock.. While I understand that with Kittybrewster's... contentious... history that it would be nice to edit without that history being used against him, I do have concerns about Kittybrewster admitting that he is editing under several alternate accounts. While WP:SOCK says this is not a problem under some circumstances, I would definitely be concerned that this could be used in several ways that are against WP Rules. Namely, avoiding the appearance of CoI on his family, and it must be tempted to gain advantage in edit wars and AfD debates. Perhaps, you could approach Kittybrewster privately and get a list of the alternate accounts he uses? I agree that making them public would be counter to what Kitty is using them for.. but with an admin knowing these alternate accounts, it would reduce the temptation (and there always is temptation, we are human, after all) to use those alternate accounts in methods that would contravene WP rules? SirFozzie 16:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)" SirFozzie 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be appropriate for Domer48 to sign up to the CEM?--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Our Friend in New York?

see here--Vintagekits 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A fellow Blood Bowl player

Hello. I saw from your comments on the Games Workshop article that you're a (mainly online) BB player. If it's not overstepping the mark, can I enquire which version of online BB you play, and wheter I might have bumped into you on any BB forums. I play the Play by Email client, in various leagues, and use this name on many BB forums. Cheers, Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I started in the first Online Blood Bowl League the OLBBL, and now have teams in FUMBBL. I actually wrote several strategy articles for various BB sites (dealing with Chaos and Undead).. I consider my crowning acheivement the creation of an alternate team.. The Referees team ;) SirFozzie 15:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There's online Blood Bowl?! Got a link? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
the main league now is FUMBBL, using a Java client (www.fumbbl.org), there is also a league that uses an older client at www.olbbl.com SirFozzie 16:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Unblock

How are you SirFozzie, Sony and myself have agreed to the article being unblocked. (It was blocked again in your absence) I would suggest some sort of Article Probation, but I’m perfectly willing to follow your direction in this matter. If you consider it necessary, I will run all my edits through you before I put them in the article, or if you wish, through some other hard nosed admin who will take no prisoners. Let us know what you think?--Domer48 17:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A bare-faced and deliberate lie. You no perfectly well that Sony-youth has given no such agreement. What the hell do you think you are playing at Domer48? MarkThomas 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi SirFozzie, as you can see here [34] and [35] myself and Sony have agreed to the article being unblocked. While I have added the latest insult to my Abrcom, a couple today [36], any chance of doing something. --Domer48 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The references you cite do not (as per usual - standard Domer48 technique) support the case you make. However, it makes no difference - if you continue to mass-attack the article as you have, it will be countered. Good luck with it. MarkThomas 17:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In light of the exchange between Domer48 and MarkThomas, I don't see how unprotection at this time will not result in further edit warring. --sony-youthpléigh 18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Sony you accepted my offer! Do not mind the other editor Abrcom will deal with that. I have made a rather important concession with SirF. Now if you want to diplay bad faith thats fine. But just paste your comment on the article discussion, so all intrested editors know whats going on. --Domer48 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
OH SURE!!! (1) Domer48 lies and says Sony-youth has agreed to it. (2) Domer48 gets caught in the lie so he attempts to cover his tracks by claiming it was all inferred. (3) Sony-youth categorically denies it. (4) Domer48 raises this as an example of his favorite accusation "bad faith". I literally bloody despair. MarkThomas 18:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I find out that I "agreed" to adding Bobby Sands to a list of genocide victims! This is getting preposterous!
SirFozzie, you've been very hard on MarkThomas, while being generously lenient to Domer48 over this entire debacle and elsewhere. Can you see now that you judgement has been misplaced. Could we please have some sanction against Domer for what he just wrote? If he is not shown that this is not how to cooperate on building an article, he will continue along this fashion forever. Seriously, {{WP:NOT]] a war. --sony-youthpléigh 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tut tut sony, are we telling pork pies "Should Sony Agree, I would like to add this one also. If they do not they can let me know why? But remove the agreed reference regardless." Do you not think SirF will not check this out? Like I said on your talk page! --Domer48 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The request to remove the Donnell misquote carried the caviat of adding another in its place which the reviewing admin said "thoroughly fails WP:NPOV." This is tiring, Domer. If you're not serious about this project or collaborating with others then please go back to Wikiquote. --sony-youthpléigh 22:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The agreement with sony

Domer48 asking Sony “…are you now going to accept this offer [37], a simple yes or no will suffice.”

Sony’s reply “That's all I was ever interested in…”

I’m a bit slow on the uptake so I said “Ye, Ye are you finished twisting; the question was yes or no!” (Sony gave a long winded answer)

Sony replied “You really do have problems. Yes. Take out the misquote of Donnell. How many different ways do I have to say that?”

And I said “My apologies Sony, I see by your opening line that you will accept that offer. It’s just when I seen the tome you’d written I viewed it through distracted eyes. Sorry about that.”

End of Conversation until Mark entered the fray. Sony did not intervene to point out the error of Marks ways, mark said it did not matter anyway!

Unlike most stories there was no happy ending. --Domer48 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And the truth shall set you free! [38] --Domer48 22:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Are we not in agreement that it should go? Didn't we agree to "Take out the misquote of Donnell" (like you paraphrased above)? --sony-youthpléigh 22:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Now tell you buddy Mark to keep is babbling rants and fairy tales to himself. Ask for the page to be unblocked and let the referenced information do the talking! Do not use Mark as an excuse! There will be no edit war! Plenthy of discussion though! --Domer48 22:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Since when did Mark become my "buddy" - we disagree on virtually every aspect of Irish history! --sony-youthpléigh 23:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Since I have to be up at this unspeakable hour for jury duty, I will note that I've read the above discussions. I'd like to ask all responsible parties to go to their corners for the day. There's a bunch of Assuming Bad Faith going on here.. and it's going to stop, hopefully. I will write more when my jury duty is over. Hopefully that's today ;) SirFozzie 09:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh.... before I forget, I see that the CheckUser has come back unrelated. I hope that the new editors continue to contribute and that we will avoid the hurly burly from here on. SirFozzie 09:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

CEM

Are you still interested in CEM as an option in the dispute? If so, can we go ahead and list it at /Requests (pending acceptance by all parties)? Regards, Navou banter 13:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Right now, just about all the editors signed up are from one side of the "conflict", so to speak. I will ask a couple folks if they're in or out, but right now, it just doesn't look good. *sighs* [unsigned at 00:15, 24 July 2007 by SirFozzie]
The reason I haven't yet signed up to this is because I fail to see how it is intended to work if more then two editors are involved in a edit dispute, maybe if a proposal was put together to outline exactly what is proposed and how it will work out in practice, so the issue can be discussed.--padraig 00:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I also have concerns over this [39] where a editor can agree to abid by this agreement, but would still be able in theory, to ignore that agreement and edit under different usernames.--padraig 00:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's going to be roughly the same.. it'll just be a lot more complicated.. remember.. the base rule is you can only propose restrictions on yourself.. we're more interested in getting the behavior to stop rather than point fingers. Don't worry about the outcome being onesided, Cem doesn't end until parties withdraw, or until everyone signs off on the proposed solu8tion. Combined with some suggestions Sony is writing up, hopefully we can get this ended once and for all. And as for the situation you reference, if Kitty signs off on it, the restrictions will be applied to ALL his accounts.. Rockpocket has asked him to provide a list of accounts that he is using. SirFozzie 00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
And if he refuses to provide a list, then what.--padraig 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Then if any accounts he uses to get around the boundaries are caught, then he'll be looking at a long-term timeout, not only for the CEM violation, but for sock issues. SirFozzie 01:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What happens in cases where editors are adding POV into articles, is it proposed to restore the last stable version and placing protection on the article whilst it goes to CEM, the reason I ask this is if this isn't done then we could have POV imposed on articles for months whilst the CEM is on going.--padraig 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The incident with GIF is seperate, there's an ArbCom case going on over that, and the last thing you really want is an edit war while ArbCom are watching over. But I understand. BTW, Kittybrewster has said he is working with Rockpocket, so that matter can hopefully be placed as resolved. SirFozzie 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps we can list the case with parties, questions may be answered there, are all participants willing to explore this arena? Navou banter 22:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a little too cryptic for me to understand, Navou. Would you explain in more prolix fashion?
(I also suspect that many of the 11 conscientious editors that have already signed up will wish to pull out if they discover that, despite his (presumably) heroic efforts, SirFozzie has made no progress at all with persuading the original candidates that this is a good first stage in turning over a new leaf...)
Perhaps you could write an outline of how you envision the new MCEM operating?...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What next

Hi SirFozzie, Dose any of this look familiar. I see I’m not the only editor who has to put up with this. I’ve nearly used up my 100 diffs on the AbrCom. So how can I illustrate this as a pattern of behaviour? Thanks --Domer48 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

Alright he/she have kicked of on that article. Whats the odds on them asking for the article to be locked because of edit warring. --Domer48 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, it would not have been the first time [51]. Talk about history repeating. Hang in there SirF. --Domer48 18:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits 5

Hi. Sorry to bother you again SirFozzie. VK has again become uncivil at Talk:Mairéad Farrell. Remarks like "as an admins you should cop on a bit and have a but more responsibility. I expect a lot more from admins" and "Cop on - your an admin try acting like one" are hardly likely to enhance the collegial spirit of discussion towards improving the encyclopedia. As the admin administering VK's civility parole I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Best wishes, --John 15:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also see his comments today here and here. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we ought to cut VK some slack. He is a pugilist and his language may be a bit robust sometimes, but I've seen far worse in e-mails - his language is improving in leaps and bounds.
The real issue is touched upon in the comment by John: "enhance the collegial spirit of discussion towards improving the encyclopedia"
I think VK needs to be pursued into a corner and made to justify his decision not to sign up for CEM.
If there are no satisfactory (to you, SirFozzie) answers forthcoming then, as his parole officer, I think you need to report back to Arbcom to consider a permanent WP ban - either globally or just limited to Irish themed articles.
Sorry to be blunt, but I think this whole thing is going round and round endlessly and wasting too much time that would be better spent on editing and finding sources...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 16:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this idea of forcing anyone to agree to CEM, the details of how this idea will work have not been disclosed in any detail, therefore VK and any other editor has a right not to agree to signup for a unknown. Maybe if yous set out exactly what your proposing and how this idea will work in cases involving more then two editors, then maybe VK and others will accept giving it a try.
On the issue of some of VKs comments, many of the editors involved in these disputes have used similar comments on both sides, so maybe everyone should take a step back and think about their own behaviour before posting.--padraig 16:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd be amazed if the CEM procedure did not encourage greater cogitation before touching the editing keyboard, Padraig - both with regards to articles and talk pages.
With respect, I have not proposed "forcing anyone to agree to CEM".
There is a difference in that it is VK that is on parole not (yet?) the editors and admins he interacts with and he needs to show willingness to change both his editing style and use less confrontational and abusive language. I suggest that it is for SirFozzie to decide when it is a hopeless case but the attitude to becoming a conscientious editor that VK has publicly displayed is not reassuring in this regard...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 16:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Contentious editors, don’t make me laugh. John are you kitty, just wondering [52], because that would explain how you like to play with the hares and run with the hounds! ...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk are you still trying to flog that dead horse? Give me a break the lot of ye. --Domer48 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I warned you Domer... SirFozzie 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't help but say SirFozzie, this is not an action of yours I ever expected to see. :-) MarkThomas 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I keep telling you, Mark, that I do not have a side in this. I am just wanting the incivility and edit wars to stop. The sooner.. the better. Believe it or not, I'm trying to make sure that people make this a better encyclopedia. Hopefully now you will believe me. SirFozzie 19:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

New section

Having to put up with.... [53]

Having had to put up with such a colossal quantity of utter nonsense from you the last few weeks Domer, I thought I needed to chill with some relaxing jokes. MarkThomas 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As a joke, all I can do is pull a quote from Queen Victoria.. "We are not amused.". Comments like that are more likely to cause editwars, not end them. SirFozzie 19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you speaking now as a neutral admin SirFozzie, or wearing your well-known pro-Irish editor hat? Just curious. MarkThomas 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gaimhreadhan blocked

... for harassment of User:Brixton Busters having been final warned yesterday. Sorry, but it's not acceptable behaviour. Just thought you should know - Alison ☺ 19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. SirFozzie 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User MarkThomas

Hi. I saw your comment in the Cromwell page and wondered "who's that...haven't I seen that name before?", so I came here to have a look. I see that - as an admin - you've been heavily involved in recent disputes/issues on British and Irish pages and might be familiar with the above user. I've been experiencing "problems" with this user and am getting really annoyed with what I experience as frequent deletion/mischaracterisation of references, accusations of POV, igniring reference to persist in editing in his own POV, talk page comments that accuse me of things that never happened or of making edits that I didn't make. I took about a two month break recently but almost as soon as I came back experienced the same problems again. I put some examples up on [54] but I have no idea if that will have any impact. I guess that I'm asking for advice on what to do about this. I've tried stepping back for a couple of months but it didn't have any effect. Hughsheehy 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This relates to the genocide debate and Hughsheehy's repeated edits surrounding the question of Cromwell being a genocidalist, which is a minority view in academic history, but one that Hughsheehy obviously has very strong views about himself - he resents this rather obvious point being publicly stated, which is the heart of the grave offence I commit in his eyes.
I've just read through the Wikiquette material and the accusations there profoundly conceal and misrepresent the facts. Hughsheehy is not in general someone who likes to engage in collaborative editing. When I first went to the Oliver Cromwell article, there were a number of exceptionally POV statements that were unreferenced or badly referenced about him in the intro which I corrected. I was then met with what amounted to a barrage of accusation and harassment from Hughsheehy. When I resisted this, he added numerous references to revised (and slightly less POV) versions of the contested sentences. When the validity of some of these new "references" which were to say the least academically weak (one for example was a quote from a childrens tutorial on the BBC website) were challenged by me, I got further accusations and blanket reverts. Now many other editors have come to the article and systematically critiqued Hughsheehy's references and the statements themselves. I made several more minor edits to the contested sentences, one of which has stuck. It is my opinion that Hughsheehy resents this and is hoping to paint me as the offending party. Note the recent threat of libel against WP:LEGAL he made on my talk page. MarkThomas 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that MarkThomas picks that specific reference [55] (which he deleted) as an example. It's from the UK National Archives and is teaching material for English A Level History. Also, it was never a citation for anything about genocide, as it doesn't mention it. It mentions that Cromwell is hated in Ireland. MarkThomas deleted this ref and one from a 1900 biography of Cromwell as being POV, before later arguing that there were too many references on that point because "nobody contests it". As for the "several more minor edits" on the genocide topic, these included him describing a series of references as being from "Irish historians" (and thus probably irredeemably POV), despite the fact that the citations include Polish historians of genocide and British University lecturers/professors...and yes, I reverted that edit. Hughsheehy 09:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the concept of a content dispute Hugh? That's what this is. It's not vandalism. It's not aggression. It's not libel. It's your views and other people's. It's about interpretation of references, suitability of content, explanations, context, delivery, etc, etc. Accusations are utterly pointless. MarkThomas 09:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute. It's a behaviour dispute.
I'm not going to add more to SirFozzie's page. It seems he's away for a couple of days and I don't want to clog his page. I've asked him for help and I've asked for support on the Wikiquette page in dealing with your incivility. I hope some improvement in my WP experience will come from asking for support. Hughsheehy 11:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hughsheehy.. if you have problems with MarkThomas's edit behavior, there's two ways you can seek relief. The normal way is to open a Request for Comment on MarkThomas's behavior. The other way that's open now is there is an active Arbitration case in which MarkThomas is part of.. under Great Irish Famine. Either way, you can submit your evidence there. Please note under either method though, MarkThomas has just as much right to bring up your edits (I haven't read the situation, other then responding to one comment Mark made when it was brought to my attention). Hope this answers your question.. SirFozzie 12:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you're back! I have problems with MarkThomas edit behaviour but also problems with his semi-continuous accusations of POV editing, accusations of making edits i never made, etc. I'll move/copy my refs from the Wikiquette page to an RFC on MarkThomas. I don't see what I have to do with an ArbCom on Great Irish famine (the irish potato famine i guess), but will refer there too if you believe it's appropriate. I can survive MarkThomas bringing up my edits. If insisting on references is bad then I'm guilty. Hughsheehy 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, so long as you realise I will show blow-by-blow edits where I make a small revert and suggest a discussion and that you might possibly have an "opinion" and then you go straight to my talk page and accuse me of breaking every rule in the book, then that's fine. Will you be joining in with your usual impartial remarks SirFozz? MarkThomas 13:07, 26 July 2007 (U
(deindenting), no.. as soon as I can realistically wrap up my obligations to what I already have on my plate, I am quitting the whole set of arguments, because I am tired of day in and day out, the snide comments, the constant wars and the constant insinuations. Congratulations, you have worn me down, you and Domer and VK (who you notice I cannot condone), and the whole nine fucking yards of it. I never want to see another article on Ireland, Northern Ireland or anything around it. SirFozzie 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see this expressed, but i know what you mean. I've put my RFC at [56] Hughsheehy 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the nub of it is that Hugh doesn't like me to say that he has "opinions". If this is correct, for the sake of some much-neeed peace and quiet I am happy to state that Hughsheehy has no opinions. However, typically in the past whenever I've admitted any shortcomings, he has responded by (a) demanding more apologies in more places and (b) re-doubling the attacks against me in more places, which is what he's doing now - I did apologise in talk Ollie Cromwell but he came back and demanded further apologies. He's a hard man to have a debate with! MarkThomas 12:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Vk blocked

Hello SirFozzie. I have blocked Vintagekits for 31 hours, for reasons explained here. The tipping point was this edit which I think is a sad but telling example of why Vk is ultimately unwilling or unable to work as a collaborative editor on Anglo-Irish issues. I was very close to indef blocking him for this, because he has been told too many times already that those sorts of comments are unnacceptable and clearly the message is not getting through. I have a lot of respect for the manner in which you have attempted to negotiate a very difficult path in guiding warring editors, but with regards to Vk, I really feel as if all avenues have been exhausted. If you disagree with this block I am open to discussion, either on wiki or privately. Thanks. Rockpocket 01:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I indef blocked him and took it to AN (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_Review_-_Vintagekits) in response to the personal and sectarian abuse, and the further threat of meatpuppetry (which I consider credible due to his history). Your input would be welcome. To be honest, I'm past giving Vk chances, and - short of leaving him indef blocked - would only support a ban from editing Republican related articles. Rockpocket 02:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to endorse the indefblock to be honest. In some ways, VK was getting better, but this is beyond the pale. Absolutely and completely no way back after that. I'm just disappointed my good faith was thrown in my face. SirFozzie 12:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
I, Major Bonkers, award you the Special Barnstar for showing utmost good faith and dealing with an extraordinarily difficult situation very well. (Don't go - we need your help - God how we need your help!) Major Bonkers (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Fozzie, I understand how it feels to assume good faith and get it shoved iny oru face and abused! dont let it get you down, editors with your leve of willingness to Assume Good Faith are few and far in between! Thanks for your help. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Don't let this put you off tackling difficult editors or assuming good faith in the future. --John 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Foz, you so earned this barnstar, plus more. You're doing an awesome job right now. It's incredibly dirty work and largely unappreciated by many involved but you're still in there. - Alison ☺ 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Tyrenius 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
SirFozzie, I am not disagreeing with the block, it's more the indef block. Gladly I'm in the charmed position where I don't have to make such calls. Otherwise it's just another "voice" lost to Wikipedia. And what does my opinion matter anyway ;) GH 20:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Also may I add, and I know I'll be target practice, for some, after this. Since the BRITISH involvement on Irish history pages, it has become noticeable to me the Exodus of Irish editors. Unfortunately you guys have made a mess. How it's going to be resolved will take time, and who will do it, who knows. I know some brilliant Irish editors, but they are now in the past. And while I'm here, there is much work to be done on the English and Scottish pages too. Happy editing. GH 09:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add this here since VK deleted the comment. He should not be allowed to edit on any articles relating to Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, British peerages etc. He seems to like boxing and sport articles and this would be a good area for him to concentrate on for the time being. He should be blocked again if he makes any pro-terrrorist or anti-British comments in talk pages or elsewhere. Astrotrain 14:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)