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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I've opened a request for an amendment to the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case based on today's Register story [1]. Cla68 ( talk) 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Personal manifestos in short supply? [3].You have most certainly not: "been one of the Arbcom's harshest critics" - never read such bolox in all my life. You were happy enough with the Arbcom when you launched the last Arbcom attack against me, knowing full well, (I told you) where it would lead. Your denials and pleas of innocence cut no ice then, they cut them now. You did not get the gratitude from the powers that be for trying to serve my head on the plate, they very much want, so now you are the Arbcom's "harshest critic." My, my, how things change. Shame on you Fozzie, even I thought better of you. It takes more than a few posts on WR to convince most intelligent people. My memory is impeccable - try to remember that - it may be an advantage to you to do so. I sincerely hope the Arbcom will be improved, but without your dubious and treacherous services. Giano ( talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I
expressed a similar skepticism about your ArbCom run (as well as a surprising foresight that it was coming) long ago and I must say that nothing made me change my mind. My problem is not with your not being principled enough (which I think is not true and I believe in your honesty) but your judgment. So, I must say that I stand by my original opinion that this ArbCom run would be a bad idea and we would all be better off if we are spared of the drama of this particular arbcom run. An analogy with one last year candidate of whom I had very similar misgivings (judgment rather than honesty) during the last ArbCom run (and whose aborted run spared us all some drama) comes to mind.
That said, I find it beyond belief (and I have seen enough around here so that it is difficult to surprise me) that one fellow who commented above has judgment so poor as to block Giano for what he said above. This is an incredible lack of judgment. That Giano would be unblocked in no time is not doubted (and in hindsight, he was). But I remain firmly believing that only on the spot desysoppings for such self-serving exercises may alleviate the situation of such outrageous blocks.
The reason is easy to see. Most of those who blocked Giano are not here to build encyclopedia but rather having an alternative (to RL) "career" on-wiki and at #admins. For admins who don't write, the horror of desysopping would be a very good safe-restriction because having their bit removed (along with #admins access) would leave them without anything to do on Wikipedia. I am not blood-thirsty by any measure. But the truly outrageous measures got to prompt an adequate and swift community response. This is the second stupid block in a very short time by the fellow. He learned nothing from the first one. Some cleanup is in order. -- Irpen 23:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Updated at 01:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I shall be voting for Sir. Foz. Along with voting for some others, hopefully:) Sticky Parkin 02:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Great to see Giano sorted so quickly, innit? (I utterly disagree with these random "civility blocks"). But it seems that I was sanctioned for more or less absolutely nothing and nobody seems remotely interested. I'm tempted to suggest that is down to my consistent stance on systematic bias on Wiki (and to the fact that I'm Irish and oppose British POV-pushing). However, as concerns about wheel-warring seems no obstical to quick action in a case were technically there is a clear civility breach (however daft the rule) then I'd have thought it might be even more forthcoming when there was NO OFFENCE committed. Sarah777 ( talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
At the exact same time this guy was sanctioning me for a single alleged edit!! Now come on Fozzie; why not block him for edit warring and leave my probation in place; I'd settle for that! Sarah777 ( talk) 00:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have put some work into the Gary Gygax article, which I have nominated for a GA review. If there is anything you can do to help it get passed, please join in! Also, feel free to comment on the D&D WikiProject talk page regarding our efforts to get articles in the 0.7 release. BOZ ( talk) 03:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Since you commented: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Modified_remedies_proposal — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
...for watching out for my user talk page. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"email a request to ArbCom, Domer. Placing Ulseter Defence Regiment notice of article probation." Could you also show me the diff's that were used to support such a decision? -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of these games! Were is the evidence against me? Show me the diff were the evidence was presented? -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, not one diff! I'll be raising the blocks on WP:RfC. Thanks for your help, duly noted. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah well all we can do is see. I’ll also be raising the conduct of Admin’s at the RfC, and how this ANI was handled as I think now it is a Community matter. As this conduct affects every editor on the project, we should get as many views as possible. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey there SirFozzie! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers! |
I hope you are doing good, I would like it very much if you semi-protected the Page Jay Sean as it is being Vandalised a bit too much. -- LGK ( talk) 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to be adopted. I know very little about wikipedia and am primarily trying to add information about my company and industry - in a non-advertising kind of way. Sjones71 ( talk) 20:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Fozz. While Tharky & HK are under 1RR, will they be allowed to participate at the British Isels Taskforce? GoodDay ( talk) 14:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to have a deeper look when I've finished the latest British Isles nonsense - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_above_IP_and_User:HighKing_-_request_for_eyes. Black Kite 20:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting frustrated with Domer again. He insists upon adding in more emotive, political wording on the B Specials and the Royal Irish Regiment which is taking the article off topic and certainly away from the neutral. I've made a note on the talk page in reply to him and reverted the information. He just doesn't seem to understand the concept of concise, encyclopedic neutrality. Could you advise him please - otherwise I'm never going to get this article to A Class. Thunderer ( talk) 10:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
No I don't have one. PS- sorry bud, I didn't know. GoodDay ( talk) 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just posted here [4] I think the situation need re-examining. Giano ( talk) 18:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion here. I was recently part of an AE case and was subject to the remedies outline here a WP:1RR on all Troubles Articles, applyed to all Editors of those Articles. This was amended as you will have noticed by an additional amendment at AE here. Now since then I do not believe that I have breeched sanctions. I been extremely polite, civil, and have been in no way disruptive. With this is mind, could you possibly point to me:
I think it only right and proper, and in the intrest fairness, that to defend myself I should first know what it is I’m supposed to have done, do you not agree? There is not much of a talk page to go through, and my edits were very limited. Thanks in advance, -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect you have not addressed any of the questions I have raised above at AE. In fact you have compounded the issue by further claims and accusations. You are agreeing to sanctions on me, and yet, having initiated this whole discussion you have not provided any diff’s to support such an action. You’re opening remarks to this discussion [5] [6] with expressions of frustrated emotions were entirely for uncalled and only served to inflame and heighten tension on the page in my opinion.
Your actions to date, like page protecting the article while choosing to ignore yet another breech of 1RR agreed by the recent AE is a case in point. You chose to ignore the Tread I had opened on the subject, opening your own, again emotively titled “latest dispute.” When ask to explain the page protection, rational for it being edit warring, you said there was none. You were asked to point out who was doing the reverting but rather than responding you article banned editors which it appears now you may not have been entitled to do.
This type of conduct I would not expect from an admin, not least one who wishes to progress to ArbCom. Now in my opinion, I'm entitled to be frustrated because I’m the one facing sanctions, and being painted in all types of colours. However, I have supported my views with diff’s and I would appreciate the same consideration. I don’t need to be told I’m a good editor, though it is very thoughtful and welcome under thses conditions, and I’m not above criticism. But when I am criticized I feel I’m entitled to at the very least the supporting diff’s, and not to be submerged by expressions of opinion and unsupported comment. Please address the questions above, some editors/admin's have made an effort and some have not. -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
You placed a template on this article saying that it was at deletion review, but I can't find it there. What is going on? Edison ( talk) 01:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Saw your post on the arb page, and wanted to swing by just to say that my talk page is always open, and I'd really really like to keep my issues out of the arb request if at all possible? I sincerely believe that clarity becomes really really important in stuff like this - being in my view the kindest and cleanest path forward. Happy to talk more about why I feel making a short post like this is the 'right' thing to do, and hope you're good anywhoo... cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 07:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed modifications to Domer, Dunc, and Thunderers' topic ban here please comment.-- Tznkai ( talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Watchlisted. Also, ARGH.-- Tznkai ( talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a fairly straight forward case. I spotted the use of the Irish term "Oglaigh na hEireann" being used as an official title for the Provisional IRA. (I use the articles for reference myself you see?). I knew it to be untrue so I changed it and gave an explanation. Republican Jacobite and O Fenian both objected but I discussed the matter as you can see. Eventually O Fenian provided the link to the Irish Statute book here which absolutely proved me right (shooting himself in the foot btw) but by that time I didn't feel I could revert again so asked O Fenian to self revert. O Fenian is very new to this and I don't want to bully him, even if he has been very uncivil to the point of being threatening. That's why I brought it to the AE board because my experience shows these things can get out of hand very quickly. O Fenian needs guidance but I don't think he wants it from me. Thunderer ( talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Tell persistent pests to stay away from my talk page please. O Fenian ( talk) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Why have you protected the PIRA article instead of dealing with the editor who is well aware of the 1RR sanctions that were imposed yet continues to revert. How many times has Thunderer reverted on the PIRA article? Are the sanctions dropped? Or is a blind eye being turned to this editor? BigDunc Talk 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I only protected six hours, when things were gang aft agley. Things still are, thanks to certain emails I'm receiving. if he's violated it, I will block him shortly. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
With regard to your comment on my user page:
"Edits such as this one hardly complies with Wikipedia's rules on Neutral Point of View. Please make sure your edits comply with this policy. SirFozzie (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"
I respectfully disagree with you. In my opinion, the sources cited support my edit, but if you can provide a detailed reason or reasons why you say that my edit "hardly" complies with Wikipedia policy, I will give your reasons full consideration. Michael H 34 ( talk) 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
You can find me online somewheres I am sure. Jehochman Talk 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I know you were going to get started on the international reaction to Naked Short Selling. Hope you don't mind that I beat you to the punch (I went with an old section I had kicked around on NSS's talk page, updated with the Nikkei stuff), but please, edit/add/subtract to what I did mercilessly. Have a good one! SirFozzie ( talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I've opened a request for an amendment to the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case based on today's Register story [1]. Cla68 ( talk) 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Personal manifestos in short supply? [3].You have most certainly not: "been one of the Arbcom's harshest critics" - never read such bolox in all my life. You were happy enough with the Arbcom when you launched the last Arbcom attack against me, knowing full well, (I told you) where it would lead. Your denials and pleas of innocence cut no ice then, they cut them now. You did not get the gratitude from the powers that be for trying to serve my head on the plate, they very much want, so now you are the Arbcom's "harshest critic." My, my, how things change. Shame on you Fozzie, even I thought better of you. It takes more than a few posts on WR to convince most intelligent people. My memory is impeccable - try to remember that - it may be an advantage to you to do so. I sincerely hope the Arbcom will be improved, but without your dubious and treacherous services. Giano ( talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I
expressed a similar skepticism about your ArbCom run (as well as a surprising foresight that it was coming) long ago and I must say that nothing made me change my mind. My problem is not with your not being principled enough (which I think is not true and I believe in your honesty) but your judgment. So, I must say that I stand by my original opinion that this ArbCom run would be a bad idea and we would all be better off if we are spared of the drama of this particular arbcom run. An analogy with one last year candidate of whom I had very similar misgivings (judgment rather than honesty) during the last ArbCom run (and whose aborted run spared us all some drama) comes to mind.
That said, I find it beyond belief (and I have seen enough around here so that it is difficult to surprise me) that one fellow who commented above has judgment so poor as to block Giano for what he said above. This is an incredible lack of judgment. That Giano would be unblocked in no time is not doubted (and in hindsight, he was). But I remain firmly believing that only on the spot desysoppings for such self-serving exercises may alleviate the situation of such outrageous blocks.
The reason is easy to see. Most of those who blocked Giano are not here to build encyclopedia but rather having an alternative (to RL) "career" on-wiki and at #admins. For admins who don't write, the horror of desysopping would be a very good safe-restriction because having their bit removed (along with #admins access) would leave them without anything to do on Wikipedia. I am not blood-thirsty by any measure. But the truly outrageous measures got to prompt an adequate and swift community response. This is the second stupid block in a very short time by the fellow. He learned nothing from the first one. Some cleanup is in order. -- Irpen 23:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Updated at 01:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I shall be voting for Sir. Foz. Along with voting for some others, hopefully:) Sticky Parkin 02:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Great to see Giano sorted so quickly, innit? (I utterly disagree with these random "civility blocks"). But it seems that I was sanctioned for more or less absolutely nothing and nobody seems remotely interested. I'm tempted to suggest that is down to my consistent stance on systematic bias on Wiki (and to the fact that I'm Irish and oppose British POV-pushing). However, as concerns about wheel-warring seems no obstical to quick action in a case were technically there is a clear civility breach (however daft the rule) then I'd have thought it might be even more forthcoming when there was NO OFFENCE committed. Sarah777 ( talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
At the exact same time this guy was sanctioning me for a single alleged edit!! Now come on Fozzie; why not block him for edit warring and leave my probation in place; I'd settle for that! Sarah777 ( talk) 00:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have put some work into the Gary Gygax article, which I have nominated for a GA review. If there is anything you can do to help it get passed, please join in! Also, feel free to comment on the D&D WikiProject talk page regarding our efforts to get articles in the 0.7 release. BOZ ( talk) 03:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Since you commented: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Modified_remedies_proposal — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
...for watching out for my user talk page. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"email a request to ArbCom, Domer. Placing Ulseter Defence Regiment notice of article probation." Could you also show me the diff's that were used to support such a decision? -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of these games! Were is the evidence against me? Show me the diff were the evidence was presented? -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, not one diff! I'll be raising the blocks on WP:RfC. Thanks for your help, duly noted. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah well all we can do is see. I’ll also be raising the conduct of Admin’s at the RfC, and how this ANI was handled as I think now it is a Community matter. As this conduct affects every editor on the project, we should get as many views as possible. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey there SirFozzie! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers! |
I hope you are doing good, I would like it very much if you semi-protected the Page Jay Sean as it is being Vandalised a bit too much. -- LGK ( talk) 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to be adopted. I know very little about wikipedia and am primarily trying to add information about my company and industry - in a non-advertising kind of way. Sjones71 ( talk) 20:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Fozz. While Tharky & HK are under 1RR, will they be allowed to participate at the British Isels Taskforce? GoodDay ( talk) 14:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to have a deeper look when I've finished the latest British Isles nonsense - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_above_IP_and_User:HighKing_-_request_for_eyes. Black Kite 20:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting frustrated with Domer again. He insists upon adding in more emotive, political wording on the B Specials and the Royal Irish Regiment which is taking the article off topic and certainly away from the neutral. I've made a note on the talk page in reply to him and reverted the information. He just doesn't seem to understand the concept of concise, encyclopedic neutrality. Could you advise him please - otherwise I'm never going to get this article to A Class. Thunderer ( talk) 10:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
No I don't have one. PS- sorry bud, I didn't know. GoodDay ( talk) 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just posted here [4] I think the situation need re-examining. Giano ( talk) 18:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion here. I was recently part of an AE case and was subject to the remedies outline here a WP:1RR on all Troubles Articles, applyed to all Editors of those Articles. This was amended as you will have noticed by an additional amendment at AE here. Now since then I do not believe that I have breeched sanctions. I been extremely polite, civil, and have been in no way disruptive. With this is mind, could you possibly point to me:
I think it only right and proper, and in the intrest fairness, that to defend myself I should first know what it is I’m supposed to have done, do you not agree? There is not much of a talk page to go through, and my edits were very limited. Thanks in advance, -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect you have not addressed any of the questions I have raised above at AE. In fact you have compounded the issue by further claims and accusations. You are agreeing to sanctions on me, and yet, having initiated this whole discussion you have not provided any diff’s to support such an action. You’re opening remarks to this discussion [5] [6] with expressions of frustrated emotions were entirely for uncalled and only served to inflame and heighten tension on the page in my opinion.
Your actions to date, like page protecting the article while choosing to ignore yet another breech of 1RR agreed by the recent AE is a case in point. You chose to ignore the Tread I had opened on the subject, opening your own, again emotively titled “latest dispute.” When ask to explain the page protection, rational for it being edit warring, you said there was none. You were asked to point out who was doing the reverting but rather than responding you article banned editors which it appears now you may not have been entitled to do.
This type of conduct I would not expect from an admin, not least one who wishes to progress to ArbCom. Now in my opinion, I'm entitled to be frustrated because I’m the one facing sanctions, and being painted in all types of colours. However, I have supported my views with diff’s and I would appreciate the same consideration. I don’t need to be told I’m a good editor, though it is very thoughtful and welcome under thses conditions, and I’m not above criticism. But when I am criticized I feel I’m entitled to at the very least the supporting diff’s, and not to be submerged by expressions of opinion and unsupported comment. Please address the questions above, some editors/admin's have made an effort and some have not. -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
You placed a template on this article saying that it was at deletion review, but I can't find it there. What is going on? Edison ( talk) 01:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Saw your post on the arb page, and wanted to swing by just to say that my talk page is always open, and I'd really really like to keep my issues out of the arb request if at all possible? I sincerely believe that clarity becomes really really important in stuff like this - being in my view the kindest and cleanest path forward. Happy to talk more about why I feel making a short post like this is the 'right' thing to do, and hope you're good anywhoo... cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 07:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed modifications to Domer, Dunc, and Thunderers' topic ban here please comment.-- Tznkai ( talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Watchlisted. Also, ARGH.-- Tznkai ( talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a fairly straight forward case. I spotted the use of the Irish term "Oglaigh na hEireann" being used as an official title for the Provisional IRA. (I use the articles for reference myself you see?). I knew it to be untrue so I changed it and gave an explanation. Republican Jacobite and O Fenian both objected but I discussed the matter as you can see. Eventually O Fenian provided the link to the Irish Statute book here which absolutely proved me right (shooting himself in the foot btw) but by that time I didn't feel I could revert again so asked O Fenian to self revert. O Fenian is very new to this and I don't want to bully him, even if he has been very uncivil to the point of being threatening. That's why I brought it to the AE board because my experience shows these things can get out of hand very quickly. O Fenian needs guidance but I don't think he wants it from me. Thunderer ( talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Tell persistent pests to stay away from my talk page please. O Fenian ( talk) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Why have you protected the PIRA article instead of dealing with the editor who is well aware of the 1RR sanctions that were imposed yet continues to revert. How many times has Thunderer reverted on the PIRA article? Are the sanctions dropped? Or is a blind eye being turned to this editor? BigDunc Talk 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I only protected six hours, when things were gang aft agley. Things still are, thanks to certain emails I'm receiving. if he's violated it, I will block him shortly. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
With regard to your comment on my user page:
"Edits such as this one hardly complies with Wikipedia's rules on Neutral Point of View. Please make sure your edits comply with this policy. SirFozzie (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"
I respectfully disagree with you. In my opinion, the sources cited support my edit, but if you can provide a detailed reason or reasons why you say that my edit "hardly" complies with Wikipedia policy, I will give your reasons full consideration. Michael H 34 ( talk) 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
You can find me online somewheres I am sure. Jehochman Talk 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I know you were going to get started on the international reaction to Naked Short Selling. Hope you don't mind that I beat you to the punch (I went with an old section I had kicked around on NSS's talk page, updated with the Nikkei stuff), but please, edit/add/subtract to what I did mercilessly. Have a good one! SirFozzie ( talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)