This is an archive of past discussions with User:SirFozzie. 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.
non binding of course, unless you're changing rules midstream... which I advise you not to do, it has gotten other people some rather considerable approbation. You should have asked for a clerk in my view... I've commented further on the page itself. Please also record this one at Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests (suggested title is SirFozzie 2) ++Lar: t/c15:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, and with the current request pretty much completed, I set some terms, clarified what I meant, and posted them to the Accountability page. Thanks again, everybody. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the action myself, but this is bound to be challenged (and probably overturned). You know how these things go ... time for more drama, before the original thread is even closed.
I understand that my action is likely to be challenged, but anyone who unblocks better put her under some strict restricctions, or it'll be a bloody mess all over again. Doing that right after a discussion on whether to community ban her is just not smart. SirFozzie (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is going to argue or challenge your block, Foz. I hope we can unblock her with restrictions, but she has hardly helped her case today, and there isn't exactly a chorus of support for her. I've being doing my best to cajole her into backing off over the last few days, but she seems set on making a point, which of courses turns into a WP:POINT, which leads us to where we are now. Rockpocket00:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree that I do not believe anyone will challenge the block with any good faith. If Sarah is unblocked, then it must be done with strict editing restrictions, however, I see little faith in that occurring. seicer | talk | contribs00:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I completely support the block. As for proceeding in the future, I would also support unblocking her with restrictions, but only if she gives her word ahead of time that she will abide by the restrictions. I have too many times seen disruptive editors unblocked in the "hope" that they would change, even though the disruptive editors never actually acknowledged that they were going to try and change their behavior. In Sarah777's case, she has already received plenty of second, third, and fourth chances. This time, we must absolutely insist that she give her word first, otherwise the block should stay in place. I recommend laying out the minimum standards for her behavior in the future, and then have her put her agreement in her own words. In my own experience as an online community manager, it is much more effective to have a disruptive user type things out for themselves, to ensure that they have at least a minimal commitment to change. Otherwise they're just going to mumble "Yeah sure whatever," and we end up letting a disruptive element right back into the community. --Elonka16:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit old at this point but as an outsider I totally agree with your block Foz. Frankly I'll be very surprised if anyone challenges it. If restrictions are imposed it would need to be crystal clear that this is the last chance, other than that I have no comment about unblocking right now--Caililtalk18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The year in Ireland articles
I feel the implementation of the AfD result at 619 in Ireland may have been bached. Perhaps if an AfD had been set up to include all those X in Ireland articles? there wouldn't have been such a disaster. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
