User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 22

Hi, I'm interested in being adopted by you. I found your listing on the adopters list. I'm on Wikipedia just about every day and I check my e-mail ([1]) frequently. Let me know if you're interested/available. Also I'm not sure how to use my userpage and talk page quite yet so e-mail is probably the best way to get in touch with me.Vantine84 (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey-o. On a wikibreak for a few weeks. I will be checking email frequently, here markedly less so, but leave a message either way if you want to get my attention. SirFozzie (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re

I was aware of Mooretwin's previous record (I brought it up in AN/AE when supporting the two week block); I wasn't aware of any promise. I don't thin Tz was either. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Semi-protecting Admin noticeboard

Could you please remove your semi-protect there. I have a pending issue. Thanks. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will take a look. SirFozzie (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom?

Hey SF, are you an arbitrator now? I had heard rumblings you might be appointed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not appointed. I'm just stepping in on AE to issue a clarification.. the Fringe Science arbcom just closed, and we're still having issues, it's just an attempt to stamp out the fires that we thought were already out :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... I feel uneasy saying this, since I agree with you on most things, but I have some misgivings about a non-arbitrator presuming to know the intent of arbcom. I think you're probably right on the substantive issue but I'd be a lot more comfortable if you proposed the clarification and let arbcom decide. A clerk could then post the clarification on their behalf. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd feel fine with someone getting ArbCom's official (or even unofficial) view on my clarification (I have made at least one Arbitrator aware of my actions here, and hoping to catch more online) SirFozzie (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. Presumably they'll pipe up if there's a problem. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this even being enforced? seicer | talk | contribs 01:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit behind today. Please ignore! seicer | talk | contribs 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked arbcom to comment on your clarification - I was not aware that you had edited the case page. You can comment atWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFringe_science.Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hipocrite, I have spoken there. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: fringe science

I added a clarification on the main rfar page on how I'm interpreting the topic ban; hopefully it clarifies one arb's views. Wizardman 02:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removal of Administrator bit.

Due to health/stress issues (primarily mine, but my family's as well) and some disillusionment. I do not think I would best serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please remove my administrator access on the English Language Wikipedia. SirFozzie (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! You sure about this man? Remember what you told me.--Tznkai (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed by steward Mike.lifeguard. Thanks for all your hard work, it's sad to see you go. Kylu (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope to see you back once you're feeling better. Good luck. DS (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From one who's been there and done that, not being an admin will likely take a period of readjustment, but then you'll feel a tremendous sense of relief. Best wishes for wherever your path takes you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, David. You, like me, were rapidly heading for burnout. While you'll be sorely missed on the project, on a personal note I'm glad you did this. Needless to say, you know where you can find me ;) - Alison ❤ 04:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to wish you strength in whatever it is you're going through. Guettarda (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, Foz. Hope you stick around some, even without the administrator tools. Life's easier without so much pressure, I'm sure. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope everything works out well. You've been a great asset to this project. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing your best in a thankless job. Dlabtot (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though CoolHandLuke was the better WR ArbCom wannabe, you were still okay. Completely wrong about everything, but still, you were okay. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fozzie, I'm really sorry to see you go. You worked very hard to calm difficult areas, and took a lot of flack for it, but that's inevitable when someone ventures where others don't dare to tread, so please don't think that you hard work was unappreciated.
I'm sorry to hear of the health difficulties, but I hope that when you are your family are recovered, you may come back. You will be much missed -- take good care of yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
I'm sorry to read about the difficulties you are encountering, but thanks for the hard work you've conducted over the years. seicer | talk | contribs 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sad day for Wikipedia :( 2 lines of K303 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll miss you, Foz. Rockpocket 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foz, I hope all goes well. Take care... •Jim62sch•dissera! 16:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revisions proposal

Hi. I am working on a minimal flagged revisions proposal focused on BLPs. FR may seem dead, but I think we can gain consensus on something small and focused. If you have time, any comments are appreciated. Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions#Let.27s_see_what_we_can_get --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

The above-linked Arbitration case has been updated following this request for clarification

ScienceApologist is banned from Wikipedia for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering. The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts on his return and further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Administrators are given interpretive leeway when reasonably enforcing arbitration decisions and are expected to explain their rationale at their earliest opportunity in discussion or edit summary. Formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification. SirFozzie has acted appropriately and within administrator discretion by interpreting the remedy and by clearly explaining his interpretation despite misunderstandings about the best form and forum in which to clarify his reasoning. The Committee thanks and commends him for this, and his considerable past efforts in helping in the difficult area of arbitration enforcement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 13:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Retirement Committee decision

The English Wikipedia User Retirement Committee has discussed the request of SirFozzie to retire from editing Wikipedia.

After full and due deliberation, a quorum being present, the Committee has determined by unanimous vote of the participating members that the said retirement application be and it hereby is DENIED.

Accordingly, SirFozzie is directed to resume editing Wikipedia immediately, and is enjoined from future retirement attempts except with the written permission of this Committee.

For the User Retirement Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Can they do that?! And I was about to volunteer to take over your Adminship.....Sarah777 (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brad just saw that I had poked my head up and said that I was retired, and wanted to tell me I still had a place here. And Sarah, I think you'll be happy to note, that thanks to the section above, I couldn't block you anymore, even if I wanted to.. I'm just your average, run-of the mill editor, and one that's not editing that much, even! :) SirFozzie (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not back..

But I did notice the (what I consider highly questionable) decision by Sandstein to ignore edit wars, because there was no formal ArbCom remedy on this. I'm not going to let the work I've done in the area be undone by someone who I think let his desire for stratified bureaucracy override common sense. So, I still care enough to shake my head, apparently. SirFozzie (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fozz I know your not back but could you clarify for me what the hell is going on here is 1RR gone now or are we in a situation were it just depends which admin comes along if sanctions are imposed or not thanks. BigDuncTalk 17:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, a lot depends on the administrator who comes in and views it. I think if the 1RR is useful (and it seems to have been, despite the number of times it was used, being high).. that no matter what you think of it personally, that it would be wise to speak on RfArb in support of it. You, Domer and Sarah are amongst the folks being asked to comment on it. SirFozzie (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Just a suggestion..

I know that the ArbCom is really wanting to standardize everything with ArbCom nomenclature, but why not rename AE Sanctions Enforcement (WP:SE, with WP:AE a redirect to it), and make it for all sanctions (Community based and ArbCom based). That's what it really is, after all :) SirFozzie (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. Better tracking of the development and imposition of community-based sanctions is also needed. Under the current page restructuring proposal, AE will be deprecated, and it will be merged with Wikipedia:General sanctions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions into a new page, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Active sanctions. Community-based sanctions have been sadly neglected so far in the existing pages, so any suggestions as to how to better integrate them would be very welcome! --bainer (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. See Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. I'd very much appreciate your input. Best, SlimVirgintalk|contribs 08:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be keeping an eye on it, but I don't know if I have anything to add at this time. Good Luck :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]