User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 24

Rfar
Hi, minor quibble here, but you mention "RfA" in your statement, and to the best of my knowledge, RfA refers to WP:RFA whereas Rfar is generally used to refer to WP:RFAR. You may wish to edit your statement to avoid confusion. Its a minor thing, and of course there is context which indicates which you meant, bu t it might be worth the effort so as not to risk confusing anyone - Rfar is a confusing enough place at the best of times. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * cool, I'll do it, KC.. thanks for the heads up :) The last time I did that, I joked that anyone who runs for RfA should go through a RfArb first, suddenly it doesn't sound so crazy :P :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you hate it when your jokes turn prophetic and wrong? :-( KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just hate RfAr right now.--Tznkai (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You and me both. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we just get them to mass desysop all of us? It'd be a nice twist in this crazy mess.--Tznkai (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The minute I find out you nominated a sock created in direct violation of a ArbCom ban, of an ArbCom de-sysopped admin, to stand for Rfa, or supported same in full knowledge of who they were, I will ask for you to be de-sysopped also, Tzn. As you have displayed no such tendencies to toss your ethics out the window in favor of nepotism, I have no choice but to support your remaining with the tools. I am sorry I cannot accommodate you on this. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

spam
I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ?  04:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist
You may be intersted in a recent discussion here:. I cannot sort out if this is a topic ban violation on the heels of the most recent warning or not.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I added that diff to the RfE page Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do close that, please keep an eye on the communist/authoratarian articles that he bebaves the exact same way. He gets topic banned and moves on to the next topic to do the same thing.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/I Did Not Raise My Girl To Be A Voter
Could you have another look at this? I've uploaded an edit. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 11:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Davies
Yes, I would wait until it is actually published somewhere other than Twitter. It'll make it's way into the formal press before too long anyway. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

IP
Have you seen the latest offering from the IP you blocked here. BigDunc 08:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Extended, and let's see if I can figure out if that's a static IP, or if there's a range to block. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Eek, now the IP is letting us know about his fantasies. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi, I appreciate your message.

However I can't accept that I was edit warring. First on teh page move. How can a page be moved unilaterally without any consensus on the whim of one editor?.

Secondly, I have been very carefully trying to maintain a npov lede. And have provided numerous sources, only to have a group of people revert it without any explantion. This is the same group of people who ahve been trying to maintain a pov version of this article for several years now.

How can the article be developed if they are allowed to veto any changes? Jdorney (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A rose, by any other name...
You meant BigDunc, not Domer, right? --John (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Object
See HalfShadow's talk page.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rlevse. I saw the conversation has moved to your page, and posted a comment there. Appreciate the notice :) SirFozzie (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

G'day Sir Fozz
I noticed that you're brave / foolish enough to stick your hand up for the Arbcom this year - I'm planning on doing some short audio interviews with as many candidates as I can manage as part of the WikiVoices project, so am hoping that you might be interested in having a 15 / 20 minute chat at a moment of your convenience? - I'll be using Skype to make and record the conversation, and my ID is 'Privatemusings' - I can happily call you on a landline or cell / mobile, but perhaps you are also on Skype, and don't mind sharing your ID with me? - the slowish start to nominations might give me a bit of a head start this year, so if you're up for it, lets find a suitable time, and give it a go! - maybe the best next step is for you to indicate some times you might be able to be available, or ask any questions you might have? Hope you're good, and good luck! Privatemusings (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I Work really strange hours, PM.. so shoot me an email and we'll try to work out a time where I'm available and we can discuss things. SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, Fozz :-) - email sent. Privatemusings (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Content and ArbCom
Hi, SirFozzie. After seeing your answer to the first question I wrote here, particularly the part about how the only case you knew in which AC had tried to set up discussions was the Ireland naming dispute, I wanted to point you to Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which was also initiated by the Committee. Would it be possible for you to comment on the the possibility of AC using further solutions similar to this? It's information I'd need to be able to decide on my vote. (I know, more questions...) For my purposes, it's fine if you just write it here; you only need bother putting it at your question page if you think it's good for others to see it too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are as follows. It needs to be a controlled environment, and attempts to inflame the volatility of the situation need to be relentlessly stamped out. The second a content discussion becomes a conduct discussion.. the chances for a successful resolution drop greatly. It seems to have helped somewhat in the Macedonian situation, but with a lots of fits and starts, and it doesn't stop all the issues, but maybe it's not completely not worthwhile. I'd need to see evidence that the parties are willing and able to enter such a binding mediation before it happens, and make it clear that if they DO enter it, then the results WILL be binding.

Thanks for the additional question.. I will be copying this over! SirFozzie (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived Threads at RfE
Hello. A request for enforcement that you commented on was auto-archived by a bot here. Whats the procedure now? LP has clearly breached ArbCom remedies. Can this be theread be restored? G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reopened it, and asked Tznkai to look at it. SirFozzie (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see that now. I see that RfE may be leaning towards decline which is worrying considering LPs track record, number of times they broke the remedy and speed they have reverted to typical behaviour  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree, but to be honest, the amount of time that's passed makes it more punishment instead of preventative, which is what we try to avoid. However, you may wish to bring an ANI section urging a community indefblock or ban if he continues, as an adjunct to the AE report (as I suggested), next time such an action occurs. SirFozzie (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I'll bear that in mind. Thanks G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 10:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions
As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles amendment statement
"below would work" - should that be "below would not work" ?

Also, you haven't said much about whether you think that the proposed discretionary sanctions would be helpful. Also, should the discretionary sanctions replace the current sanctions, or be in addition to them? It seems you are saying the current 1RR sanctions shouldn't be removed. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I mean that the only way it could be considered a success is that the AE volume would drop dramatically.. as they all head back to ANI yet again. The new sanction would supersede the old ones, I would believe... and I do think that something, anything needs to be in place to keep the fires from burning.. whether that's continued enforcement of the current sanctions, Elonka's newly proposed ssanction, or a full fledged Troubles 2 case. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fozzie, with all due respect, don't you think you should recuse yourself from any further involvment in the area of "troubles related" articles? Your record is not good and you appear unable to apologise for even your most outrageous bad blocks. Ask yourself this: "Am I helping to improve the project by staying involved where I have a poor history and am seriously compromised?". As you say yourself, improving the project must be the primary aim of an Admin, most especially an Admin seeking to become a member of Arbcom. I understand that personal pride can sometimes make it difficult for any of us to reappraise our mistakes; in your case it appears to demonstrate a blind-spot that really we can't afford to have in an Arbcom member. Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarah, I have brought up every single action I have taken that even had the hint of controversy about them to ANI. Each and every time that I have brought up my actions, the community consensus has been that I have used my administrator abilities appropriately (again,, for example). The fact that YOU do not like them, or believe them to be part of some vast Anglophonic conspiracy devoted to keeping editors like you suppressed does not mean that they were not correct and/or needed. SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Fozzie, in the case of your block it was simply an example of appalling judgment if it wasn't a part of some "vast conspiracy" (as you trivialise my concerns regarding systematic bias (aka community consensus); another indication of your inability to grasp concepts essential to supporting WP:NPOV. I really think you are not suitable for Arbcom and wonder why you are motivated to seek such a position? I sense no inclination to learn from interaction; to learn from your mistakes. Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a serious question for you, Sarah, with regards to this. Is there any admin whose active involvement in this area you haven't considered to be "seriously compromised"? The reason I ask is because as far as I can tell, pretty much every administrative action in this area relating to an editor who is Irish or expressed a viewpoint that you share, has been noisily denounced by you. This leaves me drawing one of two conclusions: either no Irish editor has ever violated our policies and in every case the admin has shown poor judgment, or else your perspective on this issue is not a neutral one. Which would you suggest is most likely? Rockpock  e  t  23:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Each time I have made a mistake, Sarah, I have learned from it (except I keep saying Dunc sometimes when I mean Domer). Unfortunately, doesn't look like the same can be said for others... If you think that community consensus=systemic bias, it makes me wonder why you stay, because it sounds like a herculean job that even he would rather clean the Aegean Stables again then try to change that.. SirFozzie (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rock - you exclude the effects of systematic bias; there are a few Admins who appear neutral, but remember my main problem with Fozzie is that he made an atrocious decision and shows no signs of appreciating that fact. His rather defensive attempts at continued justification of the indefensible are the main reason for my concerns about his fitness for Arbcom. SirFoz; it is indeed an immense task, however I am not a shrinking violet and somebody has to try to defend WP:NPOV. Also remember, that 90% of my editing is in areas unrelated to the issues under discussion. Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Never said you were a one-issue editor Sarah, just that you have a strong viewpoint in the area in question and that leads to problems for you. And I think the community looking at the action, saying "Yes, this was a needed and necessary step" is a pretty good defense. Again, I understand that you disagree with my actions there, and that's your right. And no, I would never compare you to a shrinking violet. *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heck Fozzie, the area where you made that humongously bad block wasn't "troubles related" - not even by Enonka's ever expanding definition! Sarah777 (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Amendment wording
SirFozzie, hi, I was a bit confused by your most recent statement regarding the Discretionary Sanctions amendment, and wanted to touch base with you on this. I'm definitely open to re-wording the existing amendment. However, I was never regarding the amendment as something to replace the community sanctions, but instead to expand the case's sanctions. Do you see a conflict between the wording of my amendment, and the community sanctions? If so, we can definitely wordsmith a bit. --Elonka 00:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem that I see (and it's already happened) is that there are numerous different sanctions, and sometimes it is unclear as to which sanction is being applied, and the restrictions that it entails (remember the difference between 1RR/day article sanctions and 1RR/week editor sanction?). I want to streamline it. I want to make it clear to all what will be involved. However, dropping the 1RR cold turkey will be chaotic, and I want to avoid that as well. So seeing how discretionary sanctions will work over a month's time, then opening a discussion will be useful to see where we are at, and whether continuing the community sanctions, modifying them, or eliminating them would be best. SirFozzie (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. My feeling is that doing it piecemeal like that would likely end up with more confusion. As you've seen, trying to get community consensus on these matters is not an easy task!  So I'd rather that we got the wording right the first time, and then not tweak it unless it absolutely needs tweaking.  Is the 1RR/day issue the main one for you?  If so, we could simply add another clause to the existing amendment, such as "It is noted that the community has also authorized a 1RR/day restriction on all articles within the topic area.  This restriction can be enforced by any administrator without warning, and is not related to this case or new discretionary sanctions amendment."  Would that address your concerns? --Elonka 01:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's certainly an option. I'll take that under consideration (just so I'm sure that we're on the same page, the editor probation (ie, 1RR/week) sanction would be superseded by the discretionary sanctions (which of course, can be 1RR/week should the administrator choose), and the 1RR/day restriction on articles in the topic area stay? SirFozzie (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd figured that the 1RR/week probation would still be an option, and wouldn't need to be formally superseded. That way anyone currently under probation would remain under probation, until those expired naturally.  But yes, the 1RR/day restriction would stick around.  That's a community restriction, which should be kept separate from the discretionary sanctions.  The community restriction is actually much more strict, since it can be implemented at anytime, without any warning.  So I don't think it would be appropriate for the amendment to water it down. The amendment should focus strictly on authorizing new discretionary sanctions. --Elonka 01:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Poke
Take a look at what i've written on the OR case workshop, its a general approach at community and arbitration bans. Not done yet of course, but see if I've already fallen off the rails?--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Meanwhile, you may want to check out the amendment section on RfArb.. could use a sanity check on that as well (especially because you work on AE cases) SirFozzie (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Commented a couple times in general, I'm currently at the point where I'll take any change.--Tznkai (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement
Hi SirFozzie, I'm pleased to see your nomination.

I am listed as an election coordinator. Sorry to be a bore, but ... your statement comes in at 445 words when the display is pasted into Word. The limit is clearly stated as 400 words.

Would you mind trimming as a priority? Tony  (talk)  07:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I will trim slightly. SirFozzie (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; but it still comes in at 404 when I paste the display into Word. On a personal note, I appreciate that you've clearly been following the discussions about reform. But I'm not supposed to be too partisan as an election coordinator, damn it. PS Typo in (B) ".they". Tony   (talk)  07:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hi. You mentioned at the RfE for that perhaps something should be done at ANI. How would you go about setting this in motion? I really feel that there has been no sign of improvement and the remedies are failing to have any effect. Particularly, the creation of the article on Afri and resumption of edit warring as well as some of the other edits that are in breach of the first RfAR. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just open a new section over at ANI, requesting more eyes to see if we need to step outside the arbcom sanctions, and look at a community sanction of Lapsed Pacifist. List out the reasons you think it's useful/necessary (stay calm and succinct, but list as much as you feel that people need to know. If you need to, explain that I suggested that it was a good idea (use this diff), and I will TRY to keep an eye on the issue (I've come down with some kind of flu bug, so my time here on WP is really limited right now.. so no promises however) SirFozzie (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. That's done now. Best of luck with the flu.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, that fell off twice, I'm hesitant to restore it for a third time. Thoughts?  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 11:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Options
RE: I am looking for options here. There are some sensitive concerns about how Jack Merridew's behavior was dealt with. Is an open arbitration case an option?

I know that White Cat commented on Jim Wales page out of utter frustration about how editors were ignoring the case of Jack Merridew's multiple socks, which helped people finally take action. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_39 Maybe that is an option.

Ikip (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See Risker's comment for the place for the discussion.. if you have information that is sensitive and/or private, you can certainly contact the Arbitration Committee via email and get them the information? SirFozzie (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sensitive in this context does not mean private, my apologies for not being clear. It means repeated ignored pleas for help treated as they were with White Cat for five years before this. Ikip (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

RfArb question
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question at the arbcom elections page. It must be quite tiresome to answer all these questions. Perhaps there should be some oversight to reduce repetitive or pointless (or pointed) questions. (My questions, of course, are incisive and necessary... ;-) Regards - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, Boris.. Actually, some of the questions required a lot of thought and I couldn't resort to sound bite answers, which is exactly what an ArbCom member should be doing... And besides, I'm at that in-between state right now where I'm too sick to go out, but also too sick of sleeping off the bug. *laughs*, so.. what else am I supposed to do? I'm just glad I was able to catch up on all the questions before the US Holiday later this week, with the end of the questions period happening so shortly after, I'm hoping I can go into the Thanksgiving break witha clear conscience ;)  SirFozzie (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

More auto-archiving
Hello. This was auto-archived over at ANI. There doesn't seem to be much happening at RfE either. LP has continued to edit and looks like they've breached their topic ban again. Is there much likelihood that anything more will be done? G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd bring it back up at AE. Doesn't look like AN/ANI's going to handle it at this point. *sighs* SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfE was archived too. I've brought this up so many times that I'm kind of hesitant to bring something up yet again, especially with the poor history between myself and LP. It all just looks like a free reign to violate topic bans and is kind of disillusioning.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me ...
... or has the standard for anon trolls really gone down of late? - A l l i e  ❤ 08:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC) ...wait. They have standards? SirFozzie (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

inbound troll warning
a post on b might cause some problems but nothing that wikipedia can't handle. I am going to watch your talkpage for vandalism in the meantime :) andyzweb (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like it didn't come to much, but it's always good to have more talk page watchers prevent things from getting bad. SirFozzie (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but..

 * From Ikip

Ikip.. I know you have strong feelings towards Jack's continued participation on WP. But you're not doing yourself any good (at least in my opinion) with your behavior with the latest areas. Your actions are focusing the attention on YOU, not what you feel the behavior of JM is. It might be better to disengage here. I know you feel strongly, but it might be best if you stepped back from this area. SirFozzie (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * that is exactly what those editors who disagree with me want, to put the focus on me. I have tried my damnedest to keep it away from me, but I obviously failed. Are you referring to ANI? Yeah, well, when a topic ban is in the works for yourself, i think the worst thing you can do is walk away. Good advice though. sigh.Ikip (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When tempers are their worst, that is the worst possible time to be editing. I have personal experience with that, myself, and I'm going to pass on the advice that was given to me when I was in the same position. Stand up, walk away from the computer, spend at least 12 hours (it was suggested 48 hours to me when I was ultra-steamed, but each person is different) doing other stuff that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Wikipedia. It's time to decompress. I have archived both ANI sections, and I hope that they stay archived. I'll post this to your talk page as well, to make sure it's seen. SirFozzie (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Okay, I am walking away from the computer. I don't want to make any promises on how long which may later bite me in the ass (editors quoting my promise, and me breaking it). I would ask you too block me for two days, as many admins have (check my edit history)...this is okay to do, and it is up to you....
 * YOU ARE 100% CORRECT. I am not helping things at this point.
 * I would honestly settle for Jack Merridew simply stopping following A Nobody at this point, period. The Mr. Coleman and Dae issues are over now.
 * Ikip (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I don't see any reason to block you. Enjoy your break, however long it is :) SirFozzie (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Award

 * Thanks John. Much appreciated :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, I second that. And good luck on the election, you've got my vote. Rockpock  e  t  18:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks RP. I will admit, the curious side of me wants to know how I'm doing in the current ArbCom election, but so far, I've managed to lock it away with the cautionary tale of what it did to the cat.. *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jazz hands
Hey Fozzie, you're a friendly admin as I recall so here's a question. Do you think it would be fair to semi protect Jazz hands? I rewrote it when it was nominated for deletion, and only now I see that it's a pretty constant source of vandalism that apparently nobody but myself is watching. I'd rather not be keeping tabs on the article, but that will almost certainly mean it sits vandalized (which gives me a smidge of guilt since I made sure it was kept). Thanks for any help. Mackan79 (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Mackan. Looking at the level of edits, I don't quite think it qualifies for long term semi-protection. I will throw it on my watch list, however.. to try to lower the burden on ya :) SirFozzie (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I thought I'd seen some vandalism that had remained for some time, is all. Looking again, it may not be that bad.  Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

An account to keep an eye on
I'm notifying Cool Hand Luke and Lar also. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cla. I'll keep an eye out. SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Chris Henry
I agree. However the way it was worded, it basically repeated the same information. I believe WP states that the lead should be a brief summary of the article, so after people read the lead, it'll make them want to read more of the article. I believe it looks better now. -- Mike Allen talk ·  contribs 17:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Assuming the appointments turn out as expected, I look forward to working with you. Steve Smith (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats. Good to see you made it this time! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, after more than one try people were bound to punish your persistence with a seat. Welcome!  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the great and well deserved showing in the election! I look forward to seeing your work with the Committee this upcoming year. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone for your congratulations and commisserations :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't know you, Sir, but I noticed we shared a couple of stars when I was surveying the candidates ... You have a few more in the middle than I do, but our top and bottom ones are the same.:-) Congratulations ... Cheers. Fortitude! (Pondering work-load with that last word. Let it never weigh you down.) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Until you changed the bottom one. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations indeed, Foz :) More sanity comes to ArbCom. Good to see you on there .... - A l is o n  ❤ 18:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Allie, I don't believe anyone sane runs for ArbCom. But it's the right kind of insanity.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, SirFozzie. Please see MBisanz's advice here. Tony   (talk)  12:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony. I will have to get out (if I can, I still have a pretty big digging job to do) to a place with a copier tommorrow. SirFozzie (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck with the Giano 17 case. *snerk* 2 lines of K  303  12:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats!ArbCom will be all the better for having you G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 13:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremepuff222
Hi, Xeno and I are strongly considering unblocking once the bits are removed (he's posted at meta) and once Creme promises no more nonsense, which he has kinda already done but it wouldn't hurt to have him do it again. Could you weigh in at the user's talk page? Congratulations on the election, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Time for celebrating is over...

 * Hop to it, lad! :) - A l is o n  ❤ 06:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hop! Hop! Hop! SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Thanks Risker, and merry christmas, happy new year, happy hannuakah, and Wonderful Winter! (geez, I really must be filled with the holiday spirit, for me to put the words wonderful and winter together...) SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Rockall
I note your edit to the Rockall article. Your edit states that Rockall has "native name = Rockabarra". If this is true then you need to alter the Rockabarra article, which states "The name confusingly has also been used to refer to Rockall,". How can there be a "native name" without "natives"? ClemMcGann (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no value content on the article, I was just reverting a banned user who frequently sockpuppets in those articles SirFozzie (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.
Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Same to you and yours Dunc, thanks :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)