Hey Foz, - now that you've a nice clean page again, I have to come along and mess it up :) Would you like me to fix up your archives and use a custom archivebox and stuff, just to make it look pretty? Here's my one - Alison ^❤ 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twubblemaker :) Yeah, that would be great, much better then my kludgery! SirFozzie (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

' Déanta' - there! All done - delete/modify if you think it's awful - Alison ^❤ 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the next bit, I'd appreciate if any "troubles" stuff didn't land on my page. I'm going to try to refocus my energy here. SirFozzie (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I am sure you are sincere, and mean what you say. I am also sure your intent is to help Wikipedia. I hope you can accept that when I say something, I am also sincere and have the same intention. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI there is a dedicated page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests, shortcut WP:TER. Tyrenius (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware, so that you may respond, that I have posted a complaint about what I feel is your inappropriate closure of the SA discussion thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate discussion closure. Vassyana (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to check your facts before making broad, sweeping, accusations. But I am aware of your complaint. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My error was a combination of confusing you with another editor and seeing your name around on admin discussions when science/pseudoscience discussions were active. Please once again accept my sincere apologies for my hasty error of defective memory. Vassyana (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid further conflict, I'd like to ask an honest question. Where do you think I should post the second-hand complaint about ScienceApologist? Would it be more appropriate to add it to the RFAR, or to the Homeopathy probation subpages, or both? I'm leaning towards taking Jossi's advice and posting it to the probation subpages, particularly considering that the arbs seem disinclined to take the case (and at least one arb has openly expressed that the probation should be allowed to play out before the committee takes on the situation). I'd appreciate your feedback on this issue. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would take Jossi's advice and post it on the probation sub page, and it wouldn't hurt to post it to the RFARB as well, but definitely on Jossi's page. Hope this helps! SirFozzie (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I think I will post it to the probation subpage and simply put a short comment with a link to it in the RFAR. Does that seem like a good solution? Vassyana (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely works.. that way you have it where it needs to be, and you've made the ArbCom folks aware if it as well. SirFozzie (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC) (And, thank you for accepting my apology. Some days, the wikihistory smerges together in the memory. *shameful face*)[reply]

Eh, no harm no foul, it's friday, work stinks, so I probably was a bit more grumpier then I should have been myself. SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorchedbythesun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - check the various histories starting at the top. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said WP:AE[1] but I can't see anything. Did you mean WP:TER? Tyrenius (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're both wrong, I wanted to link to Thatcher's diff [2] on The Request for ArbCom talk page I blame fatigue :) SirFozzie (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Tyrenius (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to save you the trouble...[3] Tyrenius (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is on the WT:RfArb page, so that was a good link, Ty. SirFozzie (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiredness it seems. I got confused, because WT:RfArb came up as a red link. Shortcut is WT:RFARB. However, I've taken an alternative approach to the problem and created a shortcut for WT:RfArb also,[4] seeing as there is already one for WP:RfArb. Tyrenius (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to rehash the issues about SqueakBox's deletion. I am here, however, to raise an issue I have with this edit. I don't think it's accurate to say that I'd been ignoring what you'd said. I read what you'd said, and it didn't address what I saw as a misreading/misquoting of Newyorkbrad's comment. I was, in effect, asking "what time is it" and you were answering "Sunday." I understand that, as ArbCom has stated, part of their brief is "to consider certain cases where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing." I'm not seeing where privacy precludes a public hearing about the deletion, since the deletion can be discussed without referencing any of the personally-identifying information that SqueakBox is concerned about. Leaving that aside, you really had no cause to allege that I hadn't read what you'd written, you've asserted that ArbCom has privacy issues under its remit when the actual ArbCom policy is more narrowly written than that, and asserted that I was employing the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum when, by definition, I hadn't. You went on to accuse me of wikilawyering and semantic tricks, among other things. You've misstated what Brad said and you've misstated what ArbCom's policy is. Now, you've misstated what I've said and done. These misstatements gravely concern me; There appears to be a disconnect here that's preventing us from communicating effectively, and I invite you to email me so we can resolve this off-wiki, as others' involvement may be having the effect of stirring the pot, so to speak. --SSBohio 04:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in much of a mood to chat this evening (patriots fan).. but I'll try to email you sometime down the road. SirFozzie (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences, Sir. Still, a 18-1 season isn't such a bad thing, even though the 1 happens to be the Super Bowl. Coincidentally, Squeak and I had a rather funny exchange when my Buckeyes were playing for the BCS championship. I closed a message with Go Bucks! and he was curious why I was talking about Buckinghamshire. Two countries separated by a common language and all that. --SSBohio 13:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted what I hope was a somewhat more on-point response to your request on WP:AN. It does seem unusual to have such a high coincidence rate, but there is nothing really to measure it against. I'm no statistician, but generally statistical significance requires a variance from a norm - which in this case is hard to evaluate. Also, I'd like to see what happens now that the normal open proxies for one of the users is banned. It may be useful to redo the checkuser at some point in the near future - and continue, perhaps, to block open proxies until something falls out. ^Avruchtalk 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I concur with that bit about the checkusers. Speak to Lar, his response to the checkuser seems to indicate he was already investigating the possobility. Viridae^Talk 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem is this bit: "They have edited 45 of the same articles." I'm not sure how to assign relevance to this, either. If Man has 5k edits, then you can assume he's edited hundreds, thousands or multiple thousands of pages. 45 of those in common with someone else isn't such a high correlation. On the other hand, if Sami has edited 70 articles... Then it might either indicate a suspiciously high correlation or that Sami is a SPA. ^Avruchtalk 00:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not so much the edit count that matters, but the number of unique pages edited in the mainspace in a significant manner. Viridae^Talk 02:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that evidence is reasonably compelling. Two things to note - CU logs are only kept for so long (check with ali as to how long) so a stuffup MAY have been made, but is no longer on the logs. The poor mans checkuser (could you give me a link to this) indicated they had a very very close median edit time, but your evidence shows absoloutely no crossover, something which would be extremely unlikely. The evidence is getting compelling indeed, especially in the light of the previous sockpuppetting used in exactly the same manner. Viridae^Talk 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important not to jump the gun on these things. Dot all the i's, cross all the t's, and look for circumstances that might disprove the hypothesis. Durova^Charge! 07:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being wary of confirmation bias. Viridae^Talk 07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. That's what we're tying to do here. For the Poor Man's CU .. BetaCommand came up with this, he suggested he could make a static page if I needed it so that's good. SirFozzie (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is reasonably compelling evidence that I haven't been editing much for the past few months. I haven't been editing much because I have other things to do, but also because of Bagley-inspired trolling that you are continuing by proxy. Now, thanks to you and your fellow Wiki Review contributors, I assume that Samiharris has been scared off the project so your evidence will be re-confirmed. If you have some diffs, some evidence of abusive editing, produce them. Stop this WordBombish nonsense. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that SirFozzie honored you and Samiharris by making a public decision to leave that site in protest against the methods its members had employed against you. Your response affects the likelihood of other people following SirFozzie's lead. Durova^Charge! 21:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how his carrying on the WordBomb/Bagley crusade on-Wiki "honors" me one bit. I really don't have problem with people ranting and raving on Wiki Review, and I am not sure I care if they quit that site or not. I do care when their hate campaigns and tactics wander over here.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]