User talk:Fritzpoll

Re: MZM Arbitration

So, I'm largely unaware that ArbCom has even weighed in on the outing, or has posted its findings. If it has been handled elsewhere, could you point that out? I added the evidence which demonstrated an astounding lack of common sense and attention to our policies. If the evidence is removed, it cannot formally be used to assess the issues surrounding the user. Is the suggestion tht one need only out a user widely that they never need answer to that action in a public forum? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Due to the very privacy concerns that you raise, a great deal of this has been handled in private. Arbcom is aware of the allegations and will consider its relevance to the case as appropriate. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the privacy concerns and the secretive nature of ArbCom discussions, how would anyone know they are being considered? Sorry, it isn't meant as a slight to you, but instead a reaction to the idea that MzM might slip the responsibility for outing someone because of the privacy issue they themselves breached. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - but I'm giving you the reason now. This kind of discussion is naturally secretive, so you wouldn't necessarily be aware we are holding it. Suffice it to say, Arbcom are aware of the matter, but I am not keen on further possible infringements of the editor's privacy by getting them dragged into this case unnecessarily. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. Understand that I consider outing pretty much a beheading offense; for an admin (metaphorically speaking), whose given a larger level of trust, more stringent punitive action is called for. Carrying the metaphor furtherm I think that then cremating them into ash, burying the remains and salting the earth is my idea of commensurate with the infraction; the promise of anonymity is inherent in Wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not anyone with an account. The right to preserve one's privacy (and to respect that of others') follows. This is an outright attempt to force the wiki to accept his changes to policy, accompanied by a wide array of deflection and whiny justification. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• You haven't responded to my question at workshop, nor have you responded to my concerns outlined here. I'm notifying you in case you weren't told already elsewhere, or didn't notice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Been a while

Haven't bought you a drink in awhile. I was feeling a bit nostalgic, reading through your early archives. Glad to say I "knew you then", with simple problems like fledgling notability guidelines and silly bots. :-) Hope your staying balanced with wiki v. real life - don't let the b***ards drag you down! Be well, Sir Poll. :-)Keeper | 76 06:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks Keep. Yes, life on-wiki was a lot simpler back then - but the real-world has sufficient joys for me to keep the balance up. I wish you had an e-mail address to keep up with, but I shall simply say that, whilst it's lonely as an arb, it is strangely liberating as well. Hope to see you again soon Fritzpoll (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Viable solution to the biography of living person debate?

As one of the co-founders of WP:Incubator I was thinking you maybe interested in the proposal inspired by several editors, my question isn't whether you like it, (although that opinion is important) my question is:

In your opinion, will the community as a whole support it?

The name Projectification is someone else's idea.

As an alternative there is this proposal, which does not involve "projectification" at all: Notifying wikiprojects

Again, do you think that this is viable, will the community as a whole support either proposal, if not why, and what would you change? Your welcome to bodly change any of the proposal as it stands.

I am messaging co-founder User:ThaddeusB. And also the two other editors who are the most involved in creating WP:Incubator: Fences and windows and GTBacchus for their opinion on whether these two options are viable.

Please note at a time that you and co-founder ThaddeusB were editing less, I proposed then created a subpage of the incubator project to incubate the articles in wikiproject Australia. There was disagreement about this, so this ceased, 70 articles remain on this sub-page. I would be happy to explain this to you, at your leisure....

Thanks in advance for your opinion! you are welcome to email me too.

Please comment on that user page if possible... Ikip 03:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to acknowledge that I have seen this, but need to digest the contents more thoroughly before commenting or deciding if it is appropriate to comment! Fritzpoll (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your comment above, and rollback permission, albeit I will never probably use it, but it was nice to be recognized (twice even!) :) no work today! even for adults me, we get a snow day! yeah Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 12:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Surprise

		The BLP Barnstar
		For closing a certain MfD, which shall remain unnamed here, in accordance with the policies and purpose of Wikipedia. Pcap ping 23:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

PLAXICO

Just curious how WP:PLAXICO qualified under G8? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A redirect to WP:Plaxico, deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico (2nd nomination). –xeno^talk 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't even know that was a redirect, silly me. Thanks for clearing that up! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a quick "what links here" and deleted them - come to think of it, I could swear there used to be an R# CSD criterion for them. Were they all absorbed into G8 or am I going slightly mad? Fritzpoll (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)