User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Blocked User:Mattisse for "alternate accounts" and attacking another user

I agree that "alternate accounts" can be as difficult technically and ethically as "grey" investigations such as organised crime and terrorism as in real life. However, the indef block against Mattisse seems to conceal too much, and thus make the accusation(s) look like policy-state methods:

  • Investigations of "alternate accounts" are difficult, but I'll leave that.
  • WP's policy in "alternate accounts" in general seems rather lax. However, at present I see no general objection against operation of "alternate accounts" by User:Mattisse, and I see no restriction in the terms of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Clarification_motions.
  • The complaint is that an unidentified attacking another user. In conduct issues, the complaint should show evidence of the conduct in question and why that violate one or more conduct policies. Where is that evidence shown?
  • The block against User:Mattisse is only justified if the complain about conduct was shown to be linked to User:Mattisse. Where is that evidence shown? --Philcha (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not an alternate account. This is a situation where the account was used to attack another user, who they have a long history with. I will tag the account appropriately. SirFozzie (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Tagged the main account. The others were blocked previously. SirFozzie (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If it's CharlesRodriguez, I've just checked Charles+Rodriguez' contribs and I'm not where or against there was an attack. --Philcha (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It was created to harass another editor, basically to try to get another user who they've warred with under the Mattise account in an edit war. SirFozzie (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
SirFozzie, AFAIK complaints about conduct are required to be backed up by diffs or history snapshots, but so far I have not seen any in evidence of this complaint. In fact even in cases of WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO that I've seen relative recently the diffs are identified, although their content by oversight. Since the alleged complaint(s) against Mattise's alternate account(s) is/are described as an "attack" but apparently without the legal risks of WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO, I find it hard to see how the complaint(s) should be prosecuted without evidence. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If you don't know the history, Mattisse had a long running conflict with SandyGeorgia. And the new account went after SandyGeorgia in the area of Venezuela edits. SirFozzie (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Philcha and my self are both mattisse's mentors per arbitration see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts.

The fact its a sock look pretty unquestionable. Whether the motivation was to specifically harrasses is in question. It looks to that Mattisse wanted to discuss possible bias on Talk:The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary). However there are plenty of breaches of User:Mattisse/Plan. --Salix (talk): 11:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Background: This happened before with User:Rosencomet; Mattisse went after him in the same way she went after SG. When confronted with the evidence of a CU in that case, she said that her family was using the computer (or some such excuse). Looking at the most recent contributions, the CharlesRodriguez account was instantly recognizable as Mattisse, as she did very little (if anything) to hide herself, other than using smilies in all the wrong places. I can't possibly imagine what she hoped to achieve with this. My only guess is that she got what she wanted. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I known since in Jul 2009 that Mattisse had a long running conflict with SandyGeorgia, and I've seen more recently instances. IMO the question is whether the behaviour you allege is misconduct. IMO "And the new account went after SandyGeorgia in the area of Venezuela edits" is vague, as Category:Venezuela is fairly and there's no certain that the relevant article(s) are categorised. Is there any reason not to identify the behaviour you allege is misconduct, so that others can it examine? --Philcha (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If, as her mentor, you can't be bothered to investigate for yourself you might find Slp1's post helpful to bring you up to speed. Shell babelfish 17:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
User maintained three socks to edit recently on Venezuela, at least two of which accused SG of ownership by name. Centralize this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts#Discussion post indef block of Mattisse. Cool Hand Luke 17:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
How matters is what SirFozzie says the block is about, not what others suppose SirFozzie's reasons are. --Philcha (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand. I blocked these socks, and SirFozzie based his block on the socks that were caught. We are both arbitrators, and ArbCom discussed the matter. These illegitimate socks are exactly what the block is about. Cool Hand Luke 20:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As another of Mattisse's mentors, I investigated the block in precious little time before going to work this morning. I found the 3 socks within 20 minutes, and immediately saw their disruptive intent, recognizing the hand of Mattisse. I fully support the block and the way it was handled to minimize drama; inevitably there will be some anyway, but that is not the fault of the arbitrators and check-users involved. I will comment further on the monitoring page in due course. Geometry guy 20:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending problem: technically, the Monitoring page was set up only for Mattisse and advisors-- not a good place for central discussion, unless we're IARing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This was one of the reasons I posted there, because I think mentors also need space to discuss this. However, if you wikilawyer, then the prohibition perhaps only strictly applies to the monitoring page, not monitoring talk: read the notice at the top of the monitoring talk page. In particular, the diff you added there was helpful. I agree, though, that if editors wish to discuss this more generally, another forum needs to be found, but in my view this has gone beyond the mentoring set-up. Geometry guy 21:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe everyone else can post to the Alerts page, so you all can have the space of the Monitoring page? But I suspect there's not much else to monitor ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not an ideal place, but I've set up a section there anyway. Geometry guy 22:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh jeez. I remember that. I'm going to move all the comments to alerts. Cool Hand Luke 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church case

Catholic Church

I have completely rephrased my comment on the Catholic Church case, making the analogy to WP:ARBMAC2 explicit, and suggesting a measure which should reduce the drama to the usual dull roar. I would appreciate your comments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Sir Fozzie, I call your attention to a problem. Someone has been indefinitely blocked for following instructions.

User:Erwin is master of the Erwin85Bot.

The bot left a message to the creator of an article that the article was nominated for AFD and requested him to comment. He was blocked for following these instructions. It is true that the user is controversial, but he was doing what was asked of him.

Specifically, the message reads

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Watson.


A user following instructions should not be blocked. At most, the user should be warned and told to ignore the instructions.

Newyorkbrad [2] and Luna Santin [3] are concerned about this block. Please look into it.

If you ask for advice at a government tax office, if they give you the wrong advice, you can usually get the penalty reversed. See

The IRS will waive penalties when allowed by law if you can show you acted reasonably and in good faith or relied on the incorrect advice of an IRS employee


Ipromise (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurt has been unblocked. I will not comment on what I think of the block, as I have a significant history with Kurt, and would probably be forced to recuse under any such case, anyway.. so best to say nothing. Thanks for the comment, however. SirFozzie (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I am no supporter of Kurt. However, the reason for blocking was very flimsy. If someone said that the reason for block was just an excuse, it would make sense. Forgetting about Kurt, can we come to an agreement that if an editor is given instructions and acts in good faith to follow those instructions, that editor should not be blocked? I do not have a specific instance in mind but I want to know if anyone thinks that makes sense. If it does, I might make a little box, sort of like a user box for future use. Ipromise (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure I agree with that, mind you. If you'll forgive the hypothetical example, let's say person X is barred from entering a certain school's grounds. He gets a flyer saying "come see a play at school X". If he shows up, and gets arrested for that, he can't claim that the generic flyer overwrote the specific sanction against him. That's just my thought. SirFozzie (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
My idea is more designed for the situation like an admin saying "just report it to ANI" and upon reporting it, the person is blocked with the excuse "forum shopping". Ipromise (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Highly charged partisan"

I noticed this phrase, but the only true partisans work for the party, comrade.

In all seriousness, making generalizations about other editors in order to discount their opinions probably isn't a good thing to do, especially in an arbitration decision. Clearly I am in support of Trusilver, and supported Brews as well via WP:AGF as I thought it was just a misunderstanding, and I don't consider myself a "highly charged partisan".

But this case notwithstanding, Brews went and edited in WP space again and got blocked (predictably) after this case had clarified that WP space was forbidden. Forehead slap moment. Sheesh. Awickert (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  • chuckles*. No, I wasn't referring to you in that statement, but I had people try to tell me that there was community connsensus to unblock.. it was right there on Brews's talk page! I'd hate to think of all the blocks or actions that could be undone because the "usual people" showed up and protested it.. it'd be anarchy, like!. And considering some of the lengths that were gone to in this issue (going to Jimbo's page and saying "ArbCom's corrupt and we're in a Wiki-constitutional crisis! If Jimbo doesn't undo the block/chastise ArbCom/untopic ban Brews ohare (pick one or more) we're all doomed!", for example).. I do feel comfortable in leaving that phrase in. SirFozzie (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, as long as you're fine with it, I'll wash my hands. I'm just afraid that the dramahz will be never-ending and that this will continue it.... such a shame, because Brews was a very helpful co-editor of articles. Incidentally, there is a reason why on the arb page, I used the link to the original discussion of Brews' editing of WP space instead of the talk page stuff. I'm frustrated about the rampage on Jimbo's page, which IMO is no way to get away from angst on the drama boards and back to collaboration in article space. I think that both sides need to chill and unplug their internet for a week and realize that yes, it is a human being on the other end who is probably not a bad person. But I pontificate. Awickert (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proposing this motion. I hope that it will help prevent future out-of-process interference with ArbCom enforcement. Trusilver strikes me as an otherwise sensible person and I assume that he will be able to regain adminship at some point. What the motion will almost certainly not do is deter the people you refer to from continuing to post walls of text to any and all fora imaginable, but such is life.  Sandstein  21:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

<Begin Wall of Text> SirFozzie, David Tombe can come accross like that, but I have to say that he is correct about Brews. Of course, his choice of words and statements about ArbCom are problematic. But then David is certanly not the only person defending Brews now. Also note that except David, the current editors who support Brews do acknowledge that Brews was to some extent at fault before the original SoL ArbCom case, also about the technical issue he was arguing in favor of. So, in agreement with Awickert, I say that we are certainly not partizan supporters.

About the motion, I think that there is no community support for desysopping Trusilver. There seems to be support for a warning to desysop him if he were to act in the same way again (my own view is that he did the right thing and should therefore not be warned or punished at all, but unfortunately my own opinion is not the view of the community in this case).

Sandstein is wrong about preventing "future out-of-process interference with ArbCom enforcement". On the ArbCom page I explain how this "out-of-process" unblocking was itself prompted by ArbCom being too harsh when dealing with Brews. If you impose sanctions that are very far removed from dealing with the original case, then that causes an escalation involving more sanctions that are even farther removed frim the original case and at some point some univolved Admnin will think: "this is crazy". </End Wall of Text> Count Iblis (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Count.. thanks for your comment. I think an aggravating factor here is that Trusilver was given multiple chances to nip this in the bud and avoid all this extra drama, and he steadfastly refused to do so every time. In fact, one of his later comments stated that he wished that he had done it sooner. That, I think, is at least an aggravating factor here.
Again, as Coren and I have said (multiple times) the way to deal with sanctions you disagree with is NOT to violate them and then defend yourself with "Well, the sanction's out of whack, so it shouldn't apply!" which seems to be the thought amongst some in this situation.. I note that Brews was given a chance to step forward during the initial block say "I understand the terms in which I was sanctioned, and I will be requesting to have them modified or removed, but I will abide by them", and it would be likely that there would have been a consensus to unblock at the time. He instead chose to sit out the block (Gwen Gale's statement at the Arb request).
If, after all this is done and dusted, Brews would like to request that the sanctions be modified or dropped, he can certainly do so. Speaking for myself, I'd like to see some time and space between this and the request before I'd view it favorably (the fact that he went and violated it AGAIN recently is not encouraging to me), but that's his option.
Hope you under stand where I'm coming from in this situation. SirFozzie (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Account creation evasion

Mattisse appears to have edited from an account, Talking image (talk · contribs), created subsequent to your 1 March block for abuse of multiple accounts, suggesting she has access to another IP address for account creation purposes. I (and no doubt many others) would be grateful if you would follow this up. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll pass this on to the checkusers, and do some digging myself. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar statements

SirFozzie, in my statement on he Gibraltar page I understood this to be a statement of why the case should be seen rather than an opprtunity to provide in depth evidence and that if seen I will be able to go into more detail with diffs. Is that correct? Thanks The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct. We're at the stage right now that determines whether we will open a formal case. You don't need to go overkill now, just show us there's a problem that rises to the level of requiring ArbCom intervention. Then, when the case is formally opened, there are pages for submitting evidence, writing up suggested decisions for the ArbCom to look at (the workshop), and a Proposed decision page, which is a page for the ARbitration Committee to write up and vote on the decision on how to handle the case. SirFozzie (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ArbCom Enforcement Motion

Hi, thanks for proposing this motion, which should help clear up what ambiguity remains. Two points for your consideration, though:

  • "If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the Proper page": Nobody but the parties? The parties to the discussion or to the original case? And, do you really want to do this? As most recipients of arbitral sanctions tend to be people with some sort of clue deficiency, almost every such discussion where the sanction is not overturned is likely to be be appealed to the Committee in this manner, providing the parties with an additional forum for detailing the evils of Arbcom, admins and their ethnic enemies at great length. It might be better to provide that the discussion shall be closed by an uninvolved administrator, and that whoever disagrees with this closure may appeal it to the Committee by e-mail.
  • "Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities": No objection in substance, but making this the subject of a formal motion may run counter to your intent of getting more administrators to help out with AE. There is a high likelihood that this motion may be used by whoever disagrees with an AE action (generally at least one editor) to raise an additional ruckus on various fora. (And who is it, exactly, who may do the asking or the restricting? The Committee and/or the community?) This may discourage admins, including myself, from continuing to do AE work. If the problems described in your proposal do occur, ArbCom may take such action sua sponte without first having to pass this motion. Finally, I am not sure whether there have any actual problems so far that would warrant this motion. (If it is my AE actions that have led you to propose this motion, please say so, and I'll be happy to stop doing AE. There's after all much more interesting and less stressful stuff to do.)  Sandstein  17:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. Let me respond to your points in the order you bring them in:

A) It is the general feeling of the Arbitration Committee, or at least several of its members, that we need to make sure that we need to make sure that we need to give every chance for uninvolved users to chime in on actions that have such a high barrier to being reversed. I do understand that any action taken in these areas is.. highly likely, let's say, to highly engage at least one side of any dispute taken to AE. That is why I'm insisting on having a consensus of previously uninvolved users to review actions taken. The ability to take it to the Arbitration Committee is a necessary pressure valve, if a decision is highly debated, and consensus on the action is unclear or hard to judge, then we need to be involved on it, rather than having it create fissures and ill-will in the editing committee.

You are correct that parties means the parties in the discussion. I would think that anyone who doesn't like an action, finds consensus at AN/ANI supports the action, and instead tries a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and brings a clarification request as a third bite at the apple, so to speak, will quickly be WP:TROUTed and sent onwards.

B) There are at least a few people on the Committee who found the second block of Brews ohare, while the arbcase was going on problematic, at varying levels. It could be argued quite easily that you were involved already with not just Trusilver in the Arbitration case, but Brews ohare as well (after all, it was your initial block that was being discussed in that case).

And you're right, very few administrators have stepped forward and done this needed activity. that is the reason I put that personal request in my support vote. But I also get the sense from the Committee and the community that those few administrators who do step forward to do this action not only risk burnout, but as they get involved in trying to fight fires, get so frustrated at seeing the same parties over and over again, that they find their judgment in those areas slipping, without realizing it. ArbCom enforcement remedies can be.. very flexible when need be, as we both know. The Arbitration Committee cannot reasonably foresee how various sanctions, remedies, and alternative sanctions can interact. That is why in general we give administrators a large amount of leeway when working in this area... a couple members of the Committee in discussing this case wanted it clear that working in AE is not a "blank check", so to speak, to make sure that the whole situation is known by all sides.

Speaking for myself only, I don't see any problems with your AE actions (other than that of the possibility you were a bit too close to the action on the second block, as I discuss above) I hope you don't mind my excessive verbiage. But thank you for your comments!

SirFozzie (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, which I appreciate. To address one point only: my understanding of current policy (WP:UNINVOLVED) and practice is that administrative interactions with another user do not constitute the sort of involvement that requires recusal from further administrative actions. As the policy says, "this is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." Since my only interactions with Brews ohare up to the second block were administrative in nature (blocking him in reply to somebody else's AE request) and since the ongoing arbitration case is (in my and, it seems, in the arbitrators' opinion) about Trusilver's unblock, not about my actions with respect to Brews ohare, I felt no need to recuse myself from further administrative action with respect to Brews ohare. If I am mistaken in this respect, I'd appreciate ArbCom clarification.  Sandstein  07:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Aww Siw Fozzie

SiwFozzie is getting mad! What is SiwFozzie gowing to do? bwock me?

I tested the system, I kicked the wheels, it doesn't work, and I am certain that it can't be fixed. I didn't get frustrated at any point, I just left, and my only hope is that everyone else who provides content will leave as well. I think that must be happening already, because the growth of the encyclopedia has stalled.

I wrote a lot of the decent physics pages here. If you ever want the content that people like me provide, you can unblock all the innocent people youve blocked starting with User:ChildofMidnight, then you can desysop yourself and all of ArbCom. I'm not holding my breath.

Just so that you are clear, this is a personal attack.Likebox (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Either you can't figure out how ridiculous you sound, or you do and you do not care. Sad either way. SirFozzie (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Like I argued here, if I do something bad, I should at most be digging a hole for myself, not for others. Arbitrators are there precisely to prevent collateral damage and make the right decisions. Count Iblis (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Count: I'd say that there are times when the reasonableness of any one particular speaker is lost within the greater torrent of unreasonableness. SirFozzie (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The funny part is that SirFozzie was (is?) more disillusioned with Wikipedia than you (Lifebox) could ever be. Well, maybe not "funny," but I'm amused. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Darn tootin' I sound unreasonable! If I ever sound reasonable, I've gone senile. A reasonable sounding person is either insincere or an idiot. People with something substantive to say sound funny and alienating, because they are telling you something you don't already know. The human brain by default rejects any genuinely different ideas.
The word "disillusioned" implies that Wikipedia stayed the same and that only perceptions have changed. But I believe that Wikipedia itself has changed. The editors the current process selects for are deletion minded, rules-oriented political clods who can't write content. The admins that the current process selects for are little Eichmanns.
If Sir Fozzie were really disillusioned, he could show it by supporting a general amnesty for all banned users. Unbanning ChildofMidnight, who was banned for stupid reasons, would be a first step. If he were actually disillusioned, he wouldn't use blockheaded rules against principled adminsitrators, and instead encourage more free-thinking. But he's an Arb, what can you expect from someone like that?
My opinions are always very unpopular--- hardly anybody has ever agreed with me on anything, even on technical matters, both in life and on Wiki. For technical things, one can verify exactly when you are right and everyone else is wrong. It happens often. So I know that when one person disagrees with the whole world, the whole world is often stupid. Most good editors in the past shared this individualist attitude. But now there are editors who demand that each editor submit to the community will, or get banned. That's not Wikipedia, it's the Soviet Union.Likebox (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Forever o/ --MZMcBride (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no..

Yes I blocked myself by mistake. No I didn't evade bans or blocks. And yes.. I'm an idiot. *laughs* SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And you didn't even unblock yourself, that should keep the riff raff quiet shouldn't it? 2 lines of K303 14:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on moving forward

I fully agree with letting many people look at the Brews case and not to only have the opinion of me and the other regulars. However, to not allow a concluding vote or comment in your section would not be ok i.m.o.. So, I did give a small comment there, but I limited my comment to a few sentences to make sure the section stays easily readable to uninvolved editors. Count Iblis (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Honor et Gloria

Hi Fozzie. Elonka's accusations against me demonstrably come to nothing, as you can see in my response [1]. I would then really like to know what you actually consider worthy of a renewed ban. My contributions to Wikipedia are top-notch accross the board, and I believe my contributions to Mongol-related articles have been truely examplary in the 2 weeks or so I was able to contribute again, before Elonka again went into a drive against me. I would like to understand... Best regards Per Honor et Gloria  20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrisy is wonderful!

I like to see that you ask for [commentary], object to my own and allow everyone else on Arbcom have free reign. How does this solve a problem except let you roll over on Brews? How does this solve a problem that is getting bigger and bigger? Trying to silence the opposition and then letting everyone that agrees with you comment was a lovely idea.....If you want to drag this on forever. Pull up your big boy pants and come talk to the rest of us, search for a solution that for once assumes good faith which is in very small quantity. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked for the partisans on both sides to not respond as I wanted to get the pulse of uninvolved community. That might have slipped your notice in your rush to assign ill will. As for putting on my "big boy" pants and assuming good faith.. I would suggest that it would behoove you and your fellow partisans to lead the way in that, considering the amount of bad faith and quite frankly, counterproductive behavior that you, Likebox (above) and others have engaged in. SirFozzie (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Headbomb being nuetral? Yourself as being nuetral? What about the rest of the Arbcom community? We've proposed several ways to get around this pickle, including small steps to degrading the current sanctions. The things we are met with is the exact thing you proposed today, Brews do nothing, do not protest and do not allow others to protest for you, otherwise we will censure you. It's hard to assume good faith when someone is constantly looking to indef ban you from wiki. So far no one from your side has offered any ideas other then deal with it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You are using hyperbole here, and poorly at that. No one wishes to indef ban any of your group from Wikipedia (at worst, a restriction barring the usual actors on either side from commenting on each other or the situation). I've offered solutions, to try to move forward. I could have easily let the thread die (as I said.. there was no consensus for either widening or loosening the current restrictions on Brews ohare), which would have been status quo for the foreseeable future. Instead I offered a way forward, and we'll see where it goes from there. SirFozzie (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the comments? How many times has Headbomb said it would be easier to site ban Brews? What happened the first time someone stepped out of line of policy to do the right thing. You make this look easy and clear cut then allow the nitpicking to begin again at enforcement hearings. In my own opinion the whole wait and see thing is a catch you breath moment hoping that we all just go away. The sad fact there is no consensus for increasing sanctions, nor is the a clear cut consensus to completely remove. Why not a step down starting now? No one is suggesting Brews can go and do what he wants, merely a probation. Let him be free of the harrassment of people like Finell, Headbomb and the like. Let someone actually work with Brews for a amicable solution, my only interest in this is that if it can happen to Brews it can happen to me... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
DO you know how to get a consensus? Make sure the people who disagree with you never make it to the argument. Your motion won't cause peace or silence merely more noise. Hope you're prepared. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


Per the "already clear" comment I did not add to the thread on AN but actually part of the problem is that the scope of the restriction (or at least the validity of part of the scope) is unclear. Brews is right about that and the noise caused by his fanclub, coupled with his natural verbosity, has made it virtually impossible to get that rather simple point across.

So this is not, for me, a "ban Brews" / "unban Brews" debate but "this restricted user appears to be confused about the restrictions, please ensure we are unambiguous ad he is aware of precisely where the line lies". An all-round "STFU" restriction on discussing it for at least a month to see if he can work with it would also be great.

I would like to be sure that we do, as a community or via ArbCom, take a careful look and nail down exactly what is and is not allowed, and if possible get someone to do a bit of mentoring, because otherwise I'm very much afraid that all we'll get is moar dramah from the usual suspects, perhaps followed by a flameout of one or more of the parties involved, which would be some kind of loss (though admittedly the servers would probably heave a sigh of relief right now). As for me, I'd had enough of it before it started and so had lots of others, which was what I was trying - unsuccessfully obviously - to get across to them. I'm not about to beat my head against that particular brick wall any more but neither do I want to forget about the valid base issue of clarifying what the enforceable scope of restrictions actually is. I don't think that's an unreasonable request and I think that's what you're aiming for so I'll go away now. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Three-month /17 rangeblock

Perhaps I can extrapolate an answer to this question from your "Plays loose with the banhammer" userbox, but do you really feel it's appropriate to issue a three-month rangeblock of an entire ISP (Smart Telecom), simply to deal with (apparently) one problem user? Because as a user of said ISP collaterally affected by it, I certainly don't feel it is. When Alison made a somewhat shorter block of the same range, I brought it up on the forum of the ISP in question, and one of their support team asked to be given details of the user in question, with a view to taking some sort of action against them. So far as I know, this offer was never taken up. Wouldn't that be a better, and much more proportionate, way of dealing with the problem? Or alternatively, developing a more coherent and systematic approach to limiting anon editing in general, rather than this sort of piecemeal measure. Smartiger (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I checked with a checkuser before the first block of this. There was no collateral damage in that area at that time, and the fact that the user in question is constantly IP hopping, so playing whack-a-mole as he moves from IP to IP is more pain then its worth. Unfortunately, the previous blocks of up to a month's duration have proved to not fix the situation, as the user in question continues to affect these articles. So, rather then deal with it piece meal, a long term solution will at least limit the damage that can be done. I will send Alison an email to see what we can don to alleviate your situation (whether that is adding you to the IP Block exempt list, or other actions.) SirFozzie (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there a template for "please reply on my talk page", incidentally? I can only find the "do exactly the opposite" ones (which seems odd, as many users such as yourself seem plenty keen on doing that anyway, despite it being the one not really supported by the actual software).
I had a look a while ago at edits in that range, and there clearly were other users being affected (other than the editor in question, and myself). If necessary I can use this account instead of (as I'd prefer) IP-editing, and my IP is going to change periodically too, so it's not clear what else can be done in my case, if you're going to insist on blocking the whole ISP.
IMO yours is a piecemeal approach: just an extremely large "piece". The Glorious Founder seems to have made certain edicts that preclude addressing anon-editing in general, but the cost of that seems to occur if you just happen to share a dynamic IP range with a persistent problem editor -- in which case you'll end worse off than if there were some more general anon restrictions. (i.e. you then have to go through a poorly documented and counter-intuitive procedure for getting an account in such circumstances, which seems doubly likely to screen out legitimate, casual users.)
You didn't respond to my point about working with the ISP. Is or is not that an option you're willing to consider? Smartiger (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It's kinda tricky. We can't just hook up with the ISP and divulge IP-related information and stuff that appears under the WMF privacy policy without strict criteria and good reasons. We've had worse sockpuppeteers in the past that didn't get that treatment. In your own case, there's good grounds to grant IP Block Exemption which would allow you to edit anywhere, through hardblocks, etc, but not as an anon, unfortunately. We're in the unenviable position of trying to balance your inconvenience and that of others in that netblock versus the inconvenience and disruption to others and to the project meted out by the sockpuppeteer in question - Alison 09:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I had to ask Alison on this. I know we HAD an abuse desk which tries to handle such things, but they were going through a 2009 revamp that seems to have petered out with not much happening (see WP:ABUSE). Unfortunately, as Alison says above, our hands are substantially tied when dealing with such things. SirFozzie (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've filed a report on this; hopefully things haven't petered out quite that badly (or have unpetered subsequently). One lives in hope, at any rate. See also discussion here. Feel free to add or tweak the heck out of it if I've messed up the format, or omitted key information. Smartiger (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


Peace Barnstar 6.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For this, which just might end the nonsense, and stop editors from treating Wikipedia as a battleground. (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please change indefinite to "until after Brew's topic ban expires"

That for the detailed reasons given by me here. It boils down to the fact that when Brews is back editing physics articles, there will undoubtedly be interactions between Brews, me and Likebox which will very likely not resemble anything similar to "advocacy". Count Iblis (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

At this time, I don't see a reason to change it. If need be, we can modify it at that time if necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but note that I can also run into Brews right now on a math page. In fact, I have been discussing with Brews via email about starting wiki pages on hyperasymptotics. Precisely because the ArbCom saga is over, I can now stop "advocating" on Brews' behalf against the topic ban and start the articles. I'm not sure Brews will indeed join me, but I think the restriction should not make that impossible. Letting the restriction apply to AN, AN/I and AE level discussions seems to be enough. Any problems caused by Brews will be discussed there anywhere. So, if we were to advocate for Brews, we would have to go there too. Count Iblis (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, now that I've had a chance to think about.. I don't think it would apply to you working with him (the wording is that you cannot advocate for him, or comment ON him as an editor).. you can certainly discuss sources and or hammer out proper wording with him without doing either. If it's stuff like that, and any one gives you static, send em to me :) SirFozzie (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SirFozzie: Your distinction is not as clear as need be. Here is an example. Brews says A. Headbomb says B. Iblis says A is correct and B is incorrect. Headbomb says Iblis is "commenting upon or advocating for" Brews. Bang - AN/I hearing that lasts at least two weeks: Is advocating Brews' position A advocating for Brews under the terms of the sanction or not??? See these diffs and those diffs. Who knows? Gets everybody upset. Brews ohare (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What wording would avoid this brouhaha? You say you wish to restrict comment upon or advocacy of Brews as an editor. So if I say "Gray is related to black", it is a violation to say "Brews is correct" , but it's OK to say "Brews' claim is correct". I don't think such trivial changes in wording should decide whether a violation has occurred. This particular example might be gotten around somehow, but there are more, and you can well imagine a slew of diffs where narrow misses occurred and are litigated. I don't know how to fix this to avoid Wikilawyering AN/I hearings. Brews ohare (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like this: “Comment upon Brews_ohare's role or his technical position in AN/I actions related to the Case:Speed of light are prohibited.” The problem may be the attempt to state things broadly when a more restricted approach would be clearer? Brews ohare (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not going to poke holes in it for you to continue to Wikilawyer in this area. SirFozzie (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie: Yours is an unkind response to a genuine effort to avoid unending AN/I actions. I am taken aback by your reception of simple examples and alternative wording. It is not opening things up to my wikilawyering that is a concern here, as should be completely obvious to you. Nothing I have suggested can be remotely interpreted in that fashion. Brews ohare (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


I bolded your vote here because it seems either that, or Steve's vote was being missed during counting. If you mind, please revert of course. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Facts about Stephania Florido

Hey. I noticed that you deleted Facts about Stephania Florido and notified the user about personal information on Wikipedia. What I didn't notice was a deletion log entry, which is unusual. Did you request oversight or something? I've never seen a deletion without a log entry before. LedgendGamer 04:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all the revisions required oversighting due to the self identification. SirFozzie (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian Arbitration

Thank you for all the hard work you and the rest of the Arbitration Committee put into the case. Your intervention into what has been a three-year problem is much appreciated! Nightscream (talk)


I've asked Newyorkbrad a question here regarding a comment he made on the Gibraltar case proposed decision page. You agreed with his assessment, so your input would also be very welcome :) Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 09:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Logged-out edits

One member of the arbitration committee accidentally made three logged-out edits to arbitration cases/requests yesterday [2]. Based on [3] I think (but am not certain) it is you. For the clarity and transparency, etc I think it would be seen as a good thing for you or your colleague to claim proper attribution for the statements. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All set. Thanks for the heads up. SirFozzie (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


SirFozzie -- I have posted something new at Response to SirFozzie:

I wonder what distinguishes the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread from "extending a finish line"? If this is not "extending a finish line", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

SirFozzie -- Now what? Cui bono?
How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do?

I look forward to your further comments; and I continue to hope for action. --Tenmei (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed. I think I'm going to stand where I am on this, but we will see how others think. SirFozzie (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I grasp the surface meaning of your words; but I also understand that there is more between the lines. --Tenmei (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The motion has been posted. That was what I was waiting for.

Extended time

Hey thanks Fozzie, that's appreciated. I'm going to be pretty flat-out for the next fortnight meeting that deadline (though I've given myself space). I'd appreciate feedback as I start building up evidence and responses, by the way. Criticisms and requests are fine, of course. I'll try to keep things as matter-of-fact as possible. This whole exercise ought to be defusing things, though it doesn't seem to be easily conducive to that. We'll see. I find it rather a pity to be meeting people in circumstances that force me to take an opposing view point, but it's life isn't it, especially at Wiki. Thanks again, cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Case Comments

I just wanted to bring to your attention a few things on the Gibraltar case.

1. When I was having problems I said some regrettable things, which I have apologised for, if you still feel a topic ban is appropriate then I'm not going to argue about it. I just make the point that bans and blocks are supposedly preventative not punitive. I made those remarks whilst in a bad place, they haven't been repeated and they're out of character. Now that I am a lot better is it still appropriate?

2. The assertion that the self-governing status of Gibraltar is an "opinion" not a fact. Sorry but I cannot accept that remaining in the case. Gibraltar is self-governing, it is a fact that the Spanish editors could not dispute. Instead they have tried to use a combination of synthesis and original research to try and minimise the status in the article. Their motivation in doing so is based on Spanish nationalism toward Gibraltar, where it is portrayed as a British colony on stolen Spanish soil. Those comments are only serving to buttress Spanish nationalism to skew the POV of the article not to achieve NPOV. I think you're being incredibly naive if you feel those remarks are helpful in steering the dispute, I can see those remarks coming back to haunt you in various nationalist disputes.

3. When this case was started, I couldn't participate fully as my father was ill and another editor was hospitalised. The evidence produced by a number of editors who've effectively held the article hostage was directed toward removing editors they disagreed with by topic bans; you'll note that I didn't propose of suggest any blocks/bans/sanctions against individuals. Effectively what you're proposing is to remove one side but leave the other intact. You're rewarding editors for baiting others into uncivil remarks.

4. In reading your comments I can only conclude you have apparently disregarded the workshop. In the workshop there was case of RHoPF hounding editors, walls of text being put up to derail discussion by Ecemaml, non-apologies such as "I'm sorry you were offended by my joke" not to mention examples of bad faith and uncivil remarks:

[4] activity, obstinacy, discourtesy, incompetence at communication, and nationalism form a demonic combination
[5] "Gibnews' rottweiler" repeated [6]

[7] I get a sense of "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" here.
[8] So that is three untruths in the same section from you, Why are you telling untruths here, Justin?

5. In the workshop, the editors were lobbying to have my conduct examined more fully. I would still welcome that.

6. This was never an arbcom case, there had been no previous attempt at long term solutions. I can only note my bitter disappointment that arbcom would punish one group of violators while allowing another group of violators to go free without even a token slap or even have their conduct examined at all. Particularly an editor who apparently delights in teasing and tormenting those with temporary mental problems. I've seen this editor hounding people for years and I can't believe he is going to get away with it again.

The solution you're proposing might reduce conflict, well if you ban only one side then what's left can violently agree on skewing the POV of the article. What it isn't is a long term solution, I did propose something like this some time ago [9], it would be more workable. Justin talk 09:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)