User talk:SirFozzie

Archive Index

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar-Sep Oct-December 2010 Jan-Mar Apr-May May-July Aug-Dec 2011 Up Through August 2011-12 Aug '11-Dec '12 2013-16 2013-Jan '16 2016-20 Then to now

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! And thank you for your job as a member of the ArbCom the last few years. I know how much work you put into it :) SirFozzie (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Q:

Are you subscribed to clerks-l? If not, which address do you want to be subscribed at? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was added :) Thanks though for asking. SirFozzie (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer

Hi Fozz have you see the latest offerings of Misortie against Domer such as calling him a fuckwit and a twat and putting a speedy deletion tag on his user page this is blatant trolling. BigDunc 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also calling him a cunt here. Not being paranoid but it is amazing that no one spots these attacks. BigDunc 11:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just got up. Didn't appreciate being called a troll myself, but let me see what is going on SirFozzie (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the editor has apologized and disengaged. Let's see if it sticks. I did put my two cents on their talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough the editor apologised and civility blocks are not my thing but I get 2 week block for saying someone was a "fucking fantasist" when they lied about me yet this editor can call another editor a cunt, fuckwit and a twat and you just say aggression was met with aggression, these double standards have got to stop. I wonder what would have happened had I called someone that or if Domer had? BigDunc 19:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, SirFozzie, and thank you for your recent oversight to the page Bill Hayes (actor) As you can see here, an abuse filter blocked the brunt of the attack. I was wondering if you could provide me with a description of how the edits that did make it through got around the filter? Thanks. Triplestop x3 17:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Sent you an email. SirFozzie (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please think about this longer

I hope you don't mind that I'm writing here, but I think what I said at Wikipedia talk:Administrators is likely to be buried in responses very quickly. While I greatly appreciate what you're doing, I think you're moving much too fast on this, and it's not clear, to me at least, the scope of the problem you're trying to address. It seems like what you're doing is going to greatly expand what can be considered wheel-warring, which is going to be extremely drama-inducing. Once and only once in my nearly 4 years as an admin was I accused of wheel-warring, and it was because I had taken what I thought was a routine maintenance action on a page that, unbeknownst to me, was the subject of previous controversial action. It was very disconcerting to have that term, which is about the dirtiest word there is around here, appear on my talk page. I really want to urge you in the strongest possible terms not to make it harder to do the routine work most of spend our time on. Don't forget, you arbcom folks spend all your time looking at controversial actions (and trust me, I know that we're all in your debt for that). But as someone who deals with the routine stuff, where lasting controversy appears incredibly rarely, I really think the system may be a lot less broken than you think. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have thought about it for many months, actually. Yes, a great majority of the actions that are taken by administrators are in no way, shape or form controversial. What I'm trying to stop is instances where a block was taken based on discussion, etcetera, and someone comes charging in says "No. I don't agree with you or the discussion, so I'm going to undo the action." I hope there's a way to balance the two. Actions like the one I describe above let disputes fester on and grow worse and worse. SirFozzie (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're obviously right about that. I would have absolutely no problem with what you're proposing if it were limited to blocks and included some kind of room to adjust block length. It's deletions and protections where I think things get complicated; in this change, it's the unqualified word "actions" that's the problem. Chick Bowen 06:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Zenne, another Wikipéire sock?

Can you take a look at this user, Zenne? Wikipéire socks have been targeting the Iceland (supermarket) page recently, changing "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland", and therefore the page was semi-protected for a month on the 10 December, at my request. A few hours after the protection expired earlier on today, this new user, on their first edit, changed Republic of Ireland to Ireland, and cited "changes in the manual of style", so this user doesn't seem like a newcomer.

Can you have a look at this? --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not a new user, irrespective of what's happened on the page before, the edit is based on new consensus formed by the update of WP:IMOS. Wikipedia shouldn't lose out because an editor doesn't like a policy.Zenne (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not because I don't like any policy, I'm just doing it because he/she is a banned user. IMOS states nothing in favour of using simply Ireland in this article anyway. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 21:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It does. It indicates that the piped version always be used in the introduction of articles. Please read the new consensus version which now affects this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenne (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet account. SirFozzie (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 22:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

3rd viscount monckton of brenchley

This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've received this request, but not sure that ARbCom is the best way to handle this, but I will look into it a bit. SirFozzie (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP drive

Sign me up for a formal BLP drive. Since the end of December I started spending sometime on articles in the BLP category showing no references. The situation is more of less the same as the last time I looked 6 months ago with the biggest challenge being BLP articles about people from non-English speaking countries. So, for the work to be successful we need people that are proficient in several languages to help.

We have too many articles about athletes and politicians with no sources in English to verify the information. These are generated from a list or roster with only foreign language sources available. Usually, I can confirm that they are not a hoax article but have no way of verifying the information is about one person and not a blend of several people with similar names. So they pass notability guidelines but can't be easily improved. :-(

In general, many of the BLP tagged as unreferenced do have at least one or two sources on the page somewhere that show that they are real people, and only need clean up to bring them up to my minimum standard. If there are no sources available, then I prod them.

A good place for people to start is with their own early articles. I'm working on few of mine that are below my standard. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear, Flo.. I don't know how/when we're going to get this off the ground, but it might be one of several issues we need to look at here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this more. I think a cross wiki multi-language BLP drive across all Wikimedia projects would have the best chance for success. Something that lasts for the whole first quarter of 2010 with the goal of getting every BLP article sourced that does not have references to support the reason for notability and basic content. This would include all types of WMF projects. Banner announcements and updates about the progress... Something like this could have an impact. I'll write something up and see if we can get enough interest to push it forward. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 05:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Keep me updated. I can think of others who would be interested in such a BLP drive! SirFozzie (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentor/Padawan

Hi. I remember a while ago you helped me out with something and wanted to know if you're taking on students/padawans of the wikipedia arts. andyzweb (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not right now, being an Arbitrator does take a lot of my time up, but I'm always willing to answer questions, if you don't mind a slight delay before I answer them! SirFozzie (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

In edit summaries, please distinguish between "re-signing" and "resigning," or you are going to scare someone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that edit summary startled the heck out of me! --Elonka 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

er, oops? (laughs) sorry all! :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Misty Willows

Is this case before Arbcom? Based on Risker's notation, I assume Someone emailed Arbcom and the issue is before the committee. If so, I would like to see the discussion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is being handled privately as there is material we cannot reveal due to the privacy policy. (checkuser, etcetera). As soon as we can say more, we will. SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, wanted to verify, If you can, please let me know when it iss public. keep up the good work :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you oversighted my blocking rationale. Should I have used something different in the initial block? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I oversighted it. Basically, there was a clear accusation of a criminal act in the block rationale. In future, it's best not to say things like that, especially when the account has been connected to a RL identity - Alison ^❤ 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I obviously can't see it now, but I thought I had written "allegations of..." in the rationale, trying to balance the concerns you raised with the importance of giving a clear and unambiguous block reason that wouldn't be undone without appropriate consultation. What would have been the ideal thing to say for an initial block in such circumstances? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You actually hadn't, but yeah - something like what Fozzie put, and it should be related to WP policy. Certainly not suggestions of criminal activity! - Alison ^❤ 04:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tsk, shame on me for acting too hastily. Thanks for the feedback, but here's hoping I don't have another opportunity to actually put it to use! :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. The whole situation is problematic, and our hands are really tied. If the person IS what they say they are, we have a whole can of worms. and if it's NOT who they say they are, that's a whole different can of worms. In either case, we get worms :P SirFozzie (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

topic ban clarification

I was asked to help bring the article Nobel prize up to GA or FA status and I happily agreed. However, this being Paranoid Times, I wanted to make sure the article, or some sub section of it, was in fact not covered by the topic ban. Per comments here [1] and what seems to me like plain common sense it wouldn't be. But it's better to be 100%. Or is this non-trivial enough to make a formal request for clarification? Thank you.radek (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My first thought is that it wouldn't be covered, but I'd like to remind you that depending on what the edits ennumerate, the article may not be covered under the topic ban but edits (if they in general would fall under the topic area) may. Just my ultra very quick .02 on the issue. SirFozzie (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.radek (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Status

Hi. You stated here (on the 5th) that you were going to be inactive on all upcoming cases, but it appears you are active on a number of Arb related matters. Would you like your status to be updated? Tiptoety ^talk 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Um.. read that again? "I will be going active on all new cases, and the Tothwolf case. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)" SirFozzie (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am embarrassed now. I read it as "inactive." Sorry to bother you, Tiptoety ^talk 08:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha, Tiptoety made an error! I knew it would happen eventually. *tee, hee* KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tee hee? I've never seen such language from the Puppy before. What's next, "neener neener"? :D (grins and ducks) SirFozzie (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

*sad* I was afraid the humor wouldn't come across, and thought that would make it clear I was giving a sideways compliment in what was intended to be a humorous fashion... but now I'm being *mocked* by Fozzie! *walks off forlornly, crying bitterly* KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Awww damnit, I can't resist sad puppy eyes. *gives the puppy a cookie* SirFozzie (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy puppy!!! :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure that WMC is the problem here

Indeed. So wuold you kindly explain why you're supporting sanctions against me?

This looks like arbcomm at it worst. Abd has been blocked for [2] which is nothing to do with me. You're shooting the messenger William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying it would be for the best if he stopped mentioing you and you him (that way keeping him from saying "he's started it and I can't talk back" SirFozzie (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems a thin justification for sanctionning me. I think I'm being sanctionned on the basis of no misbehaviour at all. Can you point to any problematic edits on my part since this began? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to come to a meeting of the minds, so to speak, but I'll state it again. If someone needs to follow up on anything Abd says, it doesn't need to be you, does it? I'm sure that with an editor of Abd's.. history shall we say, that if he crosses the line someone will be there to say something. SirFozzie (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need to be me. But nor do you need to santion me. You've said, yourself, that I'm not the problem in this - but yet you're going to sanction me anyway. You call that just? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You have mail

You'll have more later if/when my scanner drivers ever finish downloading so I can scan the thing in question as well. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom and BLPs

Can you seriously suggest another way we could have forced this long-term disgrace without direct action? I agree that it would be better if admins played "in the rules" and through discussion to get the necessary done, but you know that was never going to deliver, and I can't exactly be accused of not trying and trying again, can I? Happy to be cleared, castrated, garrotted, or whatever is felt necessary, and I certainly never expected to be commended. But truly, there was no other way, and you know it. If Wikipedia wants people to play within the rules, then it needs to create rules that work, and work for BLP, it has singularly failed to do that, and so chaos will follow. That's regrettable, but the alternative is a continuing inertia on long-term pressing ethical issues, and that is unacceptable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, Lar. Case already filed. Things already looked at. ArbCom trying to find a way to handle this. And he goes and does it again, after two people blocked and numerous screaming imprecations. I'm sorry. There was a better way then to say "I regret I have but one admin bit to give for my BLP-try" and march the administrators in to face the whiff of grape. As I said, I;m willing to say you had BLP on your side and that you were right, but I'm not willing to commend you for how it happened. I can understand if you disagree, but it's a principle I'm standing by. SirFozzie (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As I say, not too worried about commendation. Please reword the motion and support the principle behind it. I've even quite happy to be desysopped or trout slapped if it gets the change.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not possible at this time. I hope my statement makes it clear that I support a majority of the motion however, and others looking at my vote should judge accordingly. SirFozzie (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that your are opposing the motion. IMO, the hysterical reaction to what arbcom sees as reasonable admin action needs to be countered by a supportive statement from the Committee. As you well know, the attempt to clean up BLP has stalled for years, and admins need to be motivated to continue to work in this area. I see the statement commending them as a way to encourage them to keep working in the area, while other parts of the statement ask them to use less chaotic methods. I think the sentence is balanced as crafted and does not harm as you seem to think. I see the true harm from admins abandoning their work in the area. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The admins doing it were also being jerks. I think there is enough nuance in this world to justify a vote not supporting them being jerks.--Tznkai (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It will be a massive net loss if they stop working to improve BLP. Words of encouragement and recognition for these admins is needed with the additional instructions to use less chaotic means. A blanket call for people to work in this area has much less meaning then giving support to the people that actually do. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to you privately, Flo. Check your email when you can. SirFozzie (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are other costs associated in encouraging them the way the committee has chosen to do, and what justification is there for pigeonholing those who interfered as bureaucratic twits? But yes. The committee chose a side on who they value and who they don't.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee

User_talk:Power.corrupts#Warning he is threatening to block several editors. I thought you would be interested after he edited that protected page.Ikip 06:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sirfozzie. It is rare that I have an arbcom member grace my page, they usually just try to ignore me as a pest.

I think these editors saw the amnesty editors support your reasonable warning, and automatically opposed.

I would like to create a WP:Coffee Amnesty essay, explaining how, if you share the ideology of the majority of arbcom and Jimbo, the rules don't apply to you, but I won't.

Not sure what part you were laughing about, how I slaughter your name? Ikip 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You have called me Sir Fonzzie and Sir Frozzie in that section. I just found it amusing :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom motion

Just wanted to commend your well-reasoned and level-headed handling of the recently-passed BLP motion. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it is the policy of some arbcoms to delete barnstars, so my feelings won't be hurt.

		The Arbcom's Barnstar
		The Admin's Arbcoms Barnstar may be awarded to administrators who made a particularly difficult decision...or just to show an administrator that you think they are doing good work in a particular area of "the job" and that their work is appreciated. Thanks. Ikip 01:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

;-)

View from SirFozzie. I like it :-) Thank you for making a strong show of support for changes in the way the way that we handle BLP content. It is important for the Community to understand that change is coming. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The pattern

Hi SirFozzie, you've declined my request and asked me to show the patternt of Jéské Couriano edits. I could not do it at the request because I am allowed only 500 words, but here is the pattern:

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Would you like to see some more? Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It shows he has been uncivil, or a little over the top yes, but not anything with regards to administrative tools, for example.. and I happen to agree with him about the nature of some of those "personal armies" generated over at /b/ SirFozzie (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that in your opinion the statement "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" should be taken off Administrator conduct? Well, thanks for your input. Sorry I bothered you. I've no more questions. Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that (and I would please request that you NOT put words in my mouth. I do that quite well enough on my own, thanks :)). If you have a user conduct issue with Jeske, please consider opening a User Conduct RFC. Coming to ArbCom as the FIRST line of dispute resolution, not the last, is not going to get you what you want, here. I know the temptation is great, as we can do that which you desire as a resolution, (the removal of Jeske as an administrator), but except for very rare circumstances, we do NOT take issues as the first line of Dispute Resolution. SirFozzie (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood you. I've no "a user conduct issue with Jeske". I am nobody now. Jeske said "Mbz1's done.", and I assure you, I am done. So no, I've no "a user conduct issue with Jeske", but I naively thought Wikipedia might have. I see I was mistaking. Once again I sorry I bothered you. Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick favour please

Could you (or any other admin watching) possibly renew the range block on this range? I asked Alison but she's a bit busy apparently, and he's been back disrupting as 84.203.37.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 84.203.43.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated, but no point creating a similarly titled section....if you could confirm here the details I've emailed you. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, SirFozzie...

...a special someone is talking about you on WP:AN. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ioeth. Taken care of now. (they should really read WP:Plaxico during their month off :/ SirFozzie (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor spelling

Hello SirFozzie, I hope you are doing well. :) I see a minor spelling thing [7] did you mean "shunt", or "shut..." ? Yours, Cirt (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Shunt as in divert. :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I suppose either/or works in that sentence. No worries, Cirt (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

194.179.120.4 is being used excessively by Wikipéire. Should it be blocked?

As you can see by the IP's contributions (and location, Madrid), 194.179.120.4 is being used by Wikipéire. I've tried to put sock notices on the talk page, but he's constantly removing them. Should this IP be blocked? --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 16:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to have a word with a checkuser about collateral damage and/or a range block. SirFozzie (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alison has now done a checkuser and the IP has been blocked for one week. I'll keep an eye on it though :) --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 01:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone's watching yer talkpage, Foz! ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor formatting

Here, seems minor formatting is need to have Mailer Diablo show up as the first "abstain" number. Cirt (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks better now. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NP. Thanks for the poke, Cirt :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Vote strikes

Hi SirFozzie, FYI: [8], [9], [10]. Paul August ☎ 20:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, Much appreciated :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 20:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

received, and in discussion at the ArbCom level. SirFozzie (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Minibreak

Hey all, taking a mini break of about 72 hours or so. Normal service should resume on the weekend. No need to move me to inactive, but if there's anything I absolutely NEED to know, email me :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm back! SirFozzie (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy

I filed the ArbCom request for Brews ohare which went on mostly over your Wikibreak. I am asking you to please review the request carefully, taking note of the selfless and difficult steps taken by uninvolved editors (Count Iblis, ProfStandWellBack, CosineKitty) to strongly support Brews. I hope that my blunt style did not put you off. If I have violated etiquette by either my actions there or my writing here, please let me know, and I apologize in advance.Likebox (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you get a chance

Hey Fozzie. Hope your good. Sorry to bother you with an ani request but I know you looked at this before. But if you get a chance could you take a look at this. I know how draining this issue is but I could use a hand--Cailil ^talk 22:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I just posted a response to your recent comment. However I think its worth saying there that in the middle of last year just stopping HighKing and others from inserting or removing the term would have been attractive. However we have got HighKing to use the task force and to accept the results of discussions there, which have been reasonably even handed. However the sheer obstinacy of Mister Flash means that progress is only made with great difficulty. When BlackKite was involved we got somewhere, and we need some admin help on the task force. It would be worth your while casting your eye over the actual cases there to that we did make some progress. I also put some work into a protocol (see link on ANI thread) which got support and might (with modification) form the basis of a resolution. Either way, the point of posting here was to say that there have been some changes in behaviour over the last six months in HighKing (and he has broadened his editing habits) which should be encouraged. --Snowded ^TALK 07:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Iñaki de Juana Chaos' biography

Why have you removed all the additions I made and restored the version that the vandals are so desperate to keep in spite of all the data I added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericcoop (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on your page. I urge you to re-read Wikipedia's policies that I link to on your page. SirFozzie (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia so sorry about any confusion I might have created. As far as I know, if anyone wants to contest something that is written they should justify it. All I have done is add information all of which is sourced. I am a researcher at a higher education institution so I don't understand why my data is being deleted. What part of the data is being considered unsourced or false? I have spent the whole day trying to dispute lies about a convicted terrorist by providing evidence that judges have used in a court of justice. From your background, it seems that you don't speak Spanish or Basque and the same goes for the vandals that deleted all the information without any discussion. How can you know all of it is false when you don't even understand any of the evidence? For your information you have just deleted the names of several victims of ETA's murders as though they were POV. TELL me specifically what is it that you think may be false or biased.Genericcoop (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, first off.. Welcome to Wikipedia :).

I speak very little spanish (took a year or so of language classes when I was in school), and do not speak Basque. However, that's not what I and other people are concerned about here. I linked the Neutral Point of View for a reason. Let me copy some of the things that you said that were quite frankly, non-neutral...

"According to the Spanish Constitution (paradoxically reviled by Chaos and other terrorists)"

" It should be noted that as cruel as the Spanish Constitution, state, governments, and judges are supposed to be according to ETA terrorists"

"This fact contributes to create further confusion when comparing Basque secessionism to Irish or Palestinian terrorist activities behind emancipatory movements: It is unthinkable that Michael Collins or Bobby Sands would have been born to native British soldiers or that Khaled Mashal´s father in law had been a Mossad agent."

These statements come no where NEAR NPOV, and are Original Research as well. I don't claim that this person is a good person, I'm just saying that what we have on the article has to be written succinctly and neutrally, and unfortunately, what you're putting in there, is most emphatically, neither of the two. SirFozzie (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is insane! ETA revile the Spanish Constitution. They claim that it is Franco's legacy and that it was imposed on them in the constitutional referendum since the Constitution was not approved by a majority of Basques in the Basque Country although it was in Navarra.Genericcoop (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a paradox to revile the same constitution and consider it a fascist constitution while you seek its protection with the cooperation of International Amnesty. The Ribbentrop-Molotov non-agression pact before WWII was a paradox and I don't see anybody getting banned for saying that. To say that these two diplomats "paradoxically signed a pact" is historically accurate for it seems hard to understand two declared enemies militarily and politically would sign a pact. Paradoxes exist SirFrozzie. Not to mention all the documentation you deleted including letters and facts regarding this person's life. You have deleted everything!!!! Who is the next authority above you?Genericcoop (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the letters you removed states clearly that ETA compares and models itself after other terrorist organizations. ETA has even signed treaties with IRA, FARC and the LPO and leaders from these organizations are often quoted by ETA in their communiques. This is basic history SirFozzie. On almost every trial in which a terrorist is being judged, the first thing ETA members state is that they do not recognize the authority of the Spanish constitution, its laws, and its judges, again, common knowledge SirFozzie: it is ETA members who say these things not me. I'd quote from them but you would delete that too like you did with everything else. (Genericcoop (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

I don't know if you sent this to my talk page or if one of these lying vandals did it but if you did it is shameful: I have fully protected the article. Remember, articles on WP have to be written to A Neutral Point of View, and that goes doubly so for articles dealing with people, especially Biographies of Living People. Your information seems to fail those policies, and I urge you to cease and desist. SirFozzie (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would you urge me to cease and desist when you haven't read any of the information that has been deleted? Why don't you urge the people who vandalized the page to desist from removing truthful information? What criteria did you use to deem my comments lies and their deletions trustworthy?(Genericcoop (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)) Genericcoop (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd pick my next edit summary carefully. HalfShadow 22:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Genericcoop, I'm trying to help you here.. you are not doing your case any good here. Yes I did, and as I suggested, I suggest you read them before you edit any further. SirFozzie (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have spent the last hour looking for any justifications for the deletions or any explanations for why these things are not neutral. Where is your argument? Is there a separate page where you have posted any explanations? I have refreshed my article page and it shows the same bunch of bull that was written before I edited the page. Are you telling me none of this is non-neutral?

On January 10, 2009, de Juana participated in a Peace March held in Belfast, Northern Ireland. The purpose of the march was to express grievances against the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza and to express hopes for peace to the Irish government. However, Spanish newspapers, such as elmundo.es, expressed disgust that de Juana, having been convicted of causing many deaths, would be so duplicitous as to publicly march for peace.

Where is the source for this information? Why haven't you deleted it? You have deleted all the information I provided including all sources and yet you have not checked for errors or unsourced statements any of the existing paragraphs. This whole biography is propaganda. Regarding your advice or anybody else's: I don't care what you think. You have deleted truthful information and any threats regarding anybody's right to contest your authority or the validity of your claims are abuse of power. Who is the next authority above an administrator? Every hour that goes by without you restoring the insults that this unrepentant murderer uttered adds on to the pain of their relatives. (Genericcoop (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

Why is ETA referred to as a paramilitary group or, even worse, as a separatist group? What makes ETA, ETA is the fact that they intimidate, kidnap, blackmail, and kill people. I know many separatist groups that don't engage in any of the above. Listing ETA as a separatist group is like listing Hitler as as a vegetarian, or Stalin as a seminarist: true but irrelevant and misleading. There are many separatist organizations that don't engage in these activities and according to Wikipedia administrators they are all the same. What historiographic criteria does Wikipedia follow here? (Genericcoop (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

De Juana Chaos is listed as a soldier or another similar military category. This man is not a soldier: he placed bombs and blew people up and shot people in the head regardless of whether they were civilians or public officials. Are we saying here that a soldier from a standing army is the same as a terrorist that has confessed to several murders and has explictly said that he did it in order to achieve political goals? (Genericcoop (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

I just found out that SirFozzie is a member of the arbitration committee in Wikipedia. According to these rules it seems that two administrators have already cooperated in banning these additions. I will wait 48 hours and then will open a RfC. That if I haven't misread the hundreds of pages required to understand how to do anything on Wikipedia. I shouldn't have inquired my students about Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericcoop (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to file a RfC, or raise a complaint at The Incidents Noticeboard, you can certainly do so if you wish. I doubt you'd be getting the kuind of reception you are hoping for... SirFozzie (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think he's buggered off for good, or is he just sharpening his axe ready for when the protection expires? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Amend Brews_ohare sanctions, or not

Can we wind this up? I think we need a motion, and arbitrators' final thoughts. Brews ohare (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brews.. at this time I don't think there is any need for any motions.. it looks like there's no desire to change the remedies as they stand. SirFozzie (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your point C

Hello SirFozzie. I read point C on your talk page and decided to pipe up. I don't want to use up your time. I just want to request that you please take a close look at my case, and make sure that you have come to the same conclusion about my editing as has Sandstein (I suppose noting my response to his remarks.) I know that arbcom gave the power to administrators to make such decisions, but there are two issues here. The first is that I don't even think the basis of the call was sound, and I outline why in some detail in my request for amendment (wrongly placed, sorry about that). The second is that I was not even told that I may be subject to discretionary sanctions, which is supposed to be part of the process. Still, no one has made clear which policies I have broken. My point to you is this: if you are going to support Sandstein's decision, then I just request that you make sure you have come to the same conclusions that he has. If it's simply a matter of reemphasising that administrators are allowed to make those calls, without seeing whether they are sound or not, then 1) what role does the appeal process play? and 2) at the very least, I would point out the lack of procedure in this case and call for the decision to be "struck out" (hopefully that's the right legal term). So, if the rationale is that admins have this power, end of story, then I would suggest at least making sure it's being applied within the stipulated rules. I don't mean to harp. I won't write to you again unless I feel it's important. --Asdfg12345 13:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message.. let me review the situation, may take a day or so to get up to speed. SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I left further notes in a last statement. I only note here so I know it's been read. --Asdfg12345 03:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did read that. My personal inclination is to still let this stand, without blocking you off from seeking a community consensus to nullify and/or overturn the sanction. As I said previously, administrators working in the area of ArbCom Enforcement have a large amount of leeway in how they apply sanctions. SirFozzie (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to step up work on my thought-reading machine, because I am just too curious about the collective understanding of committee members on this case. I will probably seek community consensus on it. I'm not sure how that process works, but presumably one part of it may require a fuller elaboration on the rationale for the block, taking into account my response. If the wiki community indeed regards me as a black sheep, then I will have nothing to say. But it will have proven wrong my long held assumptions about the transparency, rationality, and rule-of-law (as opposed to 'rule by man') approach I thought wiki was based on. I really presume that what I'm accused of doing is violating the "spirit of Wikipedia" rather than any actually identifiable or specific violation of the rules. One editor who has regularly expressed disapproval of my comments and sourcing has said that. I can also reach no other conclusion based on the process of the AE appeal so far. But my biggest complaint would be how due process has been knowingly ignored. What can ya do? --Asdfg12345 02:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Final note. I won't apply for any kind of community appeal, and I'm sorry to have wasted your time, my time, and the time of other editors and admins. I saw an exchange between Shell Kinney and Olaf Stephanos which makes the situation very clear. I had thought that the policies were like a book of law that you just had to stick to and keep within. But it's actually much more about perceptions, social capital, and branding. And nonconformists may have extraordinary measures applied to them. Never mind when propaganda comes from editors who are integrated into Wikipedia, and "outsiders" wish to fix things and explicitly follow all relevant rules when doing so. If you are seen as an advocate, especially for a perceived NRM (but not for science) you are not welcome. It doesn't matter if you are reasonable and law-abiding or not. This is probably just a necessary evil and compromise given Wikipedia's openness and potential for real bad guys to exploit the system. I maintain that I am not one of the bad guys, have kept strictly within policy, and have only ever wished for a professional treatment of Falun Gong. I have been polite nearly all the time, and frequently compromised, shared ideas, and worked with whoever was interested to build the pages. I do not want to see a whitewashing or exclusion of criticism. But doing Wikipedia properly means no propaganda, stringent sourcing, and inclusion of every significant perspective. All that is explicitly within Wikipedia's policies. I am not sure who will have the mettle to challenge the editors dedicated to promoting a negative view of Falun Gong - and their sympathisers - who are seen as part of the community. The silent consent to these ideologically motivated activities allows a page to go from this (11,200 words) to this (2,500 words).--Asdfg12345 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been editing Falun Gong articles on and off for three years now. It has not been easy and I have taken long "FLG holidays" on two previous occasions; I am on another one now. Although he is rumoured to be an employee of The Epoch Times, I can attest to the fact that asdfg has been the most reasonable Falun Gong editor among those I have had the pleasure of working with –actually, he's the ONLY one who I have productively worked with. I have found he is prepared to work with editors in an non-doctrinaire manner, argues his case by trying to be objective and not always from a Falun Gong perspective, and rarely engages in warring. While I do not regret the absence of the other FLG SPAs, who have caused me a great deal of stress in the past and led to my FLG holidays, I believe asdfg makes a valuable contribution to the project.

As for the 'Persecution' article, there does seem to be some loss, but it's important not overstate it. I won't go into any analysis of the material removed, but if we used strictly quantitative measures and compared like with like, the original 'Persecution' article before it got moved and split into two was 10016 words "readable prose size". Today, the History article stands at 6326 words "readable prose size", while 'persecution' stands at 2329 words. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Attention

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 and Luna Santin 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 [11]. 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)

Brews

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)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For this, which just might end the nonsense, and stop editors from treating Wikipedia as a battleground. 142.167.54.28 (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)

Note

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)

FYI

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, EyeSerene^talk 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 [12]. Based on [13] 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)

Ping

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.

Ping.

SirFozzie -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

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)