Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Uninvolved statements

Statement by uninvolved TotientDragooned

The current dispute at Speed of light is only a small part of a larger pattern of disruption by the above parties. See for instance the extensive argument at Talk:Centrifugal force and the corresponding (fruitless) ANI discussion.

Statement by essentially uninvolved ScienceApologist

Looking at this conflict mostly from the outside (but having had interactions separately with most of the parties) I think what we have here is a classic case of turf wars and ownership issues. For some reason, editors in general science and mathematics articles over the last year or so have become more and more combative and rude. A general lack of civility is fairly common and has spilled over into situations where editors of vastly different abilities essentially end up talking right past each other.

The content dispute in the main is of interest here. There are a number of professional physicists and similarly credentialed editors at Wikipedia who take the "party line" that the speed of light is a constant in all reference frames. If you believe this, then it makes sense to use a definition of the speed of light along with the definition of the standard second to allow for the definition of the standard meter. This was done decades ago, but there are some people who, perhaps similar to those who were angry about losing the gold standard, are upset about losing the absolute meter standard that used to exist in Paris in a locked vault (where the standard kilogram still sits, I might add). There are various arguments that are made for why the speed of light should not be used in the definition of the meter, all of them fatuous and some based on misconceptions. None of them were ever seriously entertained and, indeed, the entire switch in the definition of the meter happened without much fanfare and essentially no controversy. There are occasional off-the-cuff references to this fact in some of the lighter moments of reliable sources, but as a serious encyclopedia, it is not Wikipedia's place to try to make a mountain out of that molehill.

So there were those who tried to add references and text that seems to most physics editors to make mountains out of molehills, or worse, make small depressions into mountains. The text was removed, arguments ensued, accusations hurled as regards to people's education, intellect, and capabilities, and WP:TLDR suddenly becomes relevant.

What Wikipedia lacks is a set of Wikipedia:Scientific standards that we can refer to in attempts to resolve these bizarre arguments. While we have a WP:MOS that stretches as far as the eye can see, there is not a standard set of Wikipedia statements about how science should be handled. It's not as simple as saying, "Follow WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc." because both sides see these policies as firmly in their favor.

Of relevance: WP:FLAT, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition, and WP:CHEESE.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by CrispMuncher

I've been missed off the list of involved parties in this case. I'm not surprised... while I was involved to begin with my motivation rapidly drained when it became clear that certain parties were not prepared to listen to or even acknowledge valid arguments. I've only been passively monitoring this dispute over the last couple of months, and even then only intermittently.

In my view this whole dispute centres on some elements forgetting the purpose of this article and core Wikipedia policies. There are reams of finely nuanced and technical arguments about the BIPM definition. I dread to think how much time this has soaked up but ultimately one thing should be immediately apparent. The BIPM definition is what it is: it is right there in black and white. It is not for you or me or any other editor to state what it should be or how crap a definition it is. If you argue it is fundamentally flawed that is fine: make no mistake, by doing so you are implicitly claiming to know better than the BIPM, but scientific progress needs people to do that: it may in fact be flawed. If you wish to correct the perceived error there are ways to go about correcting it: you can publish papers, give presentations, file motions or whatever. However, I am not going to play endless debating games with you: it is an irrelevance to the present undertaking. Editing the article in question to advance your views breaches the very essence of Wikipedia: NPOV, no original research, no soapboxing, etc etc.

I've pointed this out in the past only to be brushed aside as Wikilawyering. In my view this is patent nonsense. This dispute has arisen because the very core values of Wikipedia have been forgotten. Report the BIPM definition and that is the end of the story. Building further on that is not appropriate since it inevitably constitutes OR. This is the case even if such additions are referenced: selecting a few snippets out of context from published sources in defence of a position does not mean that the argument is any less OR, particularly if those sources do not the broader assertions being made. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by slightly involved A. di M.

I can't understand how on Earth such a dispute could even start. As I've repeatedly pointed out, Brews's points about the problems of defining the metre in terms of the speed of light also apply to any way of defining any unit; but I have never been explained how that's any worse than, say, defining the kelvin in terms of the triple point of water, or whatever. By the way, discussing what would happen if the speed of light were to change is highly speculative; doing that in an article is WP:UNDUE at best and WP:OR at worst.

I do not plan participating in this drama any more; all my edits to the Speed of light article in the last five days or so were essentially cosmetic.

General discussion, clarifications and amendments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Speed of light

Initiated by ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) at 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Speed of light arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 4.2 "Brews ohare topic banned"

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [1] (diff of notification of this thread on Brews ohare's talk page)

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews ohare topic banned
• I, A. di M., hereby request that the following sentence be added to the end of the remedy: "The topic ban is temporarily suspended until the ongoing Featured Article Candidate discussion regarding Speed of light is closed."

Statement by A. di M.

Brews ohare is the author of three of the pictures currently on the article Speed of light. None of these pictures are directly related with the debates which led to the arbitration case, which dealt with the implications of defining the metre in terms of the speed of light in vacuum. On the FAC nomination of the article, initiated by me, constructive criticism has been expressed about the pictures; such criticism is also totally unrelated to the definition of the metre. While Brews ohare is still technically allowed to improve the pictures (as they are hosted on Commons) he is not allowed to participate in discussions about them, as that might be construed as transgressing his topic ban. I do not think that this is helpful, so I propose that Brews ohare is temporarily lifted from his topic ban until the FAC closes. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Steve Smith

It could, but that should be worded in a sufficiently clear way: Brews ohare said he's "not interested in a month of squabbles over sanctions", and I think that discussions about whether the wording did or did not allow a comment of his on that page wouldn't be helpful, either. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

In order for this amendment to be effectuated I (or another admin, or the committee) will have to suspend or lift the supplemental ban that I placed on Brews ohare previously. (Its in the case log) I have some ideas on how to word the amendment that I haven't committed to words yet, as I am still deciding whether or not to support this request.

I failed to timestamp the above. Whoops. Anyway, after considerable discussion on Brews ohare's talk page, I've decided that on balance, Brews ohare is a potential asset, and further has earned his shot at loosening restrictions. I intend to lift my supplemental ban after brief discussion at AE, and I support the motion below that will allow Brews ohare to participate in the FAC process to discuss the relevant images. I further recommend an excemption for editing the relevant images. --Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Get a move on! I know Amendments always get shuffled to the bottom of the pile, but this one is fairly simple to at least indicate which way you're leaning.--Tznkai (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Finell

It would be helpful to the project if Brews' physics topic ban were modified to permit him to participate in discussion of graphics that he created, and that are used in the Speed of light article, during that article's current FAC. It is not necessary that his topic ban be temporarily lifted, only that it be amended for this specific purpose. Recently Brews has been peacefully and productively editing math articles and his behavior has not been problematical in any way, so far as I am aware.—Finell 00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Brews Ohare's topic ban should be temporarily modified to allow him to participate in the discussions about the diagrams he made. To answer Kirill's concerns, I think the whole point of Arbcom requests is to look at each case individually, we don't argue on the basis of precedents. Finell has pointed out above that brews has been contributing in a positive way. If there is an issue with diagrams and it is found that some modifications are needed, then it could be extremely inconvenient for someone else to do that. In practice this could mean that someone else would have to make new diagrams from scratch. This has to be weighed against the potential of disruption of wikipedia given the reason of Brews topic ban (endless arguments about speed of light, domination of talk pages). I don't see this potential for disruption given what Brews has been doing recently. As I said, precedents are irrelevant. In similar cases where someone has been topic banned from some politics page which is up for FA review, you may well conclude that despite that editor having made considerable contributions, the potential for disruption is very real. Count Iblis (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

As far as I know (and I would welcome any correction if I am mistaken), there have been no problems related to Brews' edits of images on Wikipedia/Commons. Further, I am aware of no major problems with Brews' participation in the project for the last couple of months — and I will say that stands in contrast to (and in spite of) the overzealous and...spirited actions of some of his self-appointed defenders.

On the other hand, I must also note that (per Tznkai's comments) a broadening of Brews' original topic ban to include meta-disputes and user-conduct discussions was required in late November in order to get him back on a productive track. There was also at least one violation of his physics topic ban in late December: [2].

While the proposed amendment is far broader than necessary, I am inclined to say that that on balance the likelihood of disruption from a more narrowly-crafted exception is low and indeed would be beneficial to both the project and to Brews — and might form the eventual basis for future relaxation of his topic ban terms. An opening to allow Brews to participate in discussions regarding his images in the article (which are, as far as I know, uncontroversial) would probably be worthwhile. Further, allowing him to participate in (a part of) the featured article process should – hopefully – expose him to some of our most dedicated editors working to achieve some of Wikipedia's highest standards and goals.

That's the carrot; here's the stick. While I hope and expect such a condition shouldn't be required, I would also suggest that the amendment explicitly be revocable by a consensus at WP:AE if Brews' editing should stray into the tendentious or disruptive.

The exact wording of such a temporary amendment is up to the ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Would a narrower suspension applied only the pictures be useful? Steve Smith (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Barring any substantial objection from other editors or arbitrators, I do not see why this cannot be handled by way of a simple motion providing a specific exception for Brews to discuss his images in this specific FAC. Barring any major objections, I will propose such a motion in the near future. Vassyana (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• I am uncomfortable with waiving a topic ban purely because some of the editor's work is being discussed at FAC, as it's an arrangement we've rejected in the past, and with editors responsible for even greater volumes of work. Is there some reason why Brews's direct involvement is necessary (rather than merely convenient)? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• I said when the case closed that I'd be willing to support a change to the topic ban to allow Brews Ohare to contribute images and to discuss images (narrowly construed). I would, though, prefer that Brews Ohare himself make such an appeal. I would in principle support a motion like that Vassyana intends to propose, but only if Brews Ohare indicates that they support the appeal being made here. I would even support a complete relaxation of the ban to allow any image work, not just a single FAC discussion. i.e. making an exception for all image work would make more sense than making an exception for FAC alone. Carcharoth (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: It seems to me that unless he's allowed to edit the images in response to criticism/suggestions at FAC, we're tying one arm behind his back. Are we going to allow him to edit the images as needed? SirFozzie (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Generally I would agree with Kirill here - banned means banned, and I'm very reluctant to give any sort of exception simply due to a one-time thing. However, based on the statements above, I'm willing to assume good faith in this instance, although Brews should be aware that he will be held to a tight leash during this exception. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Motions

1) Exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to participate in featured article candidacy discussions for "Speed of light" for the sole purpose of discussing the images used in the article. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).

Enacted - ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Steve Smith (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Mailer Diablo approves this motion. - 06:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Shell ^babelfish 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Reluctantly per comments above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   As the current FAC discussion has closed, I've modified the wording of the motion to apply to future FAC discussions as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

9. KnightLago (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

2) Second exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to edit images used in the "Speed of light" article to address issues regarding the images that arise in connection with the article's featured article candidacies. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).

Enacted - ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Risker (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Shell ^babelfish 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Reluctantly per comments above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Steve Smith (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Although, if the images are on Commons, this is not actually necessary. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Per Kirill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Noting the recent FAC has closed, I would be fine with future FACs. KnightLago (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2nd Request to amend prior case: Speed of Light

Initiated by Likebox (talk) at 05:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC); Case affected : Speed of Light

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Finding1: Scope of the dispute
2. Remedy 4.2: Brews ohare topic banned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Brews ohare
• David Tombe

Amendment 1

• Finding1: Scope of the dispute
• User:Brews ohare's contributions to the content of pages other than speed of light have not proven to be controversial, and did not lead to significant dispute. In particular, the content of pages other than speed of light were not directly impacted by remedy 4.2.

Statement by Likebox

This finding of fact refers to two classes of edits made by two different editors, User:Brews ohare and User:David Tombe, about several different subjects.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that User:Brews ohare made many pedestrian edits on other physics pages, in addition to more contentious edits at speed of light. This amendment seeks to establish that the edits of User:Brews ohare on those pages, excluding the speed of light, were not controversial, and consequently that those pages did not benefit from remedy 4.2.

to Dicklyon: I have reviewed the material of the edits on all pages other than speed of light, and I stand by my comments above.

to Martin Hogbin: Brews has noted that his style has been prolix and over-argumentative several times, and one link to such a statement is provided in the text for amendment 2. This is not directly relevant to this amendment, because the actual content of the pages was not affected by these overly long talk-page discussions.

to John Blackburne: Looking over Brews edit history the edit summaries seem Ok, and everything seems currently in line with ordinary norms of behavior. The multiple edits you cite were attempts to fix typos on talk pages, and I think that this is a very small point.

to Cool Hand Luke: When an editor makes some enemies, a lot of pedestrian edits end up being inflated out of proportion. Here, a lot of diffs are presented as evidence of wrongdoing when they are not in themselves rules-violating, but they just annoyed somebody. Please do not rely on hearsay or first impressions: take time to review the evidence. Go through the diffs, look at the edit logs. I am sure you will find that there is no evidence of any disruptive editing on the content of any pages beyond "speed of light", and it is even not clear that the specific edits to speed of light were disruptive in and of themselves. I stand by my claim--- there was no improper content insertion, nothing beyond some questionable taste. The only lapse of judgement seems to be overlong talk-page debates.

Brews has acknowledged that he went on too long on talk pages. But I would like to know: what else is there to find fault with? What diffs support these faults? I read the diffs people provided, and, regarding content, they seem Ok.

to Cool Hand Luke: I understand that you looked over the history of the article, I am sorry for seeming to suggest otherwise. Some of the comments you made regarding "original research" perhaps suggest that the culture of science articles was a little bit daunting.

The "ideosynchratic" view of the meter that you mention is as follows: once you define the meter to be the amount of length light travels in a certain fraction of a second, that it is then pointless to say that the speed of light in meters per second is a physical quantity which can change. It would be like defining "one froo" to be the length that sound travels in one second in air, and then asking "what is the speed of sound?". By definition it is one froo per second. But on a hot day, the "froos" are shorter than on a cold day. This point is understood by all, and it is a question of taste and philosophy how much emphasis it needs to get, especially in articles which are aimed at introductory readers.

Brews probably misjudged the emphasis this should get, and he misjudged the wording. His sections were not super clear. So what? This is content, and this board should not judge on content. He tried to get his additions incorporated, he failed, and then instead of moving on, leaving a short note on the talk page, he went on and on arguing it, because he wanted to convince the editors of something that he thought was self-evidently true.

The original insertion does not seem in itself to constitute a rules violation, but when the arguments drag on for months, it is disruptive. So Brews has said "ok, I won't drag things out", and then it is just the usual bold/revert, and there should be no more argument.

to Cool Hand Luke: About the science--- the question is not whether the speed of light does change, the question is whether the speed of light can change. If you define the meter in terms of the speed of light, it is conceptually impossible for the speed of light to change--- just like it is conceptually impossible for the speed of sound in "froo/sec" to change. Because the speed of light in fact does not change, this is a completely philosophical question, hinging on your precise view of time and space, and this is why it led to endless debate.

To achieve the most accurate science content on Wikipedia, science editors do not need ArbCom to chip in on the science. Actually, we need the opposite. In order to have accurate science content ArbCom should stay out of any content disputes, ruling only on behavior. Now, if somebody is spamming their own theories, or violating rules, then ArbCom should enforce these rules. But there is a serious danger of censorship when outsiders to an ongoing conversation try to adjudicate scientific content. It doesn't work. If everyone is honest and sincere, and respectful of consensus, there is no need for meddling.

to Cool Hand Luke: I am sorry for talking about the issue--- I was just trying to explain to you why your observation about "original research" were off base, and should not have been made.

About this amendment: This amendment is talking only about main page content, excluding talk pages. Regarding main page content, there was no disruption in any way.

to Headbomb: The links you present are all links to irrelevant nonsense, which is evidence of nothing at all. It is wrong to make someone look like they did somehing bad using a large number of pieces of evidence each one of which is worthless upon closer investigation: ("I know bob killed Harvey, because, look, my astrologer said he did it, and also I dreamed he did it, and Jenny dreamed it too, and Jerry said it's gotta be bob, and look at all the evidence!")

Let's look at your diffs:

1. [3] -- if you follow this link, you are led to the following diff as evidence of bad faith arguing: [4] This is the most ordinary of talk page comments, somehow made to look like it is inappropriate. Why would someone present this as evidence in an ArbCom case? What is this all about? There is nothing wrong with this comment in any way.
2. [5]--- this leads to a series of diffs showing the number of edits Brews ohare made! Brews has typo problems, and he has problems making links work, and his multiple edits are not indicative of anything. The bogusness continues.
3. [6]--- this one brings in Talk:Wavelength, which is the original talk page where I saw hostility to Brews. In this case, Brews was trying to expand the page to cover carrier frequency and modulation, which are very important topics in engineering. The opposition to these insertion consisted of editors who were not informed on the issue, and refused to read sources. Here, unlike speed of light, the issues were not philosophical, and in this case Brews was unambiguously right on every single point. This is not only garbage evidence, but it is evidence the other way.
4. [7]：This one criticizes Brews inserting material to expand capacitance. If you don't like the material, move it or delete it, and argue your case on the talk page. Do not accuse the editor of breaking rules and start arguing it on administrative pages. This is garbage again.
5. [8]): You say this is especially damning evidence: what does it say? It says that when editors rejected Brews stuff on one page, he tried to find a home for it in another! This is such a common accepted practice on Wikipedia, that it shows a serious incompetence to even bring this up in ArbCom, let alone make it grounds for a sanction. When correct sourced material is deleted from one page, it is incumbent upon people to find the appropriate place for it. Those who criticize this practice are revealing a serious lack of understanding of what constitutes actionable misbehavior.

　This evidence is such a steaming pile of dung, that it is embarassing to the encyclopedia that, on the basis of evidence like this, anything happened at all. It is also casts a bad light on editors that bring it up again, as if it had merit! Shame.

Even the slightly less bogus examples of Brews being uncivil were tepid, compared to usual accusations of incivility. If Brews was putting anyone down with the comments linked by the case, you would need to think long and hard about who exactly it was, and exactly how he was putting this person down. Usually, incivility is for clear personal attacks, not short vague comments about the behavior of groups of editors. Brews edits were not particularly uncivil, he was just expressing surprise at the collective hostility that developed towards him over time, in a relatively polite manner.

The rest of your diffs concern even more irrelevant administrative stuff:

1. [9]--- Brews was completely right about wavelength, Dicklyon was twisting his arm administratively to get rid of stuff he thought (wrongly) was OR, and getting him blocked for edit warring. It is wrong to use blocks like this as evidence of continued bad behavior, as if people who violate 3RR once or twice are contaminated with a virus.
2. [10]--- Another administrative action that should have been resolved by consensus. Brews was not arguing something bizarre, he was just making a subtle (and minor) philosophical point. That's it. But these actions began to smear his reputation.
3. [11]--- Ok, this is the overlong talk-page discussion. I agree this was a problem, and so does Brews.
4. [12]--- Oh, Ok, you linked to it once again. I guess you made a mistake.
5. [13]--- Oh, the same thing again? How odd. You linked to the same silly debate in the last three diffs. A large number of identical diffs does not make you any more right.

Regarding Brews' block log for edit warring and declaring his intention of edit warring, these were rookie political misakes, and the "declaring intention of edit warring" was a stretch even then (he warned somebody not to violate 3RR, which is bad form, but it's a common mistake).

I agree that "There's a reason why Brews was found guilty of tendentious and disruptive editing and incivility", it was because a large number of editors presented garbage evidence in large quantities, and people were sufficiently annoyed to let this bad practice succeed.

I am not asking for administrative sanctions for those editors that brought up bad evidence. I don't think it is wise to focus on the past, nor do I think that they were necessarily acting in bad-faith. But I ask people to read diffs very carefully, and to not bias their minds by political nonsense. This type of garbage cannot be tolerated in the future.

Statement by Headbomb

It is pointless to categorize disruptive edits in categories that needs entire paragraphs to describe. Brews was disruptive, and his edits in both the article and on the talk page were disruptive. Redefining the scope of a previous dispute accomplishes nothing. I will also note that Brews was banned for his behaviour and not because of the content of his edits (not that I endorse the content of his edits, because I don't, but that is not why ARBCOM banned him). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Likebox concerning "[r]egarding main page content, there was no disruption in any way." This is simply not true. Brews repeatedly re-inserted material after it was removed by several editors on the grounds of being irrelevant, which gave undue weight, and did not accurately reflect the sources used. See the original ARBCOM case ([14], [15], [16], [17] and particularly [18]), the related brouhaha at ANI (such as [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]) and Brews' block log (for edit warring and declaring his intention of edit warring). There's a reason why Brews was found guilty of tendentious and disruptive editing and incivility you know. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon

Likebox seems not to have read the arbitration, or at least not my comments, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Statement_by_involved_Dicklyon. Dicklyon (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Martin Hogbin

It was Brews' style of editing that was the cause of the problem. It would help his cause if Brews were to accept that his style did not help cooperative editing and agreed to change it in future. If have not seen such a statement from him. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JohnBlackburne

Despite the lengthy discussion highlighting his behaviour and the outcome of the original case he still seems not to have learned from it. His contributions on any day are shorn of proper edit summaries, amounting to usually none or one words, and often delivered one after the other to make things both difficult and annoying for other editors. On encountering such a block of edits it's often impossible to tell what each one is, so another editor has to treat them as a whole. Even worse if someone is editing the page at the same time, and has to resolve repeated conflicts with these edits. Sometimes even (this has happened to me more than once) replying to a message on a talk page only to find the message has changed while the reply was being written, so the reply has to be changed, sometimes even restarted.

He has been advised about this on his talk page, e.g. here and here, but seems not to take notice, or thinks that editing in a courteous and considerate way is not important. I would hope this at least is taken into account, so the ban is not lifted until he has shown he is able to edit in a way that doesn't regularly annoy other editors.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

to Likebox, the link you provide actually illustrates my points. There are a number of edits with no comment other than the default provided. Others where the comment is only a single word or two. They are largely talk page edits though, where often editors will be brief as the contents of edits speak for themselves. But it does show clearly the issue of a sequence of edits in just a few minutes of the type that easily annoy other editors if they try to reply to the first message, only to find it's changed and they have to resolve an edit conflict and maybe edit their reply so they don't look stupid. And it's easily avoided by using the preview button to proofread changes before posting, not after.

The issue with edit summaries is more of concern in articles, and can be clearly seen here, where most of Brews's edit summaries are blank or a single word and other editors' contributions stand out as they mostly provide proper edit summaries. Or to look at only his edits there is this link. These edits were all made after my warning and since the arbitration case. The arbitration case specifically mentioned "repeatedly failing to adhere to expected standards" as grounds for further sanction, so these are very relevant to this motion for amendment.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_topic_banned
• Remedy 4.2 will be allowed to expire at this time.

Statement by Likebox (2)

I do not wish to revisit the dispute, only to ask for the best remedy looking forward. In the case of speed of light, both sides differed only on the smallest of philsophical points. It is important to note that the examples of disruption for the editor in question were overly-long discussions on the talk pages over minor technical points, and that Brews ohare has acknowledged this, and has promised to avoid this in the future.

Justification:

1. Brews' expert contributions are needed.

The editor in question is a recognized well-cited expert on engineering physics[24]. The continued application of broad sanctions impedes useful contributions from Brews. The need for expert retention on Wikipedia is well known.

2. the past is past.

After adoption of this remedy, the speed of light has calmed down. That page is no longer under any threat of disruption (although it is currently locked due to recurring minor vandalism [25]). This suggests that the ban has outlived its usefulness. The goal of protecting WP from disruption has been accomplished. Brews is behaving well and has been mindful of consensus. He is cognizant of the need to keep talk pages focused and on-point, and has stated that he intends to keep this in mind in the future[26]. I don't see any reason to keep taking medicine when you're no longer sick.

3. It is troublesome to many that an expert editor can be banned from his topic of expertise in a way that could be interpreted as stemming from his impolitic talk-page statements. This does not set a good precedent.

A chill has decended on the science pages of the encyclopedia. I wish to inform the committee that this remedy has the unintended consequence of making editors wary of making unpopular talk-page comments.

4. Talk-page policy is not as uniform or rigid as main page policy. Sanctions based on talk-page behavior should be imposed and enforced carefully, to maintain the integrity of the discussions, and to avoid intimidating editors from expressing points of view.

Talk pages can sometimes harbor short summaries of disputed points or rejected material for a long time, so non-consensus material on talk pages needs to be treated with a certain amount of respect: it can become consensus material in the future.

Editors can shut down discussions by archiving the material, and accusing editors of disruption, and this can become a form of censorship. Intimidation is based on perception of the likelihood of sanctions. It is best that the perception be that no rule-abiding editor with unpopular opinions should feel threatened.

If editors suspect that they can be topic-banned for engaging in tough political battles over controversial material on talk pages, even if this perception is by and large false, that would compromise accuracy on the encyclopedia.

5. This remedy is broader in scope than the main motivating problem.

Broad remedies invite enforcement disputes, which waste the committee's time. This is something we all wish to avoid. In light of the amendment to finding 1, there should be no reason to continue this broad sanction further.

With deference to your experience and good judgement.Likebox (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To Physchim62: The example discussion you pointed to has no contribution, either direct or indirect, from Brews ohare. None of the edits that an expert editor makes should be dismissed as nonsense, although they might be misguided. The discussion you link to is, in fact, an offshoot of a discussion started by myself. Please, be careful when presenting links and diffs, and double check that they are fully relevant.

To Physchim62: I now see what you are talking about, thank you for clarifying. I I agree that in this case, Brews was making a not too interesting distinction which is not correct in this context. But we all make mistakes, and I think that Brews has learned how to suggest changes without disrupting the page.

The mistakes in articles should not be blamed on the editors that sincerely insert them, but fixed. I appreciate the work you put in to do that. I have also argued with Brews ohare on more than one occasion, and I also found it annoying, and I disagreed with the content of his suggested additions. But I don't like bans or extended blocks on sincere thoughtful people, and Brews positive contributions, past and present, vastly outweigh the scattered negative ones.

To Physchim62(clarification): The above might have been too polite to convey the point: It is never appropriate to ask people to be banned simply because of honest content disputes. This forum is not for adjudicating content.

To Clayt85: It might not be wise to revisit the dispute, and set off tempers again. On the speed of light issue, the question was mostly philosophical, and not very interesting in my opinion. It is possible to interpret that Brews was right on all points, and also that he was wrong on all points. I believe this is not the main issue you bring up--- which is that a threshhold for "disruption" was crossed, and this threshhold needs to be pinned down in a way that will not lead to censorship and purges.

To Headbomb: I think it is best to leave judgements of quackery aside. While Tombe has been uncivil and disruptive, and his opinions on centrifugal force and vxB force are very strange, he is one of the handful of people alive today who has read all of Maxwell's 1861,1865 and 1875 papers on electromagnetism. He is more like a fossil--- a living breathing late-nineteenth century physicist, with his own ether theory. It is a shame not to let such people contribute to their full potential, especially since he does not wish to insert his own theories into the articles. One thing he is capable of doing is fixing the historical errors that people make regarding Maxwell. Only a handful of people, mostly professional historians of physics, have read the 19th century literature with as much diligence, and as far as I know, none of them are active here.

To SirFozzie: It is important that the committee follow consensus of editors, not reinforce past decisions by inertia. Please act responsibly, and do no punitive stuff. I hope you reconsider.

To the committee: If you allow this sort of nonsense to stand, I guarantee you that you won't be getting good content out of scientists in the future. Your only source of value is the tireless man-hours that editors with expertise put in to make the encyclopedia correct and informative, and if you allow editors to be blocked for no reason other than your vague feelings of unease(not even spelled out!) You will get no further contributions with anyone who has anything to say.

To the committee: I hope that you are not under the impression that any editor here speaks for WikiProject physics. I do not, and neither does Headbomb. His self-appointed role as coordinator of the project was not approved by any vote, and it has led at least one expert editor to avoid joining WikiProjet Physics, and contributing technical matarial.

Statement by Headbomb (2)

The dust finally settled after several months of completely chaotic atmosphere resulting from this ARBCOM case. The physics articles are once again editable without getting bogged down in incessant discussions of obvious things, of Brews' hammering of irrelevant "subtleties" through the main text [see Psychim62's links], and of Brews' ban itself (as was the case for several months after the ARBCOM case was closed). Brews' topic ban is not unrelated to the restoration of normal, healthy, and productive editing condition on these pages.

As evidenced by these comments, unbanning Brews would only lead to further embittering of the community, and a resuming of the hostilities at whatever physics page Brews decides to edit (Headbomb, TimothyRias, Michael C. Price).

Brews also completely unrepentant, fails to see how his behaviour was disruptive (I'll let Finell and others do the quote digging here), and places the blame on every body else but him. I do not doubt for one second that the same patterns of disruptive editing would resume immediately upon having the ban lifted. Let's not re-open this can of worms, let the ban run its full course.

I don't care if Brews won 20 Nobel Prizes and was the 2010 Time person of the year, disruptive behaviour is disruptive behaviour. I will also note that Brews' recent (last month and a half or so, AKA after his "let's revisit the topic ban every second day" phase) contributions outside of physics are, as far as I'm aware, non-disruptive and very productive. Brews did not initiate this, and should not be punished because others refuses to drop the stick. As told by who-knows-how-many editors now, his best option is to simply bite the bullet and wait until his topic ban expires, and discourage others from re-opening this can of worms. Kicking in the hornets' nest every month won't win you the hearts and minds of anyone.

And it again puzzles me that you're going through with this, especially after you've said "I don't want to raise it [the unban motion] unless I have your support--- I am asking for your support. If you say "yes", and whoever else says "yes", then I will do it. I don't want to go there with hostile editors against the motion." on JohnBlackburne's talk page (even in the light of this). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Update Per some comments below, I'm not opposed to lifting the physics bans on Brews' own talk page. If some guy wants Brews opinion on something, I don't care. I am wary of someone acting as a telephone for Brews however, but I suppose we can address that if and when the problem arises. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Re to Clayt85, see the thing is the meter is defined as 1/299... light-seconds. The speed of light thus becomes fixed [in meters, and other units defined in terms of the meter] by definition. There are a million ways to rephrase this statement, all equivalent to each other, but at no point does it ever become a circular definition, like Brews and Tombe claimed. So no, Brews was not "right". The complain was not that Brews was "too prolific", but repeatedly failed to be concise, failed to express himself clearly, blew details out of proportion and give them undue prominence, turning obvious that can be understood by everyone into convoluted statements that can be understood by no one, refused to drop the stick long after everyone else moved on, and so on. "Expert" editor? Sure, but so is everyone else involved in the debate (other than Tombe, who'se just a quack). Disruption is disruption, and common sense shouldn't be suspended for the sake of retaining "experts". Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re to Profstandwellback, this is not a case of censorship, this is a case of someone beating a dead horse over and over again, and refusing to drop the stick long after consensus deemed that the horse is dead. The problem is not that Brews has a different view, its that he has a different view, and cannot let go of it and wants to have it plastered all over the place, at the cost of revert wars, editing against consensus, dominating the talk page, and so on, preventing actual experts and people with clue from improving the article because they must spend time educating Brews and removing his idiosyncratic POV, or who simply walk away because they don't feel like teaching obvious things to somehow who doesn't have the ability to understand them. For a list of articles where this sort of thing happen (which spanned way more than the speed of light), look up the "evidence" section of the original ARBCOM case.

And to address the science issue, NO Brews is not right that the definition is circular, the value of the speed of light in SI units is fixed. Also, we defined the second to be "1/x" where x is a certain number of hyperfine transitions of ceasium-133 in its ground state, at rest. Note that a completely equivalent definition of the second is "the frequency of the hyperfine transitions of caesium-133 is x. Assuming that either the second, or the speed of light, were not the same today as they was yesterday, the meter changed. So in the equation c = 299,792,458 m/s, c and s are fixed, and m is a free parameter. This is explained very thoroughly in the speed of light article, both back then and now.

You must take the BIPM for a bunch of clueless nitwits if you really think they would use circular definitions for the basis of the entire SI system of units.

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To the committee: If you lift the ban, the nonsense will resume, and I guarantee you that you won't be getting good content out of the several scientists the physics pages because they'll be busy removing crap and lose their time in AGF-bureaucracy. The only source of value is the tireless person-hours that editors with expertise put in to make the encyclopedia correct and informative, and if you don't allow them to contribute in an environment free of tendentious and disruptive editors, you will drive them off one by one. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Physchim62 (2)

More than three months after the arbitration closed, editors are still finding nonsense inserted by Brews into a wide range of physics articles in support of his idiosyncratic views: see this discussion at Talk:Second, for example. Note as well that the discussion was concluded calmly and politely in a matter of days and a few paragraphs, instead of dragging on over months of trench warfare and several talk archive pages. Likebox (talk · contribs) obviously does not realize just how disruptive Brews can be, or he would never wish him to be let near to a physics article ever again. Physchim62 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For Likebox: This is the paragraph that was removed after the few days' civil discussion I referred to above. This is the edit that inserted the nonsense that could be easily disproved by a bit of thought and a check on reputable sources. The wording was tweaked over this series of edits, all of which were also by Brews (apart from one by an interwiki bot which didn't touch the paragraph in question). Why did this patently false paragraph stay up for so long? Because the committed editors who might have questioned it were too busy trying to put out other fires created on other articles by the same editor, to the point that an arbitration case had to be brought against him to curtail his disruptive behaviour. Of course Brews did not contribute to the discussion – may each of us thank their favourite deity that he was not allowed to! Physchim62 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

The physics topic ban for Brews should be lifted as requested by Likebox. From his behavior from before the Arbcom case, we can see that Brews had difficulties adjusting his editing behavior to what his fellow editors wanted to see. Details about physics as Physchim62 mentions are utterly irrelevant. First of all, Brews is an expert in certain areas of physics, and he got into trouble in areas in which he is not an expert. But the reason why he was seen to be disruptive was not simply that he was wrong, but that he was editing there too frequently and dominating the talk pages. Brews is now editing math topics and geology topics on which he isn't an expert either. Recently there was a small clash on a math page involving Brews and another editor. Brews now did behave in an appropriate way, so I would say that Brews has learned his lesson. This is also clear from his general editing behavior.

We should lift the topic ban, not simply because this is what Brews deserves. What matters for Wikipedia is what is good for Wikipedia. Wikipedia can use the services of a retired engineering professor who has a lot of time for Wikipedia very well. It is better that he contributes to a topic he understands very well than some obscure math topic he knows little about. Many editors can do the latter, but currently Brews may be one of the few Wiki-editors who is able to make substantial nontrivial edits to certain engineering topics. I note that Brews has made many excellent contributions to physics articles. He has created many excellent figures that are used on many physics pages.

Brews's ban on discussing physics on talk pages, even when invited to do so and on his own talk page is just completely nonsensical. This ban creates real problems for Brews even now that he is is editing math and geology articles. Because Brews is not an expert in the math and geology topics, his fellow editors may need to explain something to him in the language he understands best, i.e. using simple physics examples.

If ArbCom feels uncomfortable lifting the topic ban because of the potential for Brews behving in the way he used to before the Arbcom case, then the topic ban could be suspended. The topic ban can then be reimposed when an Admin reports Brews for disruptive behavior to Arbcom Enforcement. You can think of an agreement where the Admin can give Brews a warning when editrors complain to the Admin about brews's behavior. If Brews then does not adjust his behavior, the Admin notifies Arbcom Enforcement. Count Iblis (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

For Physchim62: Sometimes editors can make bad errors in articles. To get into a fight and personalize this is not ok. It was the way Brews behaved before the Arbcom case that was contributing to the real problem and that problem has now gone away. If you just focus on errors Brews made, then I can simply repeat what I've said about former wiki-editor Sadi Carnot and how focussing on him alone prevented a huge number of errors from being corrected in thermodynamics articles. These were only corrected in 2008 by me. I'm now not saying that Sadi Carnot should not have been banned (or that the decision to ban him was correct). We should always focus on the physics/math content of articles and not engage in politics.

In case of Sadi Carnot, after he left, the mistake was to only focus on his links to his books, and not on edits that were not due to him that were completely flawed. In case of Brews, you can also consider him to be an Wiki-Demon and then only focus on some previous conflicts with him. But it is far better to see Brews as a normal person who has some expertise in some areas and let him edit like any other editor while demanding that he sticks to certain rules. Count Iblis (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke's proposal

Perhaps this is an attainable compromize. Along the lines of the proposed remedy 4.1 we could limit the topic ban to fundamental physics and constants. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can Brews violate his restrictions and win?

Suppose Brews were to start physics related activities on his userspace in a way that would be totally non-problematic had Arbcom lifted this part of the restriction. Then Brews would likely be banned when this is found out by an Admin who checks if topic banned users are sticking to their topic ban, perhaps after a short discussion at AE. However, if Brews were to appeal his block, then given the huge consensus in favor of allowing Brews to edit his userspace freely, it is difficult to see that no Admin could be persuaded to lift his ban. Count Iblis (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I think the mosr reasonable answer to this problem Is Count Iblis. Give Brews enough rope to hang himself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Awickert

Count Iblis notes that Brews has started editing geology articles. There was a halfway-protracted discussion about the meaning of orogeny and mountain formation. It became a little frustrating with the terminology, at least for Brews and I. But after discussing the salient points and after I sent Brews a paper that covers the mechanics of orogenies and the physics that connect erosion, tectonics, and rock deformation, we figured it out and he's been making great contributions to other geology articles since. Awickert (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by David Tombe

I note below that Cool Hand Luke states that Brews ohare argued for months at the speed of light. That is a true statement. And when the matter came to my attention at the end of July 2009, I became concerned that Brews was about to get himself into trouble, and so I made inquiries with him as to exactly what the dispute was about. It took me a few days to figure it out, but when I did finally figure it out, I realized that the prolonged dispute had been over an issue of wording relating to the degree of clarification that was needed in the introduction in relation to a circular argument in the post 1983 SI speed of light. The purpose of this appeal however is not to revisit the details of the dispute in terms of who was right or who was wrong. It suffices to say, that as well as myself, Brews had quite a number of supporters for his point of view, and that he had sources. His point of view was most certainly not original research nor fringe physics. Off the top of the head, I seem to recall the names Charvest, Colonel Warden, Abtract, NotanIP83, as supporting the argument in substance, and we have seen further support on this thread from Profstandwellback and Clayt85 indicating that the circular argument is widely known about. Brews was most certainly not pushing a solo idiosyncratic piece of original fringe physics as has been claimed by some.

The real question as far as I could establish last August was 'why were a handful of editors deliberately frustrating Brews in his attempts to clarify this issue?'. My own involvement on the main page in this respect was minimal, but I did make concerted efforts on the talk page to try to persuade this group that Brews did have a legitimate point of view. Meanwhile, I made an inquiry at WT:PHYS to try and establish the degree of the knock-on effect that the new definition would have on electric permittivity. The result for me was that I got pagebanned, later upgraded to a topic ban in all matters related to the speed of light, and later upgraded to a full topic ban in physics along with probation to run indefinitely, and a stipulation that I could not appeal the probation for a period of one year.

My involvement at 'speed of light' did not even last for three weeks. At the arbitration hearing, things started off very smoothly. But the turning point came when Cool Hand Luke set about trying to ascertain that Brews ohare had been engaging in original research. I challenged Cool Hand Luke on this point and from there on, the arbitration hearing became somewhat confrontational.

As regards this particular appeal, I am concerned that Cool Hand Luke has once again been suggesting that Brews was engaged in original research. It is simply not true. And I notice that Cool Hand Luke cited a diff in evidence against Brews in which Brews wasn't even involved. I am generally concerned here that some arbitrators have been attaching too much weight to the testimonies of some witnesses, while totally ignoring the testimonies of other witnesses. One arbitrator made no secret of the fact that he was influenced by Headbomb and Physchim62. Those are the two editors who were more instrumental in launching the ban proceedings against Brews and myself in the first place.David Tombe (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Michael Price:

I welcome the statement above by Michael Price. As I have just acknowledged in my own statement, the arbitration hearing did become rather confrontational. This is a matter of which the full details and full culpabilities of all parties involved can be fully reviewed should a similar ban appeal be instigated on my own behalf. This particular ban appeal is exclusively for the case of Brews ohare and so it would be improper for me to begin sidetracking this appeal on such details. David Tombe (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Michael C. Price

Whilst recognising the disruptive behaviour of Brews and Tombe required action, as a general principle I believe the physics-related ban on Brews' and Tombe's own user space, including their respective talk pages, their diagrams diagrams etc, should be lifted on the grounds of natural justice. This would also enable other editors to more easily judge when they are ready to return to the community and contribute more widely. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorsement of Likebox's view of David Tombe

I agree with Likebox's assessment of Tombe's qualities. David was often uncivil and disruptive during the SoL debates, but he has an extensive background on Maxwell, Heaviside etc which WP can benefit from. In recent email conversations with David, I have been pleasantly impressed (and I confess, surprised) with his ability to meaningfully engage on various physical topics. More importantly he also shows an understanding that he got carried away in the heat of the debate, and seems repentant (more so than Brews, IMO, on both counts). I don't want to put words into his mouth (hopefully he will put in an appearance here), but I think the signs are positive that he has learnt valuable lessons from the experience.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re circularity

The issue of circularity in the definition of the meter and the speed of light has appeared here a couple of times. I don't wish to reopen this can of worms again, but I think there is some merit in this claim; however it is precisely because the definitions are partly circular that they were adopted by the BIPM, because this is the strength of the definitions. Perhaps we need to improve the explanation of this in the article, but that discussion is for another venue. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Martin Hogbin

I agree with Michael Price. Restricting Brews in his own user space does seem a bit steep to me. I suggest that this ban is lifted. We can then see what he does with this new found freedom. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you support the same ban relaxation for Tombe? --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Clayt85

I support the removal of the ban. I followed the original case back in October and reviewed it once again when I became aware of the appeal. Not only does the ban prevent a recognized expert in physics from commenting on physics, but it also serves no justice. Several editors have expressed their displeasure with editors Brews and David Tombe, but their complaints appear to me either unfounded or hypocritical (in the sense of, for every alledged abuse by Brews, there is at least one by another editor). Just as I stated in October, justice can be served in only two ways: either by banning everyone involved or banning no one. As someone looking from the outside in, it appears that several editors took exception to Brews' point regarding the speed of light. (As a mathematician, I give you my assurance that Brews was right: you cannot define the meter in terms of the speed of light and then define the speed of light in terms of meters. It is circular reasoning.) Rather than engage his point, they dismissed him as "idiosyncratic" and, when all else failed, sought whatever means necessary to remove him. Wikipedia's science section absolutely cannot succeed under such censorship. In fact, in its simplest form, the complaint is essentially that Brews was too prolific of an editor. Perhaps his style needs reform, but given the attention needed by many articles, I doubt it is in Wikipedia's best interest to continue this ban. Clayt85 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Likebox and Headbomb: I do of course agree that revisiting an argument will only raise tensions. This was not shortsighted on my part, however, but exactly my point (however underhanded it may have been, and for that I apologize). Brews pointed out a very subtle distinction in the philosophy of science: some number of items must be accepted as empirically true ("axioms") in order to define others relative to them (by this, of course, science is inherently "circular" and there is no shortage of literature on the implications of and revolts from such axiomatic structure). I concur with Likebox: this is a minor issue and its suitability for inclusion can be debated. But in simply posting a message to endorse Brews' POV, observe what happened: there are immediate appeals to "common sense" and name-calling even of uninvolved editors (Tombe).

The complaints against Brews ("failed to be concise... can be understood by no one") are opinions, and ones that I do not share. That he "refused to drop the stick" may be true, but it is no more true of him than of anyone else who continues to debate the subject. Moreover, it cannot be categorically stated (unless of course, it is taken as an axiom! :-) that "disruptive is disruptive", as various editors in this thread disagree as to the extent of disruption. I cannot help but suggest that comments such as "common sense should not be suspended..." are completely counterproductive as they are simply a "civil" way of suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you lacks common sense. Per Likebox, it is indeed the extent of the disruption that must be assessed, and I am of the opinion that Brews was at most a minor offender.

In the light of Brews' statement below, I concur both with him and with Likebox: complaints against Brews do not (or should not) have anything to do with content. Thus a content ban is inappropriate. Contrary to other statements on this board, Brews has acknowledge his misdeeds (he does so below) and believes himself to be reformed. Amend the ban to fix the actual problem or do away with it all together. I think the 5 justifications listed above by Likebox all hold true and provide sufficient grounds for overturning or amending the ban.Clayt85 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by --Profstandwellback

I agree with Clayt85 above and support the removal of the ban. I admit I have not followed the original case but I have read enough to understand this is about a fundamental approach to Dogma and discussions about Dogma tend to get heated and lengthy. However it is very important not to resort to censorship when there is disagreement. I believe Brews was fundamentally right about a circular definition, and a definition can obscure weak thinking. Therefore there should be a at least a summary record of the argument so we can all come to our own conclusions. I agree that "Wikipedia's science section absolutely cannot succeed under such censorship." The "zeroth Law" nature of the role of the speed of light makes it even more important that the philosophical basis is central to the description. Eventually we will have to measure the speed of light in a variety of circumstances including different gravity fields and we will need to work out what measure is absolute, if indeed that has any meaning, as Socrates said "What do you know?"--Profstandwellback (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Brews ohare

The present sanctions against me are of the nature of a content restriction (no discussion of physics-related topics), while virtually no-one thinks that content is the issue. Rather the issue is one of my pursuit of argument on Talk pages (specifically, Speed of light) to a degree that taxed the patience of other editors. The ban should therefore be amended to address prolix debate, and restrictions as to content should be dropped.

My view is that I have reformed in this regard, and further problems of this sort are unlikely. The nature of the ban should be changed, or the ban should be dropped altogether on a "wait and see what happens" basis. Brews ohare (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to CosineKitty: You raise several points.

(i) The issue of "bloat" is strictly a difference of opinion with DickLyon. He and I do not agree on the level of detail that should appear in a WP article, and so he accuses me of "bloat" when I include greater depth or more examples than he thinks appropriate. That difference of opinion is not resolvable, and so engagement between the two of us is difficult. However, this philosophical difference is not the object of the sanctions as presently formulated, and so is probably peripheral to the present discussion.

(ii) Argument against consensus: This is exactly the point of my comments above. Although consensus is not always a guarantee of accuracy, I believe that WP has a majority-rule nature (whether admitted to or not), and there is no point in arguing against a majority of determined editors. In a change of view on my part, in future I subscribe to curtail argument with a dissenting majority.

(iii) Churn: Some editors don't like a rapid exchange of views on Talk pages. Sometimes that can be a problem because of edit conflicts when a lot of traffic occurs. Sometimes it is a problem because an editor just is not interested, and wishes to disengage. I believe I understand those issues. I believe I can distinguish these situations, and will act appropriately. Again, this issue is not the object of the sanctions and is not really part of this discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Cool Hand Luke:

You have noted that I argued for months on the Talk page at speed of light, but you have ignored that I have undertaken to avoid such exchanges in the future, which I recognize today as futile, and ignored that I have put this resolve into action in my edits following Case Speed-of-light.

To suggest that I am the cause of debate at Talk:Second, in which I had zero participation, is to hold me accountable for discussion by others. Their interests and concerns are beyond my control, and being a non-participant, I am not party to them. Your view that these conversations were "protracted and useless talk page discussions" is, of course, your personal view and apparently not that of the actual participants (who could simply revert any content they found ludicrous, without discussion at all).

You have made the amusing suggestion that the ban should be left in its present form because even worse consequences "probably would have occurred" if other editors were less busy. Such imaginative speculations are out of place in this discussion.

Content debates that clearly were contentious on the respective Talk pages, where they were debated at length by knowledgeable participants, and still are under discussion, cannot be properly adjudicated here in this limited venue. For example, the issues debated on Speed of light that led to the Case: Speed of light and to my sanctions are being discussed still at Talk:Speed_of_light#Physical_constant_c_and_measurement_of_the_speed_of_light, despite Headbomb's claim that “The dust finally settled after several months of completely chaotic atmosphere”. The obvious point is that judging the merits of content is not the purpose of the present action.

The question for the present action is my future behavior, and my actions following Case Speed-of-light provide no source of concern that my behavior will be untoward. To ignore my behavior now and take the view that past actions condemn me forever is not reasonable. The ban should be modified to limit directly any occurrence of prolix Talk page discussion (which would satisfy all your concerns about Talk pages), or lifted altogether subject to some "wait-and-see" provisions (which would allow immediate action should your worst fears about me be realized). Brews ohare (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the objections:

So far, objections are raised by Headbomb that I am unrepentant, although he agrees my recent edits "are non-disruptive and very productive". Yet he does "not doubt for one second that the same patterns of disruptive editing would resume immediately upon having the ban lifted". As I have apparently reformed, for whatever reasons, it seems my actions speak louder than pleas for forgiveness, and Headbomb's reservations are conjectural at best.

Physchim62 says that Likebox "does not realize just how disruptive Brews can be, or he would never wish him to be let near to a physics article ever again." In other words, Physchim62 recognizes no path to redemption, no possible mitigation, and doubtless will greatly regret when the present sanctions expire. This is a very extreme stance.

Cool Hand Luke has undertaken to make the present action a debate over content, which is inappropriate and, in any event, content has been thoroughly thrashed over on the respective article talk pages by others more cognizant of the issues. He is so worked up over these technical matters that he cannot focus on the present discussion. Also inappropriately, he holds me accountable for discussions among other editors where there was no participation by me at all, discussions he characterizes as "protracted and useless", a commentary upon the judgment of the parties involved rather than upon me.

I have stated clearly that I understand the futility of trying to convince a closed-minded majority, and have demonstrated in my recent history that I will no longer pursue such a course. The concerns of these three critics all are met by revising the ban to deal directly with their concerns, namely, by revisions that either would curtail unwarranted prolix Talk page discussion, or would lift the sanctions subject to oversight to watch whether my behavior gets out of hand. These changes would allow my contributions to WP where my abilities are greatest. Brews ohare (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up to Cool Hand Luke: I gather from your latest remarks that I have misconstrued your intent. I do regret any misunderstanding. I would appreciate your support for an amendment of the sanctions, particularly along the lines I have suggested. Brews ohare (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Response by Brews ohare to D. Tombe's statement on compromise:

David's statement strikes me as profound, although I am unsure that any change in my particular treatment at this time adequately addresses the issues raised. Certainly, my case is an example of extraordinarily broad administrative actions, arbitrarily imposed and excessive, that may indeed be stifling Talk page discussion by editors in general.

This control action instituted a far-reaching ban on my participation in any form, on every physics-related Talk page, on every conceivable topic that might arise. That action goes far beyond actual behavioral issues, and is an all-encompassing gag order. It does not address actual disturbances, but all engagement. Seemingly it is justified by a remarkable clairvoyance that nothing I could contribute in the future could possibly be anything but a disturbance. I have proposed instead that this gag-order remedy be reformed to address actual behavioral issues, should they actually arise. Clairvoyance is not a human capacity. Talk pages do need some governance, but the approach applied to myself is not (IMO of course) the best choice. Brews ohare (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to SirFozzie:

Of course an opinion can be presented without indication of what considerations form its basis, and the majority opinion and arguments simply can be ignored. The problem with such an opinion without provided grounds is that it appears to be arbitrary, and also appears to insult those whose views are (seemingly) unworthy of consideration. Such an opinion cannot but be suspected of being made upon indefensible grounds, and suspected further that it is the inadequacy of its support that has led to reticence concerning how matters were weighed. That is, the opinion appears likely to be baseless and unsound. Please provide the reasoning and the evidence supporting your views. Brews ohare (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I assure you that I have learned how to not monopolize talk pages, and how to work towards consensus. You can see this in the geology articles I have been editing. You also might look at my contributions to these articles and at the geology figures I've added (take a look at User:Brews ohare). These matters are among the factors you might consider. Brews ohare (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides studying my recent behavior, an additional factor to weigh is the extraordinary breadth of the present sanctions, going far beyond behavioral restrictions to presume my every future action across a broad spectrum of subject areas will be not a contribution but a disturbance. That assumption is not factually based. There is a long history going back to 2007 to show that, in fact, I have made many contributions to WP, including entire articles in the banned subject area, and dozens of images. Brews ohare (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Steve Smith:

The observations made above to SirFossie apply equally to your "me too" response that presents no basis for your opinion. Please explain why the simple evidence of recent good behavior, the long track record of useful contributions, the extreme gag-order nature of the present sanctions, and the reasoning of many other contributors that favor modification should be ignored. Brews ohare (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Risker:

I am disheartened that you see the "same issues" and "foresee" a return to the "same issues" (whatever that might mean), despite all evidence to the contrary and despite other editors recommendations. You have chosen to add your name to the "me too" list without particulars to support your views. That action will be seen by all those supporting change as not in the interest of WP, and as aiming to eliminate the participation of a conscientious and well qualified editor with a track record of contributions that is beyond dispute. It saddens me as well, of course, and weakens my optimism for the future of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement to committee:

Of late I have engaged in contributions that Headbomb himself calls “non-disruptive and very productive”, an assessment shared by a majority of editors in this discussion. He nonetheless now cautions the committee that if the ban is modified, he “guarantees”(!) that my actions will cause loss of editors because they will be involved in “removing crap” and “losing time in AGF-bureuacracy”. Headbomb's basis for these notions is his unwillingness to draw any hope from recent history and instead to rely on old animosities he cannot drop.

I have myself pledged to avoid repetition of past prolix Talk-page discussions, and tried to redeem myself by contributing substantially while held within the bans. The majority of editors favor a modification of the bans based upon these actions, and upon other substantial reasons they have provided.

The discussions in this action provide a good basis to modify the bans on a try-and-see basis, and if Talk pages do end up being subjected by me to unduly long argumentation, action can be taken based upon actual events, and not based upon sour predictions of the future that no-one can make with any certainty. Brews ohare (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up to committee:

Every editor, including Headbomb, has agreed that giving me free reign on my own Talk pages is acceptable. However, the arbitrators are so worried that discussions on my Talk page will completely upset WP, that they aren't willing to go that far. Or, maybe the arbitrators are not worried at all: rather they just don't give a damn about this action, and the easy route is to let the status quo prevail. It's pretty hard to say what the arbitrators actually think, or if they think, because they haven't said anything, just registered an empty "me too" to the unsupported judgment in favor of the status quo.

It would be less obnoxious and more straightforward if the arbitrators simply refused the case at the outset and saved everybody's time. Brews ohare (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A little window-dressing might make it appear that arbitrators actually carried out a hearing without the need to do so. Brews ohare (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by CosineKitty

This is mostly in response to Brews Ohare. I am curious because there does seem to be some dispute about content on the article pages. There is controversy about:

• alleged "bloat" to the articles, i.e. rapidly expanding the size of articles.
• alleged pushing "idiosyncratic" points of view, against editorial consensus (perhaps not content that is "wrong" or fringe, but considered unimportant and detrimental to article focus).
• alleged "churn" making it difficult for others to review content and collaborate.

I hope you, and others here, forgive me if I have misunderstood the current state of this dispute, because trying to read though all of it is overwhelming. But I would like to see if you have already agreed, or now agree, to work with others in these areas of disagreement. CosineKitty (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe a complete ban of Brews Ohare is an overly harsh remedy to his past problems. He seems to be stepping in the direction of reconciliation with other involved editors. Brews has provided a mixture of positive and negative contributions in the past. A lot of us, including me, are grateful for the diagrams and illustrations he has created. I also think he has a lot to contribute in providing a dissenting minority voice to keep us honest on certain scientific topics, if we let him. But Brews would have to demonstrate a profound change in behavior, allowing consensus to prevail in matters of editorial judgment. He would need to accept that if he can't persuade others to his point of view, to let it go. I propose that we give him a chance to participate, if only on a probationary basis, so that we can all evaluate his willingness to work with others. At the very least, I think he should be allowed to edit his own User pages, unless someone can explain how that could conceivably harm Wikipedia. CosineKitty (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bob K31416

Considering that Brews's comments above are a positive change from his comments around the time that the block was enacted, I would suggest that the ban should be amended to exclude his talk page. My impression of Brews is that he is a very conscientious editor and in a way, the ban may have benefited him by keeping him from wasting his time with difficult editors, as much as the editing environment was protected from him. I think one of the greatest challenges for all editors on Wikipedia is learning to cope with difficult editors, and not becoming one of them. For now, I would suggest lifting any bans that apply to his talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by David Tombe on the issue of compromises

As well as a few editors who have supported the total lifting of the ban, and I include myself in that category, I notice that most editors have expressed their readiness to have the ban lifted as regards Brews's own userspace. This brings me to an issue which is of much wider importance than the personal sanctions that have been imposed on myself and Brews. Forget about those sanctions for the moment. It's no big deal to me that I can't edit on main article space physics articles for another eight months.

What is at stake here for all wikipedia users is a fear factor which has been introduced as a result of the sanctions that were imposed on myself and Brews. This fear factor affects all wikipedians. There is now the fear that somebody might be sanctioned for expressing an unpopular point of view on article talk pages. This is the matter that really needs to be addressed here. It is the ban on article talk page discussion which is by far the most sinister aspect of the sanctions, and the only way that ARBCOM can subjectively judge whether or not they are happy to allow Brews to return to main article space editing again is to first and foremost lift the ban on article talk page discussion. That is the very minimum compromise that would be acceptable across the board amongst all serious wikipedians. The removal of that aspect of the sanctions would remove the fear factor for everybody, and it would usher in a new era of constructive cooperation, rather that an era of procedural mechanisms to eliminate dissent.

There can be no argument in favour of banning talk page discussion. The arguments that have been presented so far are largely straw-man arguments because there is no evidence whatsoever that users have been scared away from talk pages because there is too much discussion going on. And remember it takes two to tango. For every so-called prolonged discussion involving Brews, there were always others keeping it going.

While those proposing a lifting of the sanctions for Brews's own user space were well meaning, the facts are that this is not a satisfactory remedy. It won't give Brews any opportunity to prove whether or not he has become satisfactory in the eyes of those who originally disapproved of his editing style. Brews needs to be allowed back unto all talk pages. Cool Hand Luke's proposed relaxation is also unsatisfactory because it still prevents Brews from taking part in discussions on the aspects of physics that he is interested in. The talk page ban is much more crucial an issue that the main article space ban.

If a compromise is to be reached, then this would be the bare minimum. And I stress that such a compromise is crucial for wikipedia as a whole, in order to end once and for all the fear factor that has now been introduced to talk page discussions. David Tombe (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

To John Blackburne

John, I'm finding it difficult to believe that you have seriously raised the trivial issue of edit summaries as a basis for the justification for Brews's sanctions. If Brews is to be topic banned and put on probation for the lengthy period one year for something as trivial as not doing edit summaries, then the same could be said for his main opponent during the conflict at 'speed of light'. As I said above, it takes two to tango. Brews argued for months with Martin Hogbin at 'speed of light'. So let's take a look now and see if Martin Hogbin does edit summaries. Have a look at this diff here, [27]. I think that it should be clear to all by looking at this diff that Brews actually does more edit summaries than Martin Hogbin. So either on this basis, you should be advocating harsh sanctions against Martin Hogbin also, or you should be advocating that neither of the parties should be sanctioned. And since you weren't involved at the 'speed of light' debate, it would be reasonable if you would take the more liberal of these alternatives, and try to help Brews out by bringing his editing rights back on to a par with those of his chief opponent Martin Hogbin. David Tombe (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement to ARBCOM

There are a number of matters that need to be clarified. Seven editors have expressed a desire to see Brews's topic ban totally lifted. Most of the rest have expressed their approval for a relaxation of the ban. Yet despite this consensus, Steve Smith has now changed his original position from that of supporting the very basic rights relating to Brews's own user space, to that of opposing any change whatsoever. Cool Hand Luke has joined Steve Smith in this regard stating that he doesn't see any consensus for such a trivial concession. That's funny, because I can see a large consensus for a much more substantial concession, and I'm sure that everybody else can too.

It has become patently obvious to me, and I'm sure also to all observers, that ARBCOM have actively decided to ignore consensus and to dig in. While that is their prerogative, there is nevertheless no need to try and pull the wool over all our eyes and pretend that there is a consensus for their actions. In doing this, they may will win the battle. But they have lost the war. They have demonstrated to all, that ARBCOM stands to attention when Headbomb stamps his feet. Cool Hand Luke let his mask slip on my talk page yesterday. There he stated,

I honestly believe that Brew O'Hare's appeal would be better-received by the committee without your advocacy. While I do not believe Brew's has pushed FRINGE, you certainly have, and your advocacy tends to cloud the issue. Cool Hand Luke, 16th February 2010

(The accusations against me in Cool Hand Luke's statement were later satisfactorily rebutted in his own talk page by Likebox)

In other words, we have all now seen an open admission that the decisions of the arbitrators were motivated by personalities, and that they lacked any objectivity.

I would now like to thank Likebox for taking out this action. I think that he conducted the case very well indeed, and I would like to thank all those who came along to support Brews. And to ARBCOM, I would like to finish up by saying "shame on you". David Tombe (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Question for Risker and Rlevse

I had assumed that the matter was already over until I noticed that arbitrator Rlevse has chosen to enter at a late stage and make a specific point of echoing Risker's statement. So now I would like to ask them both to clarify their position. They say that they are still seeing the same issues arising that led to the ban in the first place. Where are they seeing these issues arising? Is it on the talk page at 'speed of light'? If so, why are other editors not getting banned? None of this makes any sense. All we have learned from this appeal is what some of us knew already, which is that those in authority, although they would prefer to have a consensus, will nevertheless push forward their own agenda even in the absence of a consensus. As I have already said above, it would seem that the status quo is determined by Headbomb, and that the arbitration committee merely stand to attention when Headbomb stamps his feet. It seems that it is perfectly OK to have Headbomb and others debating about this topic at 'speed of light', but not Brews ohare or myself. There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that this is a blatant case of censorship by ARBCOM brought about for the single purpose of facilitating Headbomb's point of view in a content dispute. The proof of what I am saying lies in the total absence of any attempt whatsoever on the part of ARBCOM to justify their actions, and in particular the back tracking of Steve Smith in the face of an ever increasing consensus to relax the topic ban on Brews. David Tombe (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of Correction - Response to Shell Kinney

Shell, you have totally failed to explain why only Brews's side in the original dispute were sanctioned. Yes there was indeed a dispute. It was a content dispute which is still raging at this very moment in time. And it didn't need to go to arbitration. The reason why it went to arbitration was because Headbomb made an attempt at AN/I to have Brews sanctioned. And since insufficient consensus was established there to have Brews sanctioned, Jehochman then decided to take the case to arbitration, where the arbitrators proceeded to establish their own consensus, just as they are doing right now.

It doesn't matter if all the arbitrators come along here and say 'me too'. The consensus expressed above is overwhelmingly in favour of relaxing Brews's topic ban, with seven editors clearly in favour of a total removal of the ban.

As regards ultimately solving the dispute in question, the way forward is remove Headbomb's veto, and to allow the issues in the dispute to be properly cataloged. Wikipedia can not allow the current status quo where Headbomb is being given a clear liberty to determine points of view in physics related matters.

And one final point. How does a request for restrictions to be removed hinder such a request? Are you saying that if no request had been made that there would have been a better chance of the restrictions being removed? I don't believe it. David Tombe (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Current Arbcom/Enforcement on Brews

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews ohare. This is relevant, although I won't comment more than give the link since I'm involved. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Response from David Tombe
  • Headbomb, I'm surprised that you have got the face to advertise the fact that you took out this arbitration enforcement action against Brews. I have already clearly stated my opinion here about the fact that it has been a total disgrace that the arbitrator's have decided to jump to your tune and not lift Brews's sanctions. But having accepted the reality, I would have thought that you might have been satisfied. But obviously not. You decided to take out this mean spirited enforcement action against Brews which has got no merit whatsoever. I see that he has been blocked already on the argument that he broke Tzntai's supplemental ban. It has obviously been completely forgotten that Tzntai's supplemental ban on Brews was lifted by Tzntai during the hearing to allow him to edit his images. And Brews was not discussing a physics related matter. He was giving advice on dispute resolution. When ARBCOM ruled that Brews was not allowed to discuss physics related issues, they clearly meant 'topics related to physics'. It is just a play on words to claim that 'dispute resolution' is a topic related to physics when the dispute in question, which Brews was not involved in, happened to be a physics dispute. ARBCOM are therefore now obliged to at least go to this shameful enforcement action and dig Brews out of that mess.

• • We must not lose sight of the higher picture here. Headbomb, your behaviour in the last few days has been reprehensible. You stormed into an article and provoked an edit war with Likebox about a matter which it has now been clearly proven that you know absolutely nothing about. Why did you do that? Was it just because Likebox came here to make an appeal on behalf of Brews? And was this your revenge? But it doesn't end there. You took out an AN/I thread against him and accused him of deceptively inserting sources. And before Likebox even had a chance to answer the allegation, he got blocked. There was nothing in Likebox's statement on Jimbo's talk page that remotely warranted such an accusation. Likebox's statement was a reply to Finell's taunting, and I read it to mean that the sources were a joke because they weren't needed. How did you manage to read something more sinister into it? That is a serious allegation that you made against Likebox, and I expect that we have not yet heard the end of that matter. On scan reading all the AN/I stuff, I rather gathered that there's going to be a Spanish Inquisition into all physics articles that Likebox has edited as a consequence of your misreading of his statement on Jimbo's talk page.

• • Headbomb, it's time for you to get off your high horse and cool down because you've already caused enough trouble over the last 8 months. I hope that the arbitrators will finally wake up to your games. David Tombe (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Is there a reason that Brews has not commented here? I would like to hear his thoughts on what he has learned and how he expects to contribute if the ban is lifted; my current inclination, based in part on the comments from Psychim and Headbomb, is very much against lifting this ban outside of Brews' userspace. Steve Smith (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I see no reason to modify the remedy at this time. Steve Smith (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Likebox says: "edits of User:Brews ohare on those pages, excluding the speed of light, were not controversial". This is simply untrue. I would be open to narrowing the topic ban to the originally-proposed remedy 4.1 "all physics pages, topics, and discussions directly related to fundamental forces and physical constants." I think this could be a good first step. But narrowing the topic ban to speed of light seems much too drastic—this was a much broader problem, and I see no evidence that user has improved. Cool Hand Luke 03:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Lifebox: if you go through the case, you will find I was quite involved with it and did in fact go through the evidence. User had a particular and idiosyncratic hangup about the definition of a meter that caused turmoil on several pages, mostly articles related to fundamental constants. User does not display any awareness of the root of the problem; this was not only a talk page issue, but often extended into mainspace. That's a good reason to retain the topic ban. Cool Hand Luke 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Lifebox: "then pointless to say that the speed of light in meters per second is a physical quantity which can change." Actually, virtually nobody says this—it is WP:FRINGE. I don't believe Brews O'Hare himself has suggested that the speed of light is not a constant—he's not a FRINGE-pusher in this particular regard. His hangup is about how the speed of light is now supposedly "unmeasurable" in SI units, and that the meter reference is somehow different from "real, physical" speed of light. In fact, more precise measurements for the speed of light lead to increasingly accurate definitions of the meter. At this time, I believe it's defined more accurately than the width of an atom—more accurately than could be measured from that old bar in France! That's one of the reasons the current definition was changed uncontroversially—due to modern technology, the speed of light can be measured more accurately than a physical length (and indeed, this fact is used to measure physical lengths). Given this state of affairs, it's not surprising that textbooks and other reliable sources do not dwell on the definition of a meter. It is odd, however, when a Wikipedian inserts lengthy and WP:UNDUE explanations into articles across all of physics, which often resulted in protracted and useless talk page discussions. It so happens that the worst example occurred at speed of light, but these could have easily occurred in many other articles—and probably would have occurred if other editors had been able to keep tabs on Brew O'Hare's prolific output in this area. The discussion from Second is especially instructive [of how his controversial editing was not confined to one article]. Again, I'm happy to narrow the topic ban, but lifting it to the extent you suggest strikes me as a bad proposition for the project. Cool Hand Luke 15:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)added box to elaborate Cool Hand Luke 04:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Or more succinctly: he argued for months at speed of light, and similar arguments can and did spring up elsewhere. Arguing these battles and reverting these edits is a poor use of our volunteer editors' time. Any change to this considered topic ban should be made incrementally, if at all. Cool Hand Luke 16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Brews O'Hare, this is not about the content. I was simply responding to Lifebox, who was and is arguing the content. I did not blame you for the recent discussion at Talk:Second, nor did I call it "protracted"—your talk page arguments prior to the case were protracted, and the affair at Talk:Second was not (and you were not participating). Rather, I cite it as an example of how your problematic editing was not confined to speed of light as Lifebox incorrectly claimed. You seem to agree, commenting that the problem was in your style of confrontation rather than any single topic. You say that I'm close-minded, but I suggested drastically reducing the size of your topic ban, why are you apparently opposed to this? Cool Hand Luke 04:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Like Steve Smith, I've had a change of heart. I would support a motion to allow him to edit about the subject on his own talkpage, but there does not seem to be support even for this modest motion. Cool Hand Luke 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline to modify the remedy at this time. Right now, I still have concerns about his editing in this area, and think it best at this time to keep the remedy as it stands. SirFozzie (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline to modify: I'm still seeing precisely the same issues that resulted in the topic ban in the first place, and foresee that even a minor modification that would permit userspace editing on this subject is likely to result in a return to the same issues, to userspace forks of community-reviewed articles, and similar problems. Risker (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment (If I'm not allowed to comment here please move this to a more appropriate area.) Re the userspace editing issue: even Brews' critics acknowledge that his diagrams are a considerable asset to Wikiphysics. I can't see the downside to allowing unrestricted userspace editting (yes, no doubt some editors will get sucked into timewasting discussions, but only if they wish it) whereas the upside is more useful diagrams. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline to modify: pre Risker. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline to modify. Its unfortunate that the helpful and productive contributions of Brews are lost along with the unproductive ones, but that's just not a sufficient reason to let loose a dispute that had to come all the way to ArbCom to be resolved. Give it some time, let Brews have some time to show a healthy track record elsewhere and then we can revisit this; constant requests to change the restrictions really isn't helping. Shell ^babelfish 03:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline to modify per Shell Kinney. - Mailer Diablo 20:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motions regarding Speed of Light and Brews ohare

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Brews ohare

1) Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.

Enacted - Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For this motion, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 8 support votes are a majority.

Support

1. I was hoping that this wasn't going to be necessary. Brews ohare seemed to finally understand the situation he was in when he initially replied to the "Moving Forward" suggestion during his appeal at WP:AN. However, subsequent comments unfortunately went down the same old track (continued Wikilawyering and disruption in this area). We are offering the carrot/stick approach here. If he can abide by his restrictions without further disruption, then it will be resolved in 90 days (although I would caution it not be taken as further license to be disruptive at that time!). If he cannot abide by the restrictions, then it will be indefinite (along with any further blocks he receives for his actions in this area). SirFozzie (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Reluctantly as I'm sure stronger measures will be needed later. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Per SirFozzie. And a plea to all involved to find articles to edit quietly until these restrictions end. You should all be capable of doing that (all editors should be capable of doing that), so please show us you can do that, as that will count in your favour if there are future disputes once the restrictions end (though the hope is that by editing quietly people can learn how to take a less adversarial approach to editing). Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
6. Shell ^babelfish 00:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
7. I would nevertheless recommend that Brews stays clear of the original dispute around the definition of physical units. — Coren ^(talk) 10:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Second choice; prefer 1.1 (on account of lifting the supplemental restrictions, not the 180 days) 1.2. Steve Smith (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
9. KnightLago (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
10. Second choice. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Cannot support making the discretionary sanctions sticky, although I do support the original topic ban. Cool Hand Luke 19:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

User:Brews ohare alternate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1.1) Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 180 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) are withdrawn the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that violations of his topic ban will lead to the 180 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.

For this motion, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 8 support votes are a majority.

Support

1. I don't see the sanctions we imposed as overly problematic, and I do think they're necessary (although they could be narrowed). However, the AE-imposed sanctions seem harsh to me and should be discarded if at all possible. Cool Hand Luke 18:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
3. First choice, though I agree with Carch below that 90 days for the original sanctions may be preferable to 180. Steve Smith (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The fact that Brews ohare has been blocked three times in less than a month (under these terms) means that the Supplementary sanctions should stay at least the 90 day timer. SirFozzie (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
2. I could support this if it was 90 days, not 180. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Shell ^babelfish 00:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
4. SirFozzie is persuasive here. KnightLago (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Brews ohare alternate 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1.2) Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) are withdrawn the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that violations of his topic ban will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.

For this motion, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 8 support votes are a majority.

Support

1. Moving to 90 days. I disagree with SirFozzie; the recent blocks of Brew ohare, for completely innocuous activities that do the site no harm, actually demonstrate that the current discretionary sanctions are overbroad and should be removed. No prejudice to future discretionary sanctions that may be more narrowly tailored. Cool Hand Luke 19:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

   Yes; Everyone should drop their sticks. I just want the sanctions imposed to be fair and reasonably calculated to improve Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

2. First choice. I'm agreeing with CHL here - sanctioned placed are supposed to prevent disruptive behavior, and leave it at that. In a number of the recent blocks, while Brews's conduct has violated those restrictions, it wasn't necessarily disruptive. The ensuing drama is not a benefit to the project. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
3. First choice. Steve Smith (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. And Again, no. He's been told to drop the stick, and walk away, and has not been able to do so and has been blocked three separate times. SirFozzie (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Uh uh. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Again, per SirFozzie. KnightLago (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brews ohare advocacy restrictions

2) Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After five three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.

Enacted - Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For this motion, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 8 support votes are a majority.

Support

1. I have to say, that the actions of the above named editors in consistently and continually attempting to re-litigate the Speed of Light ArbCom case and Brews ohare's restrictions has made this area a WP:BATTLEGROUND and has indeed been counterproductive for Brews ohare. They feed into his desire to fight this issue again and again and again ad nauseum. While I understand they consider themselves to have nothing but the best motives for this fight, I think it's time we asked them to stop being counterproductive for Brews ohare's sake. SirFozzie (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

   When I said indefinite, I did not intend this to be meant as forever, only that they ask once things have calmed down and gotten back to editing articles, and shown that they can handle it without taking a match-flame and turning it into a wildfire. If it would be useful to others, I would be willing to propose a modification, setting a finite date of say 4-6 months (allowing Brews to show he can edit articles), but with the same verbiage, that violations of the restriction reset the sanction timer for that editor. SirFozzie (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Reluctantly as I'm sure stronger measures will be needed later. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Steve Smith (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
5. I've amended five blocks to three blocks. Undo if you don't agree.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
6. I am usually reluctant to restrict other people from participating in disputes that arise after an arbitration case has closed, but sometimes it does become apparent that some people bring more heat than light to discussions. Arbitration is meant to be the final stage in dispute resolution, not setting the stage for further battles. The time to debate and argue about things is before and during arbitration, not afterwards. And while there should still be a right to appeal, that right should be limited to the person under the restriction (with help from others if they request it and the request is granted). Allowing an indiscriminate number of others to add to such appeals just creates noise, when what is often needed is direct one-to-one communication between the sanctioned and those doing the sanctioning (in this case, admins at AE). I would also urge that if one of the four editors named above is brought to arbitration enforcement, that the other three don't get involved (that should be common sense, but it seems this needs to be explicitly stated). Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

   Cool Hand Luke 18:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

7. Shell ^babelfish 00:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
8. What Brews needs to realize is that the virulent "advocacy" those editors have been doing is a major factor in the community's (and the Committee's) patience running thin. — Coren ^(talk) 10:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

   I'll be blunt, David: Brews's restriction was relaxed and shortened despite your involvement. We realized collectively that your rabid advocacy managed to drown out any meaningful information and noted that, once discounting it, there could be a decent case made for reexamining things in context. If anything, the only effect your "defense" of Brews has achieved is make certain that we were unwilling to examine the restriction for a while, and probably did so with a more jaundiced eye than Brews's behavior alone warranted.

   I'm no fan of gag orders, if only because they are very unwiki, but there comes a point where — when your contribution is mostly negative — it becomes necessary. In this case, they are necessary to protect Brews's case to be prejudiced by your continued ranting. — Coren ^(talk) 10:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I cannot support indefinite restrictions on commentary unless there is strong evidence (ideally presented through a case) that demonstrates said restrictions are absolutely necessary. And even then, used as a near final resort. To do so otherwise sets a dangerous precedent. KnightLago (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

   @Headbomb - Those are excellent differences for an arbitration case, and the remedies it would bring. KnightLago (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

   @Headbomb - Unfortunately, the Committee is somewhat limited in what it can do without a case being brought. With a case, we could examine the conduct of these users without trying to use this, for lack of a better term, band-aid motion to contain their behavior. Further, I think it is better to try and keep the drama on the case pages than out where the community has to deal with it. KnightLago (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Physchim62 and KnightLago convince me to oppose. However, I think Brews has received some stunningly bad advocacy and advice here. Cool Hand Luke 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Pretty much per Cool Hand Luke, but with a willingness to revisit this issue if the situation doesn't improve quickly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I agree that the behavior of these editors is certainly not helping the situation. Tombe was admonished for similar conduct in the Speed of Light case, and the other editors listed have been exhibiting similar unhelpful behavior, some at least as far back as Speed of Light. This is an ongoing problem that needs to stop, and I've been reaching for the block button on reading some of the comments made by these users. However, I am not comfortable with an indefinite sanction, for the reasons KL, CHL, and Physchim62 state; at least, not without a full case. A long-term sanction of upwards of a year, maybe, but indef is a no-go for me without an opportunity to get the full story. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Please comment only in your own section. To comment for the first time, add a new section below, and entitle it "Comments by [your username]". Comments added to another editor's section will be removed by a clerk.

Comment from Brews ohare

With regard to proposed motion on my restrictions

In view of the difficulties that have arisen in the past over interpretation of the sanctions, both the original ArbCom sanctions and even more so the Tznkai additions, I request an explicit statement of just what constitutes a violation and what the corresponding sanctions are. The original statements include provisions that clearly no longer apply, and ambiguities that history shows should be resolved. I also object to the old wording allowing any "uninvolved" administrator to take action, especially with a motion so vague as the present one, that basically gives carte blanche to any administrator, who is free to interpret anything over a vague range of activity as a violation. Once done, such an action cannot be reversed without an extensive hearing, which again will take forever as the motion is very unclear. Language is needed requiring a "substantial consensus" before action can be implemented.

This motion is a model of muddiness. Whatever is done, I believe it is clear that rewording is needed. As matters now stand, no-one voting on this vague motion has a clear idea of what the motion really is. And I don't either. Brews ohare (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to restriction of commentary on future actions by whomsoever

ArbCom is not clairvoyant, and cannot see into the future. Limitations based upon an uncertain prediction of the future, especially indefinitely into the future are irksome and provocative, as well as unlikely to be on target. Moreover, the language of the motion is vague, inviting frivolous AN/I actions. The forbidden actions: “advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed” apparently includes not only actions regarding past issues, but all future actions or positions Brews ohare may adopt into the indefinite future, whatever I might become involved in. It is unclear what kind of contribution these editors can make to the scores of articles on WP where I have contributed substantially: for example, if my views on Matter are contested, can they join in? Such ruling is way beyond what is required, and it is impossible to know today where it may lead. This ruling as written definitely must lead sooner or later to arbitration for clarification, an unnecessary annoyance for all concerned. I also object to the wording allowing any "uninvolved" administrator to take action. The first action taken by a wandering administrator is irreversible within 24 hours because of the long duration of the required appeal. If adopted, language should be added that a majority vote must be found before any action can be taken: that way, the administrator would at least be made aware of the context for a decision. This motion is an arbitrary interference with editing where no, repeat no, infraction has occurred. Brews ohare (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Query as to clarification

So far nothing has been done to clean up the statement of these motions to avoid inadvertent crossing of vague boundaries and rigid AN/I actions by (excuse me) myopic letter-of-the-law "uninvolved" administrative bystanders who think they know "exactly" what they are doing when they don't. This fear is not unwarranted: the recent past is littered with same. (A case in point is MBisanz block in a bizarre response to a request of Headbomb based upon using the words "Speed of light" on one of my User pages to point out an example.) It is not adequate to take the view that the rules are perfectly clear and violations will be obvious to the casual "uninvolved" administrator. If the purpose here is to reduce such clamor, the more sharply the motions can be laid out, the less of that is going to happen. Would those present care to have myself present a wording that strikes me as clear? Would they care to engage in a little discussion about that? Or do you all take the stance that continued gray area AN/I activity is just par for the course? Brews ohare (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Physchim62

Physchim62 states that I am responsible for “disruption of the encyclopedia for personal motives” That statement of lack of ethics is supported nowhere on WP, and is an unvarnished invention. Physchim62 also has claimed that my behavior involved the Committee in “‘jurisprudence’ on pseudoscience matters”, a continuation of his claims that I have promulgated pseudoscience. I have requested he rethink his mistaken views, and bring them into accord with the established facts, a request he has ignored entirely.

Reply to Jehochman

Jehochman has supported Physchim62, suggesting that I and my supporters are examples of “the problematic over-accommodation of disruptive users”. Just what "over-accommodation" has occurred is left to our imagination. From my viewpoint, I have been followed about by narrow, letter-of-the-law, legalistic AN/I actions that needlessly embroil me in brouhahas of no consequence to WP and of no importance. A study of my "violations" cited as cause for blocks against me support the view that nothing damaging to WP has been involved, period. It is no crime to defend against these wikilawyering actions. Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

12 hours later and this motion is still nonsense. The motions here do not address the root cause of this issue, indeed they increase the angst felt toward the arbcom committee. It only puts the brakes on people who disagree, why? If you want a meaningful peace and have any interest in fairness or even the attempt of looking reasonable try talking to the people you demonize. Explain yourself, don't cry for Brews head every week. Whatever you think we aren't the people bring the enforcement hearings every time someone thinks brews had a thought about something physics related. Talk to the people who continue to make this a issue for Brews, and now by extention myself and others. How does this lessen disruption? It only throws gasoline on a already out of control situation. Good luck this situation is the Arbcom's fault. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

@Cool Hand Luke and others that are declining indefinite sanctions. Unfortunately this is a issue where everyone is pretty much fed up with everything. The supporters aren't the only people that are tired of this, as amazing as it sounds Brews supporters are also tired of this. The problem is there is a cycle of bad faith assumptions on both sides that make it impossible for either to drop their sticks. I would be willing to support modification to the motion if the other group of editors are prohibited as well. If Arbcom truely believes that in removing the support for Brews will help cool this down then I suggest the following. Put a limit on the sanctions regarding Brews advocacy, until the sanctions expire which I urge a return to the 90 day guideline. I would also furthur suggest extending the restrictions to editors like Pyschsim, Headbomb and the like that constantly howl for Brews head. Removing his supporters still leave par tof the problem. Notice I say part of the problem because they are part of the problem, just as we are. Either way you slice it the howls for Brews head on a plate need to stop, you say our advocacy is hurting him, so is the other's. Does this case get any less old if David, count likebox or myself bring this up, then if editors like Psychsim and HeadBomb. No it's still the same cries, they cry for his head and we loudly protest. Stop the howls for his head and Appt. a nuetral administrator to review or mentor his case without the shouts from either side. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Likebox

Remember when I suggested that you don't pass motions restricting users that haven't broken any rules? This is an example of where you should take this advice. It's just silliness to expect that anyone will comment on Brews ohare once his sanctions are modified/lifted.Likebox (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

to IP: The only people in the world who have any knowledge which is not common knowledge are wickedly irritable, because they have to deal with ignorant people all the time. Some of them leave when they see the stupidity of others, some stay as assholes. It takes a true saint to be nice to people who don't know anything and who argue with you. If you don't have nasty people, you won't have content, that's a guarantee. I am happy with this motion, because it is means that I will never feel obligated to waste time contributing here again.

to Physchim: You are wrong about my motivations and that of Count Iblis--- I never liked Brews ohare, I thought he was obnoxious, but I read the Speed of Light talk page, looked over the ArbCom case, and decided he didn't deserve to be banned--- just asked to keep it short. I would appreciate that you provide diffs of disruptive editing--- the only time we ever opened our mouths is when somebody seeks to block Brews on trivialities. For me, I would only have been arguing the case more strongly if Brews was permanently site banned.

to the Committee: The issue is not just Brews ohare, it's ChildofMidnight, and all other bogus arbitration casualties. The banning actions here are repugnant to any ideas of justice, and are driving contributors away. The best have already left.Likebox (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Count Iblis

The restriction should not apply after Brews' topic ban is lifted, as I argue in detail on the talk page. During the time that Brews' topic ban is in effect, you can still imagine that we could have relevant information that needs to be communicated for Brews to get a fair hearing (apart from mere advocacy that is only based on subjective judgements that Brews is not being treated fairly). I suggest that we be allowed to communicate via email to ArbCom, perhaps with some restrictions like only one email of a maximum of 200 words length per person. After that it is up to ArbCom to ask for more information and we can then only respond as directed by ArbCom.

This exception could be necessary because Brews, Likebox and me are involved in the same general subject areas. It is e.g. not unthinkable that Brews and Likebox will edit some math article toghether. If a dispute about that were to arise (e.g. someone claims that Brews is making physics related edits), then excluding Likebox from explaining what exactly they are doing on that article would not be a good idea.

One cannot assume that uninvolved editors can always give enough information in such a case, especially given the polarized nature of the situation. The recent brouhaha on the infraparticle article in which Likebox was blocked for 3 months based on incomplete information by Headbomb and later unblocked when all the facts emerged, speaks volumes.

Count Iblis (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Headbomb regarding my position

See here for my motivations from start to finish. About Brews' namespace ban, if one thinks it is needed (I don't), it can be applied to only the conflict areas of Wikipedia, i.e. to AN, AN/I and ArbCom pages. Exceptions are when he is requested by an Admin or an Arbitrator to comment. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. IP,

I think that Chris Hillman would largely be in agreement with Likebox. Count Iblis (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by 66.127.52.47

Likebox's view that "Abrasive opinionated assholes are the only good content contributors. Only these people have something nontrivial to say." illustrates what we are up against. Brews is not being helped by that. I mostly edit in math and CS. Math in particular has been blessed with some truly magnificent contributors, who are generally as sweet as pie, not abrasive at all, even to relative lamers like me. I am getting the impression that the editing culture around physics articles sucks by comparison, and that many of the best physics editors of the past have left the project. If so, that is a wider problem that the policy and DR communities ought to be made aware of. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment

re KnightLago and others: Wikipedia is not Myspace. The purpose of project pages, user pages, user talk, dispute resolution, and other forms of on-wiki user to user interaction is to facilitate writing the encyclopedia. Interactions like on-wiki games that don't facilitiate writing the encyclopedia usually get shut down if they go on for a while, leaving the participants free to do other things (it's not necessarily interpreted as a sanction against the users). The endless ill-advised relitigation by Brews's "electron cloud" in various venues is singularly counterproductive to any hope of Brews adapting his style and becoming a good editor; i.e., it does not facilitate writing the encyclopedia, but rather does the opposite. Therefore, it should also be shut down, based on a factfinding that it's unhelpful to the encyclopedia, even if it doesn't constitute actual misconduct.

I agree that this kind of thing should not be done lightly, but as Headbomb documents, the duration and sprawl of this travesty has been extraordinary. A formally separate arb case is not needed (Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy) unless there is reasonable expectation that it would bring out relevant info that we don't already have. In my mind that is not likely. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: no new case is needed to decide the current advocacy restriction motion. A case that sought wider remedies could be useful. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

re Likebox: Deleted as tangential original text.

re Physchim62: At least in the contact that I've had through my own editing (keeping in mind that I'm not involved in any physics articles), the "advocates" are more problematic for Wikipedia than Brews himself is. I don't have any very strong opinions on what to do about Brews, but we all learn to edit by following the examples of others, and Brews's "advocates" have been a terrible influence on him. Brews really should find different role models if he ever hopes to become a respected editor. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. K: Brews's editing problems are of a type fairly common for knowledgeable and self-assured folks who arrive here and dive in before they get to understand the crazy dynamics of this place. The problems are just unusual in their magnitude and duration—they normally sort themselves out after a while. I proposed in the recent WP:AN discussion that Brews work with a mentor, a fairly common WP remedy for editors having trouble like this, but according to Count Iblis, that idea was rejected some time back. We instead have a situation where Brews operates under the de facto mentorship of this group of editors with (to put it gently) persistently poor judgement and attitudes that they transfer to him. I see that as aggravating or even explaining the situation, and the pending arb motion as potentially helping. (Brews might also like to peruse Meatball Wiki if he hasn't). I'll agree with Headbomb that Count Iblis is more civil than the other three. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

D. Tombe: Replying on talk page. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Physchim62

I can't see the point in any of these motions. Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should have been shown the door last autumn. I cannot see the point in motions which amount to a lessening of the already light remedies that were imposed in the original arbitration case. We are dealing with an editor who chose to be particularly disruptive on a particularly visible article, and who has spent much of his time since then playing Oscar the Grouch on his user talk page (and elsewhere). He has zero sympathy from this editor.

As for the editors cited in the "advocacy" motion, I believe I have encountered and disagreed with all of them since the end of the arbitration. As the Committee has reiterated many times, a simple disagreement between editors is not, in itself, disruption, but rather the healthy way in which we all try to improve the encyclopedia. Importantly, all of the editors cited have demonstrated their ability to WP:DISENGAGE from an argument, even when faced with cantankerous old sods like myself! I cannot see any serious and sustained WikiCrimes which would merit a remedy from this Committee.

Yet the Committee wants to reduce the remedy against the obviously disruptive editor at the same time as imposing new restrictions on editors who are far less disruptive (if at all)... World gone mad? Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplement

I'm happy that my previous ideas seem to have gained some support, so I will hazard another go. At the moment, the motions on offer are still to reduce the time that Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will be restricted from editing, but will restrict other editors who might have engaged in minor disruption in their belief that Brews ohare has somehow been badly treated. I think the Committee should be very clear that disruptive editing is unacceptable and can lead to a complete ban from en.wikipedia.org. This is the ban that should be imposed on Brews ohare, given his behaviour both before and after the SoL arbitration: any other remedy is a waste of time. Such a ban would be a clear signal from the Committee that it will not tolerate disruption of the encyclopedia for personal motives, and I hope that the editors named in the (currently two) "advocacy" motions will take that to heart in their future contributions. Headbomb appears to think that the actions of these editors are already worthy of ArbCom remedies – I am not yet convinced of this, but I am willing to be convinced, especially if new problems arise after this discussion. On the other hand, these editors are obviously not the root of the disruption: there would not be any "advocacy" if the Committee had not let Brews ohare fulminate in his little corner. The Committee, as is its right, decided to change its 'jurisprudence' on pseudoscience matters by allowing Brews ohare a limited access to en.wikipedia.org: I suggest that the time has come for the Committee to recognize that that decision has not acted in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and to replace Brews ohare's current editing restrictions with a simple site ban. This would be, as it were, to kill two birds with one stone; both removing the primary cause of the disruption and also sending a clear signal to other editors that disruptive editing is unacceptable in the extreme. Physchim62 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jehochman

Reply to Physchim62

Yes. If Brews is banned, then the others should have nothing to disagree about. If however they choose to battle beyond all reasonable appeals, they could be banned too. The over-accommodation of disruptive users is problematic, as is shackling imperfect but productive contributors. See WP:TURNIP. Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dr.K.

I am encouraged that at least one arb (Knight Lago) has expressed an opinion which closely reflects mine regarding the indefinite advocacy restrictions. I think that imposing such Draconian measures on editors through summary proceedings sets a terrible precedent for reasoned discourse and proper process in Wikipedia. We do not need such harsh reminders of how powerful Arbcom can be. By not following a more transparent process on imposing such drastic sanctions against editors the Arbcom has chosen to send a very harsh and discouraging message to the editor community here. The Arbcom is supposed to be the court of last resort where disputes are settled. There was no dispute to be settled by this summary motion. No case has been presented in front of Arbcom and deliberated to justify this massive restriction on these four editors. Instead Arbcom chose to summarily deal with a set of editors who clearly do not deserve such harsh summary treatment while at the same time choosing to clearly advertise its powerful status for all to see. I could understand a restriction with a definite expiry date but indefinite is way too harsh, ill thought, and unjustifiable. I am equally disturbed that if Arbcom, a duly elected body, is to act this way, then, in real terms, this does not represent real progress from the God-King model of the recent past. In fact I am absolutely convinced that Jimbo would have never been so harsh on anyone. What does that say for rule by self determination in Wikipedia? I have no idea, but, whatever it is, it sure doesn't look good at the moment. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Question @SirFozzie: If no less than your colleague CHL calls the actions of Brews "benign" and opposes the discretionary sanctions, is there not a case to be made that reasonable people can view the blocks meted on Brews as excessive and as such Brews has the right, indeed the obligation, to defend himself and not drop the stick as you suggest? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to CHL per your comment: Yes; Everyone should drop their sticks. I just want the sanctions imposed to be fair and reasonably calculated to improve Wikipedia. I completely agree. I also add that if everyone followed your imperative that the sanctions imposed to be fair and reasonably calculated there would be no need for a stick, the advocates, the dramah etc. in the first place. Thank you very much CHL. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I support SirFozzie's alternate advocacy motion as it addresses the indefinite time period concerns and associated conundrums. Thank you very much SirFozzie. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Headbomb In some of your diffs you just linked to Brews' contributions as proof of disruptive behaviour. I do not share your opinion that Brews's continuing policy proposals on his userspace is disruptive. It is a common understanding in Wikipedia that a user is allowed considerable leeway in their userspace. Brews' habit of microanalysing everything can sometimes be annoying, I grant you that. But his right to do so without bothering anyone is to be respected and in turn no one should bother him for doing so. You have brought a slew of few cases against Brews as I understand. I think you hold the record in that regard. I think you should back off a little and see what happens. If Brews' transgressions are so egregious someone will take up the mantle and report him instead. You don't gain anything by becoming Brews' bureaucratic record keeper. Trust the system. It should be able to function in your absence as well. The way things are currently you seem to be Brews' longterm prosecutor. Disengage, drop your stick, and see what happens. Remember we live in a collaborative environment. No one is irreplaceable. Not even the most dilligent of prosecutors. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Headbomb #2 To be disingenuous it is to be completely informed about all the details of this case and, as you know, I am not. I had neither the inclination nor the apetite to investigate the details of the prosecutorial incidents against Brews. So instead of accusing me of being disingenuous you could have called me misinformed and, of course I would have pleaded guilty to that. Regardless I think that you seem to have brought at least a few reports against Brews and you seem to be overly interested in sanctioning him. I would simply then request that you try to disengage from this continuing saga as much as I hope Brews and all the other actors in this drama do the same. This way we may be able to move ahead and leave this cesspool behind. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Headbomb #3 Thank you very much for the clarifications. No problem at all. In many such exchanges misunderstandings of this type happen all the time. I struck my comments above. I also accept your position that you do not want to observe Brews' behaviour on a sustained basis. Let's hope we can build on such small positive things to extricate ourselves from this difficult situation in the near future. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@66.127.52.47 I am trying very hard to disengage from this bitter conflict. But when I read comments like: ...but we all learn to edit by following the examples of others, and Brews's "advocates" have been a terrible influence on him... I thought I should ask for a clarification on a few points that struck me as illogical. First I have to thank you for your humour, intended or not. But seriously now, what bad manners pray tell has Brews picked up from the wicked witches of the advocate group? If Brews were an impressionable teenager hanging out with the wrong crowd maybe. But as far as I know Brews does not quite fit that particular demographic. So what exactly is the particular social psychodynamics model that you are proposing under which this naughty group transferred all these bad habits to this allegedly impressionable, malleable and fickle septuagenarian? To put it in simpler terms; this debate is complex bad enough. Do we really need what seem to be patronising comments to make it even worse? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

@66.127.52.47 #2 Thank you for your reply. This clarifies a lot of things for me regarding your frame of reference and I find your arguments coherent and some persuasive, although I do not agree with all of them. I disagree with your opinion that somehow bad habits get transferred from the group to Brews or that the group acts as defacto mentors for Brews. I think the group would by now have dissolved had it not been for the incidents arising during and after the Trusilver affair. But I will not relitigate these events and thus I will stop here. Thank you very much for your clarification. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Headbomb

@Dr.K.: Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures. Editors should focus on getting along and building an encyclopedia. Likebox "would rather be flogged to death" than build an encyclopedia, tries to dissuade others from doing so, and is only here to do wikipolitics and insult others profusely. David Tombe seems only interested in giving literature lessons, comparison to Nazis, appeals to Jimbo, and so on. Hell in a Bucket is here to "fight with every inch of his spirit" and make noise. Yadda yadda yadda. It's been six months of constant appeals and insults at every possible location on Wikipedia (ARBCOM, AN, ANI, Jimbo's, Template pages related to ARBCOM, other ARBCOM cases related to this one, policies pages, and so on).

There is nothing be gained by letting the Brews crew roam freely and scream on the roofs for the next who-knows-how-many months. I challenge anyone to come up with actual benefits to articles, categories, books, templates, etc... that this resolution would prevent. They aren't willing to let go of things, it certainly didn't do a lick of good to Brews so far, and they are annoying the hell out of everyone. To remove their ability to disrupt Wikipedia is certainly warranted, and does not in any way restrict their ability to contribute content, which is the goal of Wikipedia. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to babysit trolls posing as freedom fighters.

On the other hand, if this resolution passes, everyone gets the peace they crave (other perhaps than the Brews crew, who seem to thrive on drama), Brews stop getting brought into trouble because of bad advice, and thus Brews gets a chance of getting his ban lifted. Which should be the goal. As Jehochman said above, WP:TURNIP certainly applies here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I will mention here that I think Count Iblis' role is limited to bad advice. Unlike others, he's been quite civil in all this. Perhaps if the others hadn't been so disruptive, that Iblis' actions/advice on their own wouldn't have been problematic to the point of warranting a ban, but the reality is that actions aren't made in a vacuum. Unlike others, he seems to understands that agreeing to shut up and disengaging can be the most productive option, and I might be so bold as to suggest that I think he would probably agree to voluntarily abide by the the terms of ban even it didn't pass, in a sort of "agree to disagree" situation. I might be wrong about this, but that is my current impression of Iblis. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: The original ARBCOM case was brought by Jehochman. Concerning ARBCOM/Enforcements, one was brought against Tombe by Beeblebrox, then another by Jehochman. Then I brought one on Brews, and so did Tznkai, which got rejected (and which I did not support). Then I made another one on Brews and on Tombe (which I withdrew to reduce drama), Sandstein started the one on Trusilver, and this one was started by SirFozzie. I also argued that Brews shouldn't be penalized because Likebox tried to have Brews' bans revoked about three weeks after Tznkai banned Brews from the Wikepedia namespace (and which was the first three weeks in half a year where people did not maul each other over the SoL case, and the ONLY three weeks of peace since July-Augsust 2009). To single me out as the fer-de-lance against Brews is a bit disingenuous. 00:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum, I also recall a motion about him being able to participate in the speed of light FAC, which I supported, but I can't find the link. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Also the point of the edit history is not that Brews is micro-analyzing everything in his own userspace thus should be banned, but rather that he's so obsessed about ARBCOM, Admins, Arbitrators, and all the drama surrounding his case, that it's the only thing he's doing to the point that he forgets that we're here to build an encyclopedia.

Also I did not mean to say that you were disingenuous, nor that you claimed I was the fer-de-lance, I meant to say that would be disingenuous to do so. Things came out differently than I meant them, so I apologize for that. I've struck and rectified my previous comments to clarify/reflect what I actually meant. I have much better things to do than be here, and whenever I'm here it's because Brews showed up in places were he was not supposed to be, getting involved in physics disputes I happened to be in, and other similar situations. I don't spend my days going through Brews' contribution and see if he slipped up.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: The striking wasn't necessary, but it is appreciated, so thanks for that. The general spirit of the outcome is seems pretty clear now, and I don't have much to add to what I've already said. I'll drop by every couple of days to catch up with the details of this case, but I'm otherwise unwatching this page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

---

@KnightLago: You wrote "Headbomb - Those are excellent differences for an arbitration case, and the remedies it would bring." Is a full case, along with all the drama it would bring, really necessary to make a call here? We've already been through several ARBCOM/Enforcement, ARBCOM/Clarification, ARBCOM/Motion already, as well as several AN, ANI threads, several warnings, an several blocks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree, but thanks for your reply. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

@CHL: The Wikipedia namespace ban was giving by Tznkai so Brews would stop the continuation of the fights that stemmed from the original ARBCOM/SoL, so he could focus on editing articles productively. That was the whole point of the ban. If you looks at the blocks he got, you'll see that every time they were brought up by Brews just having to keep on fighting whatever the battle du jour was.

The first was due to him commenting in a content dispute, between myself other participants all involved in the original ARBCOM/SoL case and it's aftermath, on the Administrator's noticeboard. Which is about the most clueless thing someone under a physics topic ban, and a wikipedia namespace ban do. When he got pre-emptively unbanned by Trusilver, who got de-sysopped over this, what did he do? He immediately went to vote in a de-adminship process, alluding to that particular case, knowing full-well that the ban still applied considering he just got banned for that, and that the admin who unbanned him got into trouble over it (I don't remember if Trusilver was already de-sysopped at that point). Then when that ban expired, he AGAIN kept on fighting by going at the Admin noticeboard to take sides in the Trusilver kerfuffle aftermath. This is the result of him violating these bans, and this is exactly why the ban was there in the first place.

I ask you, similarly to what I asked in my first comment, what actual benefits to articles, categories, books, templates, etc... does allowing Brews to participate in the Wikipedia namespace bring? This is what he does under the current bans, and you want to allow him to take his fight to policy pages once again? For an editor warned and under general probation, I certainly don't see how he did not "despite being warned, seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum".

Diffs on request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

@Brews: Stop repeating that I've made a request to get you blocked for using the words "speed of light". My request was this, aka that you should be blocked because you refused to disengaged from the ARBCOM/SoL fights, and took them to policies pages. At the end of the day, it got you a ban from the Wikipedia namespace by Tznkai. A block was warranted, but not for the reasons MBizanz gave, and this was explained to you several times now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by David Tombe

Since four months is about to be knocked off Brews ohare's topic ban, it would seem to me as if my advocacy for Brews, along with that of others, has been remarkably successful. If we hadn't been advocating for him, the sanctions would be continuing until October. So I can't follow this argument that our advocacy has been damaging Brews. I would have thought that it is the advocacy of Headbomb that has been damaging Brews all along. As such, I can't see why we need to be sanctioned. Since these new sanctions will be recorded in the official list of active sanctions, it seems only fair to those named that the wording clarifies the fact that we are not allowed to comment "FAVOURABLY" on Brews ohare, because obviously it is still perfectly legitimate for us and others to comment unfavourably on Brews. In the absence of such a clarification in the wording, it will appear on superficial reading that myself and the others have been sanctioned for harassing Brews ohare. David Tombe (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the track-record of your advocacy, this could very well be an indefinite restriction. Cool Hand Luke 09:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

IP66, I don't follow your arguments at all. I don't know what you are trying to say. An appeal was launched in February to have Brews ohare's topic ban lifted. I supported that appeal. You are now trying to infer that my support was detrimental to the success of that appeal. Can you qualify that claim in any way? You have then bought into this latest lie that 'benevolent advocacy' is a punishable crime. You have mentioned meatballism, whatever that is supposed to mean. I looked at the link and I couldn't make any sense out of it. You have sugested that Brews ohare has picked up bad habbits from me. And you have suggested that I have not been entirely civil. Can you substantiate anything at all that you have said? I can't make a single iota of sense out of anything that you have said. David Tombe (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

IP66, I've asked you the million dollar question on the talk page. David Tombe (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Coren, Thank you very much for being so honest. In return, I will admit that I had a conflict of interest in the case, and that as such, my involvement in the recent appeals would have been somewhat irritating for the arbitrators. However, my initial intention had been to keep out of it altogether, for that very reason, and to watch how it progressed. I only entered the initial appeal at a late stage after it became obvious that two other editors, Headbomb and Physchim62, who equally had a conflict of interest from the other side of the fence, had been dominating the appeal and influencing the arbitrators.

Now that we have got that all cleared up, I think that we need to once again review the way forward. As I have a conflict of interest in the Brews ohare case, it is clearly best that I avoid commenting on matters to to with the case, and the same applies to Headbomb, Physchim62, and Dicklyon. Indeed the advocacy of the latter three was considerably more detrimental to Brews's case than my own advocacy.

On the contrary, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket had nothing whatsoever to do with the initial 'speed of light case', and Count Iblis's involvement was minimal. The honourable thing to do now would be to remove the names Likebox, Hell in a Bucket, and Count Iblis from the 'advocacy restriction' motion, and to replace those three names with Headbomb, Physchim62, and Dicklyon. And the restriction should then be limited to a fixed duration of one year. That would be fair all round. I'd happily refrain from advocating for Brews ohare if I knew that Headbomb, Physchim62, and Dicklyon were also under the same restriction. David Tombe (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Speed of Light

Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Speed of light arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Hell in a Bucket, Count Iblis, David Tombe

Amendment 1

• Requesting change to advocation restriction set to expire immediately or at end of Brews topic ban.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

As to this time I still completely disagree with how this was handled however it did quiet things down a significant bit which I think all of us appreciated. I think we are at a crossroads, well for myself anyways, Brews will have enough rope to show he is a valuable addition to our community and will have enough rope to work in relative freedom without incessant hounding over what may or may not be a physics article. While it's likely I would advocate for brews should the need arise I find it significantly reduced once the topic ban expires. If this isn't possible for all invovled perhaps the committe can review this on a editor by editor basis. (Note Likebox was not included as he is presently indeff'd.)

Statement by Count Iblis

I actually made a request by email a few weeks ago, asking for a more limited relaxation of the restriction. This was just the minimum of what is necessary for me to write up some comments on moderation of high quality forums that cover science and the difficult moderation problems you then encounter. ArbCom has notified me that they are looking into this. However, I do support Hell in a Bucket's request to completely lift the restrictions.

If Brews is back editing physics articles and the restrictions against me are still in place, then the most likely effect in practice would be that I can't say anything about Brews on Wikiproject physics. Realistically, in the early stages of a new problem, what I would have to say would likely be focussed on something directly related to the physics content any dispute is about. And we all know that in the old speed of light dispute, I, together with most other editors argued in opposition to the position held by Brews. So, at this level there certainly no issue with me not being objective when it comes to commenting on Brews.

Count Iblis (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I am cautiously supportive of this request. I believe that the advocacy restriction was necessary because the advocacy was stirring up a hornet's nest that would otherwise have been calm. Once the underlying restriction has expired, it seems that the only circumstances in which advocacy would occur are those after the hornet's nest has already been stirred up. I'll ruminate on this for a bit, and am open to persuasion either way. Steve Smith (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Would oppose removing the restriction immediately. I'm open to lifting it simultaneously. Cool Hand Luke 15:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any change. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would hope at least some discussion will be forthcoming as to why not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Amendment 4 to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expires concurrently with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare").

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Per my comments above. Steve Smith (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
2. I have my concerns, but, I'm willing to see how this turns out. I must caution against backsliding however. SirFozzie (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
3. As with my comment. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
4. With the understanding that all of the users whose sanctions will be lifted contemporaneously understand that a repeat of the prior behaviour will not be acceptable. Risker (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
7. I share some of the concerns expressed by my colleagues, but I agree that those sanctions are logically dependent on one another. Further attempts at filibustering will be met with a proportional response, however. — Coren ^(talk) 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Possibly the contributors to WP:AE#Brews ohare (notification on that board)

Statement by Sandstein

I request clarification about whether the sanction Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted has expired.

The motion of 20:37, 29 March 2010 recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions reads in relevant part:

"The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes."

It is not clear whether sanction 3, entitled "Brews ohare restricted" is part of the "supplementary restrictions" that the motion refers to, because it is not listed in the "(namely ...)" part of the motion and, in the list of sanctions on the case page, it is not followed by the comment "Modified by motions below" as is sanction 4.2, entitled "Brews ohare topic banned".

The question is relevant because I have just been enforcing sanction 3, following an enforcement request at WP:AE#Brews ohare. It has subsequently been argued on my talk page that sanction 3 has expired. Should that turn out to be the case, my enforcement action was in error, but in this case I ask the Committee to consider reinstating the sanction by motion because, as the enforcement request shows, it appears to continue to be necessary.

I would also appreciate it if the Committee would consider establishing a process to ensure that arbitration case pages always unambiguously reflect any change in status of the decisions without much need for interpretation.  Sandstein  07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, thanks for the advice concerning page updates. You appear to be under the impression that I reinstated the full topic ban as a discretionary sanction. I did not – I only imposed a ban from the article Speed of light and its talk page.  Sandstein  09:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Concerning expiration dates, I recall a previous request for clarification (can't find the link now, sorry) in which most arbitrators appeared to be of the view (contrary to my own opinion then) that discretionary sanctions could extend in time beyond the duration of the remedy under which they were imposed. I'd of course not otherwise have imposed a ban lasting longer than 20 October. May I ask the Committee to clarify this "question of law" one way or the other and preferably codify it in some arbitration policy or guideline page?  Sandstein  06:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Comment by Brews_ohare

The motion was this. It refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.

This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.

This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked.

I would raise the following points:

• Although the restriction does not contain wording limiting the nature of sanctions to be imposed, I would take it as implied that any such sanctions are to run co-extensively with the authorizing motion; that is, until October 20, not indefinitely. Sandstein has exceeded the authority granted by this remedy. To extend a sanction beyond the time of the authorizing restriction itself requires a full arbcom hearing.
• I was not, IMO, properly advised that such action was going to be taken. I believe that claims by Blackburne that I was warned that arbcom action would be taken are erroneous.
• I immediately desisted when advised that arbcom was to become involved. Brews ohare (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment upon this proceeding: The basic question here as to whether “sanctions cannot run past the expiry date of the restriction” is a general technical point, and its accidental origination in my particular case really has little bearing upon the broad issues at stake. I believe the morphing of this clarification proceeding to become in effect a hearing on my appeal is (i) a distortion of what the clarification should be about, and (ii) an invalid hearing of my appeal in a restricted context where all the issues pertinent to a decision cannot be raised. Brews ohare (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by JohnBlackburne

To clarify I did not claim that the previous warnings were about ArbCom. I simply wrote "He has been warned before" with diffs, so editors could make up their own minds about the relevance of them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hell in a Bucket

keeping this short...typing one handed is a bitch. 8-) I am not advocating for brews specifically, I'm more concerned with arb enforcement w/o specific authorization. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I find this inherently interesting. Jehochman is calling foul because i started a advocacy restriction against him and others and didn't notify him. My question is where is our notification he wanted to impose community restrictions? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Flagging this prior clarification for attention as it is of some relevance to sanctions, expiration dates, reset sanctions, and additional sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman's

Brews has gone back to purposefully disrupting the speed of light article by repeatedly advancing fringe theory and original research. Why must you torture our editors by subjecting them to this repeated punishment. Brews doesn't get it, and will never get it, no matter how much you wish he would. Please, would you finally deal with this problem: ban Brews from making any edits related to the speed of light or definition of the length of the meter. This ban needs to be permanent. Jehochman ^Talk 11:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Would somebody please address this. The advocacy restrictions on Count Iblis and Hell in a bucket were allowed to expires. These accounts are now running cover for Brews disruptive editing. The situation is abominable because you folks have abdicated your responsibilities. Please take a look at the current discussion on User talk: Brews ohare and WP:AN/I. Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@Steve Smith: Wikipedia is not a popularity contest to see who has the most friends to support their position. The AN/I thread has thin participation from uninvolved editors. Please look at the behavior patterns that have largely reverted to the pre-arbitration state. What's the point of arbitration if editors just go back to their old, improper ways? Do you think that Wikipedia:AN/I#Negative_advocacy is acceptable behavior? It is transparently retaliatory. The subjects of the ban proposal were not even notified of the discussion. And since when do we ban editors (without any prior warning) from participating in arbitration? How can you turn a blind eye to this? Jehochman ^Talk 08:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Question from the puzzled Angus McLellan

I don't understand Carcharoth's position, or Sandstein's proposal. Brews had a topic ban and, in best Bourbon manner, forgot nothing and learned nothing. So why give him another topic ban, whether that's the original one until October, or a narrower one indefinitely? The expired topic ban was his last chance to learn and he didn't take it. So why wait until he doesn't learn from another last chance? An indefinite block is the only solution here since Brews isn't interested in changing his behaviour. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Protonk

The RFAR resulted in a strict topic ban and an advocacy ban. The former was whittled down by arbcom I presume out of their belief that they had unfairly classified Brews due to the actions of David Tombe. The lapsing of that topic ban resulted in Brews immediately reviving his past behavior on Talk:Speed of Light, which produced a discretionary topic ban from Sandstein. That ban in place the same behaviors were started up in other (closely related) physics articles. When an admin moved in to stop Brews, those editors formerly restricted from advocating on his behalf did so strenuously and simultaneously (though I don't think they were acting in concert). With respect to arbcom, it wastes the time of the admin corps when old cases are re-litigated needlessly. Whatever the motivation of arbcom to relax Brews' topic ban, the proper thing to do is to re-instate it (and not leave it reinstated as an AE action) and expand it to related articles. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Count Iblis

Jehochman intervened to stop Brews on an alleged OR issue as discussed here on AN/I. Jehochman being an experienced Admin can, I'm sure, filter out the sniping on the AN/I thread, take my own comments with a pinch of salt as I started the thread, and then focus his attention on the comments by experienced uninvolved editors who make relevant comments on this issue like e.g. Awickert and Holmansf.

As I explain here, involved Admins are actually better qualified than univolved Admins to judge cases like this. I know that this sounds crazy, but take the time to read my arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Archived per request of Steve Smith; superseded by amendment request. NW (Talk) 03:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• First up, I would encourage Sandstein (as someone active in arbitration enforcement) to approach the clerks and sort out a good way of making sure that it is clear what is in force or not following an amendment. The topic ban does have the phrase appended in italics Modified by motions below 02:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC), but there are other, possibly clearer options, such as collapsing old text to avoid it being unintentionally read as still in force (in passing, the previous confusion caused at the date-delinking case is still there, so you could raise that as well). I suggest going to the clerks noticeboard to raise these issues, especially the one of how to deal with time-delayed expirations (it is not normal to expect case pages to be modified every time a sanction expires, but maybe it is needed in some cases). Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Moving on to the issue that needs clarification, I support the reinstatement of the topic ban and agree that the general probation (which was still in force) gives some authority to take this step, but I think that an indefinite topic ban requires a new ArbCom motion, and that any arbitration enforcement action should only extend to reinstating previous sanctions, not extending them (or, at most, resetting them to a length not greater than the original sanction). Accordingly, I would suggest reimposing the topic ban until 20 October 2010, and also reactivating the exceptions (numbers 1 and 2) that allow participation in featured article candidacy discussions solely in order to discuss images and to edit said images. I would also suggest that if the topic ban expires or is lifted at some point, that Brews Ohare realise that he needs to change his approach to such articles and to write down how he will change his approach, and if he cannot change his approach, to avoid such articles otherwise he will end up indefinitely topic banned. And to clarify a few other points, I view remedy 3 (the general probation) as still in force, and I believe the wording of the motion referring to "supplementary restrictions" referred to the 24 November 2009 restrictions imposed by Tznkai and logged at the case page in the logs section. Finally, I agree that the actual expiration of the topic ban should have been logged at the case pages at or soon after the point it expired. Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • @Sandstein: sorry, I misread remedy 4.2. In effect you have narrowed the scope (from all physics pages to just 'speed of light') and extended the timescale to indefinite. I am still wary, however, of new sanctions imposed at arbitration enforcement extending beyond the date when the initial sanctions would have normally expired (20 October 2010, in this case). My feeling is that if an administrator thinks sanctions need to be extended in time or extended in scope, that needs to come to ArbCom for clarification or amendment. The exception would be things like resetting sanctions following evasion, or following a set series of escalating sanctions set out in enforcement provisions. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• As has been noted above, the general restriction on Brews remains in place until 20 October. I do not believe that any sanctions placed under the guise of arbitration enforcement can extend beyond that point without additional arbitration committee involvement. Steve Smith (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• My view remains that arbitration enforcement actions cannot extend beyond the expiration of underlying remedies. If you can dig up the clarification request that concluded the opposite, I may reconsider in the interests of consistency and predictability, but right now I see no reason to do so. Steve Smith (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not longer clear on what clarification question is being asked here. Initially, it appeared to be on the technical propriety (not the merits) of Sandstein's actions, but that question has been asked and answered. If this is now an appeal of the merits of an enforcement action, it should be re-framed as such (and not on the request for clarification page). In direct response to Jehochman's most recent comments, the restrictions on Hell in a Bucket et al were extraordinary (and, so far as I am aware, unprecedented). The concern was that these users were causing a dispute to flare up where, were it not for their involvement, it would burn quietly out. The case now is that they are participating in a live dispute (live due other than to their own actions). While it may be annoying that these users are now bringing these matters to ANI, arbitrators' talk pages, or wherever else, it's not fundamentally any different from what happens all the time in all sorts of polarizing disputes, and I cannot agree that by allowing it we have abdicated our responsibility. Steve Smith (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• The procedural matter here is somewhat curious. To the best of my recollection, the Speed of light case is the only instance in which the Committee imposed a general probation with a specified ending date; general probations imposed in other cases have normally been of indefinite duration. (Borrowing of terminology from topic-level discretionary sanctions, rather than using the traditional wording for probations, adds to the confusion, in my view; but that's tangential to the main point here.) My inclination with the old variant of probation—which was limited to page bans specifically, rather than any imaginable sanction—would be to allow the bans to remain in place beyond the expiration of the period for making them, since there would be no reason to assume that an editor would necessarily be ready to return to a page merely because the original remedy had lapsed. However, I'm not quite convinced this is a particularly good approach when the remedy authorizes the full range of available sanctions rather than merely page bans. The best solution, however, would be to avoid crafting remedies in a way that causes this sort of thing; thus, the motion below. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Speed of light

Initiated by Brews ohare (talk) at 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_restricted arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 3: Brews ohare restricted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Brews_ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• JohnBlackburne (diff of notification of this thread on JohnBlackburne's talk page)
• Sandstein (diff of notification of this thread on Sandstein's talk page)

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Brews ohare
• This ban implemented by Sandstein should be dropped, or failing that, modified to expire at the same time as the authorizing remedy.

Statement by Brews_ohare

Repeal or amendment of this action by administrator Sandstein is the object of this appeal. The question of imposing a ban extending past the expiration date of the remedy used for authorization has been decided in the negative in this request for clarification. It also has been determined that the matter of repeal of the ban altogether is separate from the issue of its extending beyond this expiration date. See this diff.

This appeal was filed before at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, but was not ruled upon because it was taken to be outside that venue's responsibility. Comments by others can be found there.

I am presently subject to a modification of Case: Speed of light here. This modification refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.

This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.

This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked in this action, which extends the remedies of Case:Speed of light without ArbCom consideration.

I would raise the following points:

• Although the restriction does not contain wording limiting the nature of sanctions to be imposed, I would take it as implied that any such sanctions are to run co-extensively with the authorizing motion; that is, until October 20, not indefinitely. Sandstein has exceeded the authority granted by this remedy. To extend a sanction beyond the time of the authorizing restriction itself requires a full arbcom hearing.
• I was not, IMO, properly advised that such action was going to be taken. I believe that claims by Blackburne that I was warned that arbcom action would be taken are erroneous.
• I immediately desisted when advised that arbcom was to become involved.
• There was no warning of impending arbcom action; Blackburne's diffs that he interprets as warnings do not specifically indicate that unless I desist in talking about things on the Talk page, action would be initiated. In some cases, these remarks are simply bad tempered expressions of old wounds.
• The quarrel is over Talk page discussion, not intervention on the main article page. There was no violation of Talk page decorum or standards of behavior. What did happen is that extended discussion of a number of points took place, in an entirely civil manner. As a result, some improvements of some topics on the article page were made by a variety of editors. Some issues remained open on the Talk page at the time of Sandstein's action. They did not involve Blackburne, who brought the request. It is probable that these matters would have been abandoned in due course due to lack of agreement, and there was no need to intervene with sanctions. Evidently, however, Blackburne decided that rather than add to the discussion, or suggesting to all that it end, he would resort to administrator intervention.
• In view of the bad tempers and impatience exhibited by many on the Talk:Speed of light page, I volunteer that any future contributions to a thread that I might offer upon this Talk page will be limited upon request of any editor actively involved in that thread.
• Sandstein is not an "uninvolved" administrator inasmuch as has conflicted with me several times in the past, in particular, in the Trusilver debacle when he overturned a block against me by Sandstein.

Brews ohare (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Sandstein: Sandstein suggests that my “ statements of intent (then or now) to stop editing the article and its talk page can[not] be taken at face value”. I'd suggest that Speed of light behavior is not an issue. Where Talk: Speed of light is concerned, Sandstein's ban can be rephrased to allow my participation subject to constraints. I have suggested that a request to stop discussion by an editor actively involved in a thread on Talk:Speed of light could suffice. I think that is a very severe restriction upon my Talk page interaction, and clearly would accomplish its goal. Brews ohare (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies: The clarification question as to whether “sanctions cannot run past the expiry date of the restriction” is a general technical point, and its accidental origination in my particular case really has little bearing upon the broad issues at stake. On the other hand, this appeal is very particularly related to myself, and involves some matters entirely separate from the broad questions needing resolution in the clarification. I believe the spreading of the clarification proceeding to become in effect a hearing on my appeal is (i) a distortion of what the clarification should be about, and (ii) an invalid hearing of this appeal in a context where my views cannot achieve proper expression, and all the issues pertinent to this appeal cannot be raised or discussed. Brews ohare (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Further reply to Roger Davies: You have asked what this appeal is about, besides the point of Sandstein's using an ArbCom decision of limited duration to authorize his action to act alone in applying a single-handed action of indefinite duration without any further ArbCom participation. That aspect involves a broad decision on such matters, which then can be applied here; however, that broad decision should be drafted to be applicable in general, and not limited to this accidental instance. The answer to your question is the three other aspects of this appeal: (i) the warning of ArbCom action required by the authorizing remedy was not given; (ii) the disturbance required by the authorizing remedy did not occur; (iii) if there is disagreement that the preconditions were not met, the action by Sandstein is excessive – I have offered an effective remedy that is less severe. I would add (iv): Sandstein is not an "uninvolved" administrator inasmuch as has conflicted with me several times in the past, in particular, in the Trusilver debacle when Trusilver overturned a silly impetuous block against me by Sandstein. Brews ohare (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Cool Hand: You insist that this is a topic-related issue, I guess because the problem arose on a particular Talk page. However, I'd suggest there is zero evidence that that occurrence was anything but accidental. Might as well say that the problem is DVdm and Blackburne, because they also were present, and in fact were present at some other fluff-ups too. Although I think that might be a more accurate assessment, I'd take a bit more distant stance and say the problem is as I have said: talking on the Talk page past the endurance of some editors, who then take umbrage instead of discourse as their modus operandi. That could be fixed by limiting my Talk page interactions, for example, as I have suggested. Brews ohare (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Steve Smith: Steve, you say “All I can say in response is that I have examined in some detail the disputes in which Brews has been involved, both before the topic ban was first placed and since it was lifted, and he has not managed to successfully apply Wikipedia's content policies.” The policies about content I have failed to apply are not identified. Perhaps you refer to WP:OR or to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, as these are the only content policies that have come up on Talk pages. Of course, content policies are usually considered to be matters outside the purview of ArbCom, and better left to the experts on Talk pages. In any event, they absolutely do not justify ArbCom punitive actions, which are to govern behavior not content. A page ban should be used to prevent things like edit wars on the article page, not to suppress discussion. However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, I am willing to subject my Talk page activity to ArbCom control, but in a different manner than a page or topic ban. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment upon first motion below: The motion proposed is worded in the same fashion as the remedy that led to this appeal, and is subject to the same ambiguities. It suffers from the following: (i) no clarity about the nature of the warning; is the indication of execution of this remedy to be explicitly mentioned in the warning? (ii) no clarity about what constitutes a violation: it is up to the "discretion" of an "uninvolved" administrator. Some guidelines should be provided, an example, does it apply to civil and reasoned insistence upon a Talk page of some clarity and consistency with established sources? This is the type of "disturbance" of WP that I have engaged in so far.

Observation on second motion: As noted long ago by DickLyon in the old Case:Speed of light, the issue is not one of topic, and is one of my behavior. Hence, the present motion is wrongly conceived. I have presented a simple and effective remedy, namely, impose a limitation upon the extent of my Talk page activity. The problem is not willful disruption, as claimed; that statement is insulting and blind to my contributions. It also is not WP:SOUP, although I understand that mischaracterization, as argument over a formulation sometimes can appear to be hairsplitting, particularly to an uninvolved observer. Rather, the problem has been outlined above: exhaustion of the patience of other editors on Talk pages, and an effective remedy also has been proposed.

About both motions: A lock-step repetition of remedy that is poorly phrased and irrelevant to the problem, and prone to litigation and abuse because of its ambiguities, does not reflect well upon ArbCom's ability to understand the matter before it. (What exactly is “physics-related”? Math? Engineering? Astronomy? Geology? Circuit analysis? Chemistry?... DickLyon suggested my insertion of a figure on the definition of a property of an ellipse was ‘physics related’.) The present motions abandon ArbCom's responsibility to some future unknown "uninvolved administrator", who individually is apparently more skillful and wise than ArbCom, and able to decide an issue that ArbCom cannot fathom. Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

---

This appeal of a sanction by Sandstein regarding the Talk page of Speed of light has morphed into a hearing on my behavior in general, but without observing that such an expansion of the purpose of the appeal constitutes a widening far beyond that envisioned. I believe that expansion to be unwarranted, and if it is to be done, a new case is required wherein my overall behavior can be assessed properly within the enlarged boundaries. Brews ohare (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the assumption is made here that the problem is one of topic, as though the difficulties related to subject matter, and to the pursuit by myself of erroneous views in the face of reasoned and authoritative opposition. ArbCom is incapable of making such an assessment: technical matters of subject are beyond their interest and capacity. In fact, nothing said here addresses this framing of the subject: it has been leaped into without careful examination. What ArbCom can do is assess behavior, that is: Is discussion proceeding? Or, is it degenerating into incivility or straying to personal attack? That has not happened. What has happened is that I have pursued discussion to the extent of trying the patience of some editors, who in exasperation have appealed for administrative action. They have options other than ArbCom action. That is the matter that needs to be addressed here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have volunteered to curtail my Talk page discussion upon request by editors involved in a thread. If ArbCom doubts my sincerity, they can make this a formal requirement upon me. That action directly addresses the problem. A page ban does not. General probation that can be acted upon by a single so-called "uninvolved administrator" is a draconian action that abandons ArbCom responsibility and leads to nonsensical administrative actions because the rules of engagement are hopelessly vague and are open to crazy ideas, as my personal history under similar remedies attests. Any dyspeptic editor can find a hair-triggered admin to exercise a block that then cannot be overturned by any other administrator regardless of circumstances. See the Trusilver debacle for an instance. Brews ohare (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

---

It's unclear how the page ban motion addresses the appeal brought. Sandstein's action that brought this matter here has not been addressed. Instead, a broad and imaginary issue has been posited to exist without being properly examined, and treated using what is commonly called cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides ignoring the original purpose of this appeal, also ignored is (i) the lack of evidence for disturbance of ‘decorum or standards of behavior’ , that is, there was no crime, (ii) the lack of notice that ArbCom action would be sought, that is, conditions required for activating the appealed action were not satisfied, nevermind conditions for implementing a general hearing of this kind, and (iii) there is no stated basis for the motions considered in terms of WP guidelines, that is the proposed remedies are not related to the five pillars or guidelines. There is every appearance that this hearing was hijacked to alleviate preexisting prejudices, and all rules and the good of WP were set aside to accomplish that aim. That impression should be corrected, for the good of WP and of the reputations of its administrators. Brews ohare (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

Unless asked to do so now by an arbitrator, I intend to comment on this request after the related request for clarification is resolved.  Sandstein  17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Steve Smith, I am not sure as to whether this request does supersede my request for clarification as long as the question asked there has not been answered by a majority of arbitrators and a motion is being voted on. But here's what I can say now:

• The question of whether discretionary sanctions can outlast the remedies authorizing them is for the Committee to decide (hence the request for clarification); should it do so in the negative, I will of course amend my sanction accordingly.
• As concerns the other procedural issues raised by Brews ohare, the AE thread contains a diff of what I think is an adequate prior warning; the remedy does not require that Brews ohare be warned of AE action specifically. In view of his long history of disputes and sanctions related to this topic, I do not think that his statements of intent (then or now) to stop editing the article and its talk page can be taken at face value; also, if these statements were meant in earnest, there would be no need for Brews ohare to contest my sanction so persistently.
• On the merits, I think what I wrote at the AE thread is still valid and accordingly I recommend that this request be declined insofar as it is an appeal against the substance of my sanction. But the review of all of Brews ohare's recent edits that you intend to make is a good idea, and of course I do not object to any action, including limiting or extending my sanction, that arbitrators may want to take on the basis of that broader review.  Sandstein  18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Brews ohare's now-added opinion that I am not "uninvolved" is incorrect. My few interactions with Brews ohare have all been in my capacity as an administrator reacting to arbitration enforcement requests; per WP:UNINVOLVED, such administrative interactions do not require me to recuse from future administrative actions. I have never voiced an opinion about the content issues underlying these AE requests, nor have I (to my knowledge) participated in any discussions about Brews ohare's conduct other than in the course of these AE requests.  Sandstein  15:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JohnBlackburne

(this is just my comment here but copied here to reply to the same points by Brews)

The diffs were provided to show that a number of editors - most of the participants of the talk page - had objected to Brews' editing over the space of a only a few days. That some reference the previous arbitration case is unsurprising as it concerned the same page and is hardly "old wounds" as it is still in force. I'm not sure why you expect them to show a "warning of impending ArbCom action".

On civility I again point to [28] and [29], your characterising other editors' contributions as "stupid" and "lazy" respectively. Or only yesterday more recently, perhaps more typically, three good faith attempts by different editors to address your concerns were dismissed like so: [30]. Whether any of this is bad tempered or impatient I'm sure editors can judge for themselves.

Statement by Count Iblis

Comment about the proposed motion. My concern is that given the way Brews' edits are scrutinized, issues like this have to addressed. Count Iblis (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This reply to Brews and Jehochman on my talk page is perhaps useful to the Arbitrators. Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Community dynamics constrains how far Wikipedia can evolve the smart thing to do is to leave Wikipedia, just like our early ancestors left the Chimp community. Count Iblis (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I don't have anything to add to the comments made under motion 2 (as of the time of writing this) except my endorsement. Thanks also for the courtesy notification of the merging of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Protonk

My comment on the clarification request also applies. Motion 2 seems to simply settle the matter (for the most part). Protonk (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket

Wow! That's all I can really say. I'm surprised and actually disheartened that instead of trying to look at everything that happened it appears Arb is symbolically washing their hands and letting the mob rule. It's a tad ironic you would ban advocacy for brews but no one looks into the headhunting that has really happened here, but hey if history is any judge why should we have suspected different? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Motion moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification per request of Steve Smith. NW (Talk) 03:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Motion 2 enacted NW (Talk) 16:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Speaking only for myself, Sandstein, I think it would be useful to hear from you now; this amendment request seems likely to essentially supersede that request for clarification anyway. On the merits of this request, I'm examining Brews' editing of the contentious areas since the lifting of the topic ban in some detail, and expect to reach some conclusions in the next couple of days. Steve Smith (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• A couple of initial thoughts:
  First, the premise that sanctions cannot run past the expiry date of the restriction, it seems to me, is fundamentally flawed. Blocks arising out of sanctions, for example, run over all the time and nobody would expect anything else of them.
  Second, the currently ongoing request for clarification doesn't reflect anything very much yet as, absent affirmative assent to the contrary, the status quo prevails.
  Third, it doesn't seem to me necessary at all to meet to treat this as separate to the request for clarification. It is just making work for all concerned. Roger Davies ^talk 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If, Brews, the basis of your appeal is not the technical point about remedies extending past the sell-by date, what is your basis for it?  Roger Davies ^talk 03:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I concur with Carcharoth that Sandstein is uninvolved for enforcement purposes. As for motions, I am also inclining towards the view that the two relaxations of the original restriction were probably premature and that complete disengagement from the topic for a longer period would perhaps have been more appropriate.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Noting here that Sandstein is correct to say that he is not involved here. He has only, as far as I can tell, acted to carry out administrative actions. I suggest that Brews Ohare read WP:INVOLVED, and realise that not everything can be appealed to ArbCom. Thousands of editorial and administrative decisions are made every day on Wikipedia, and while some may be poor or incorrect, anyone disputing them (even those who have been through an arbitration case) still needs to work with others rather than relitigate the case. I am minded to support the motion below, but will wait and see if any alternatives are proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Brews: you say that the original purpose of the appeal has been ignored. I don't think that's true. You brought an interesting issue to our attention: whether enforcement restrictions can persist after a remedy has expired. As it turns out, there is no ArbCom consensus on this matter. However, having brought this matter to our attention, it seems that the arbitrators generally do agree that a restriction similar to the one that Sandstein imposed is appropriate. The proposed amendment therefore supersedes Sandstein's enforcement action, which resolves the underlying dilemma. Cool Hand Luke 17:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Motions

1) Remedy #3 ("Brews ohare restricted") of the Speed of light case is replaced with the following:

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on him if, despite being warned, he repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Actions taken under this provision are subject to the relevant rules and procedures for standard discretionary sanctions.

Support

1. The easiest way to avoid the procedural uncertainty here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Un-gameable, and easily enforced. I see things in this area backsliding to what they were before (which caused sanctions to be mooted against both Brews and some of his supporters), and I am not really wanting to go through that whole thing again. SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't see it as helpful to increase sanctions' severity to make them easier interpretatively. We don't do due process, of course, but this offends something. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   Adding to that, the stuff that's going on now at ANI and elsewhere does not strike me as a ringing endorsement of the existing general restriction; I don't see extending it as self-evidently useful. Steve Smith (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Absurdly open-ended. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Prefer motion 2. Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Prefer 2. - Mailer Diablo 19:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Prefer 2. Shell ^babelfish 20:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

2) Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.

Support

1. I am uncomfortably aware that a law student who used to tutor some high school physics proposing to ban a professor emeritus of electrical engineering from physics-related pages will strike a lot of people as emblematic of what's wrong with Wikipedia. These people may very well be right. All I can say in response is that I have examined in some detail the disputes in which Brews has been involved, both before the topic ban was first placed and since it was lifted, and he has not managed to successfully apply Wikipedia's content policies. Moreover, his response to criticisms of his edits is generally, by accident or design, reminiscent of WP:SOUP. Insofar as I am qualified to judge (i.e. not very far at all), his edits are scholarly and accurate, but he appears unwilling or unable to engage with Wikipedia as it is, rather than as he believes it should be. Whether his vision of Wikipedia would be preferable to the status quo is an open question, and one outside of the Arbitration Committee's remit.

   To tidy up some other loose ends, I concur that Sandstein was uninvolved for enforcement purposes. I do not agree with Roger that enforcement actions may extend beyond the life of the remedy authorizing them, and would have supported reducing the length of the speed of light topic ban on that basis (while specifically recognizing that Sandstein's decision to make the term indefinite was authorized by the general view expressed by arbitrators at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Statement by Ncmvocalist). As this motion would subsume Sandstein's sanction, however, there is no need to do so. I trust that my support of this motion says all that needs to be said on my view of the substance of Sandstein's enforcement action. Steve Smith (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Support in all particulars. SirFozzie (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
3. I am extremely disappointed. I was originally reluctant to topic ban Brews ohare at all; he manifestly has scientific competence that would add to the project. However, he chooses to willfully disrupt it instead—there's no other plausible way to interpret it. I am not happy with imposing this remedy, but I do think it's for the best of the project. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   Response Brews' "about both motions": I consider the hard core of this topic ban to be the speed of light, units of measurement, and fundamental constants. If you are editing articles on non-physics topics in math or chemistry or geology that do not heavily involves these issues, I think you're fine. You can quote me on that. If you start editing that Avagadro's number is unmeasurable because it relies upon the axiom that carbon-12 is exactly 12 g per mol... well, I think you'll be on the far side of the topic ban.

   Use your best judgment. If you're editing innocuously about ore types, no one in good faith could say that you've violated the topic ban. The activity that precipitated this AE, on the other hand, was not a close call. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Works as well. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
6. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
7. First choice, with regret. To be interpreted, in my view, per Cool Hand Luke. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
9. A very unfortunate support. As others have pointed out, I believe that Brews contributions to the content of these articles could be excellent and find it very disappointing that he's unable to moderate his behavior in a manner that would allow him to continue to participate. Shell ^babelfish 20:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Speed of light

Initiated by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) at 05:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Speed of light arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Motion 4 - Brews ohare advocacy restrictions
2. Motion 5 - Restriction expiration

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Count Iblis
• David Tombe
• Likebox
• Hell in a Bucket

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions Motion 4
• Proposed: Motion 4 ("Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.") is reinstated, to run concurrently with and expiring simultaneously with Motion 6's 12-month topic ban on Brews Ohare.

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

As evidenced by discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light immediately following the Committee's reimposition of Brews' topic ban, for a 12 month new duration, the additional parties who were previously (now expired by motion) enjoined from advocacy on Brews' account have resumed disruptive advocacy on the exact same terms and approach as before. Requests to stop have been rejected, and as discretionary sanctions are not in place on the article admins evidently can't reimpose them on individual authority at this time.

I believe that reimposing them is appropriate under the circumstances. This case has been decided, no matter what the party and supporters feel. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Replying writ large to several parties, Carcharoth, and other commenters...

Focusing more narrowly would certainly potentially be appropriate.

Regarding asking / suggesting / prodding people to change directions into things they can be productive in, that was done by several in the thread which started this, including myself. It went so stunningly well that I ended up doing this amendment... The discussion included outright refusal by some of the people previously enjoined to admit that the prior advocacy ban had been in effect, and that such behavior by them was obviously not just OK but righteous and necessary.

Perhaps with the amendment proposed the message is getting across that more productive pursuits would be preferable for everyone. I certainly don't see this as a good solution. But it looked for a couple of days like the bad old days of incessant advocacy were back, and if that was going to happen, there's no reason not to haul out the big gun again and point it.

If not firing it is ok now, then let's not fire it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To explicitly say something I should have been more explicit about last night - David Tombe's behavior now does not seem to be problematic, and I am happy to drop him off the proposed restrictions list. I cut and pasted the proposal from the prior amendment, when I should have been more selective. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Hell in a Bucket -

The four of you were previously indefinitely enjoined from advocacy of this nature. There was obviously at that time a problem severe enough that you convinced Arbcom that there needed to be a specific restriction on the four of you continuing that advocacy.

That has since been amended to expire, but you seem to be missing the message. The message is, Arbcom and the community do have the right to act if disruptive behavior persists; that Arbcom and the community previously found this behavior by the then-four of you to be sufficiently disruptive to intervene; and that you and Count Iblis were at it again.

Persistent misbehavior after prior sanctions has a lower threshold and a stronger response, in general on Wikipedia. Someone who's been blocked for edit warring or disruption may find 3RR now effectively a 2RR restriction on them and then 1RR, and a first block of 24 hrs goes to 48 then a week then a month.

In the context of you and Count Iblis going back to the same behavior you previously were enjoined from doing, and are now defending again, perhaps I was somewhat premature in this amendment. But if you feel entitled to keep it up much longer then you're wrong.

The restriction I'm proposing has already been found necessary and applied to you. Reimposing it for repeat offenses is not a big deal.

If the repeat offenses have stopped and it's not worth any more preventive measures then great. If you can live by Carcharoth's comments below, great.

If you feel that it's simply a gross imposition on your WikiRights - again, it's been imposed against you before.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

• What? One is not allowed to express dissent with the disgraceful measures against Brews? Or what? This is just going to lead to more and more contributors being banned. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Likebox is permabanned of his own choice, David Tombe has done nothing in the recent cases involving Brews and Hell in a Bucket just commented on the outcome. Count Iblis's AN/I thread on this was perhaps ill advised but that's already over with. So I really don't think this is at all necessary now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• The claim that I have been advised to fight ArbCom “tooth and nail”, and that the named editors should therefore be subjected to sanction is wrong. First, no diffs support the claim. Second, suppression of comment on the basis that it is disruptive advocacy is disingenuous. It is really an example of killing the messenger. Third, I don't have to take any advice offered, even were it offered. Fourth, the only disruption that could result from my taking bad advice (were it offered) is that I would become sanctioned. On that basis, bring action against Stifle for his advice, and AGK for his poor advocacy, which led to very clear harm. ArbCom has demonstrated again and again that they will sanction me under virtually any possible pretext, so claiming some concern for my welfare is, well, worth a rueful smile. Brews ohare (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Carcharoth has taken this venue as an opportunity to make various suggestions as to how Brews_ohare could attempt to “redeem” himself, penance for his sins that “might” be looked upon with favor, but no guarantees. This advice belongs on my Talk page, not here. Suggesting that there is a lot of WP that is open to me lying outside of my areas of expertise hardly mitigates castration, if that is what is intended. As for redemption: ArbCom has been extremely selective in evaluating my activities, ignoring myriads of helpful contributions I have made to instead value complaints in a few instances by a few editors with a history of altercation, and blow them up into a huge topic ban. ArbCom's one-sided view of matters and overreaction to complaints appears to be an idée fixe, unlikely to change. Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• This motion is unfortunately partly my fault, since I made the snarky comment[31] (a countersnark to Count Iblis's snarky comment[32]) that triggered the exchange leading to GWH's request. Count Iblis et al had been pretty well behaved in the amendment discussion earlier, as far as I noticed (I admittedly wasn't paying close attention) so I want to clarify that my suggestion for the involved parties to stay away from each other wasn't especially directed at the "advocates". Rather, I commented because in these past couple of actions, Brews's opponents, while technically "right", seemed way too eager to rush to AE when Brews messed up, rather than (say) first leaving Brews a talk message asking him to undo the problematic edit. Or better yet, try to disengage from Brews completely and let other users deal with it if problems occur. When we restrict an editor, the idea is not that we actually want to ban them and pounce on every possible slip. We're instead trying to channel their editing energy away from past problem areas, in the hope of getting good editing from them in other areas.

Collapsed general suggestions about Brews not directed at immediate amendment request (self-edit)

As for Brews, I think he is capable of good editing, I hope the broad physics topic ban doesn't last a whole year, and I agree with Cool Hand Luke that Brews's physics editing problems have mostly been in some fairly narrow areas in physics and that most of his other physics editing has been fine and that the restriction can be narrowed to allow more of that. One thing Brews should really do is stop testing boundaries. That's a typical behavior of stubborn topic-banned editors and it never ever works. (Captain Occam is up to the same thing in another thread). Mostly though I wish that Brews would get some better friends. In the original Speed of Light arbitration, Brews refused to enter a mentorship with another editor, but maybe he could reconsider that. Mattisse (an editor who I liked) was in an arbcom-approved mentorship and I think it helped, even though it didn't work out in the end and she got banned. I would not extrapolate from her final outcome to Brews's, since she did far crazier things than Brews has ever done, so in Brews's case we can still hope to get just the positive parts of the setup. One aspect of Mattisse's mentorship was that when anyone thought she broke a restriction, they were advised to complain to her mentor instead of AE, and the mentor could then often get things straightened out. This was a benefit to her since it protected her from her enemies pouncing on things as people are now pouncing on Brews. I think Brews would be better off with a deal like that, than with the situation we have now. Even without an official mentorship, it would be great if Brews could seek and listen to informal advice from more sensible editors than the ones formerly under the advocacy restriction.

Regarding the current motion, given my role in it I can't bring myself to suggest anything other than that Arbcom let the thing slide this time, and just advise the targets to put a sock in it in rather strong terms. I supported the original restriction[33][34] and I think it was the right thing at the time and that it helped, and that the rationale I gave back then still seems ok to me in retrospect. Arbcom should indeed be open to reinstating it if it again becomes necessary. But as before, a restriction like that is a fairly drastic step, to be reserved for really persistent disruption or bad influence. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hell in a bucket--there are areas where Brews is a real expert, and we want his contributions in those areas. There are other areas where he only thinks he is an expert, and that has caused a lot of trouble. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

There never has been much of an advocacy for Brews from my side. I did utter my strong disagreements with the topic ban when it was imposed in late 2009. But in later discussions I tried to propose pragmatic solutions. It isn't much different now. JohnBlackburne is perhaps right when he says that I perhaps shouldn't have started that AN/I thread. A constructive discussion with Jehochman, Brews and me followed here, it would have been better had that discussion started straightaway, of course.

Note that this time, I haven't even said that I disagree with the topic ban. Sure, I do disagree, but before I wrote this sentence right now, I hadn't even said it here on Wikipedia explicitely. While you can read my long discussions with Brews on my talk page and guess this, a completely neutral Wikipedian who hadn't heard of Count Iblis before, couldn't have concluded this. I do after all suggest that Brews make the contributions he likes to make here, on Wikiversity or Wikibooks instead. I already explained my arguments in detail on my talk page, so there is no need to explain everything here. It suffices to say that Brews, Likebox and me share the same view about educational articles that the wider Wikipedia community does not agree with. Count Iblis (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Very long reply to Georgewilliamherbert which is necessary in order to take away suggestions of past misconduct on my part.

Georgewilliamherbert: "The message is, Arbcom and the community do have the right to act if disruptive behavior persists"

I agree 100%

Georgewilliamherbert: "that Arbcom and the community previously found this behavior by the then-four of you to be sufficiently disruptive to intervene"

Wrong, certainly as far as my behavior goes. It is true that a motion was passed, but without any valid grounds as far I was concerned. The motion could not be contested and I chose not to object to it, as I explained in detail on my talk page. The fact that you now intent to use the past motion as an argument without presenting any facts, shows that behaving in a reasonable way in that case (i.e. agreeing to disagree and moving on), may be problematic in the future as it can be seen as admitting guilt. Some Admin may dig up old dirt and use it against you in an unreasonable way. I find this very problematic.

Georgewilliamherbert: "and that you and Count Iblis were at it again."

This partially builds on the previous mistaken assumption and is thus wrong. What I do find troubling, though, is that you seem to see in something that I wrote on that Notification page that is problematic. But I don't have a clue what that could be. I.m.o., if someone makes a statement that is seen to be problematic, one should notify the editor on his/her talk page and ask for clarification and then settle the matter there. Adminstrative intervention should follow if it is clear that there is disruption and that this is going to continue without intervention.

I think I have made it clear already 3 or 4 times what my opinion of Brews is right now. Note that Jehochman supported my advice to Brews to make his physics contributions to Wikibooks and Wikiversity. So, I'm not sure how I'm advocating for Brews in a problematic way, let alone in a disruptive way.

If I do my best to WP:AGF and think hard at what is going on here, I can only come to this conclusion. You as an experienced Wikipedian and an Admin know that mere advocacy shouldn't get you in trouble. You may have seen cases of problematic advocacy and even in these cases people typically are not sanctioned (I've seen quite a few of such cases). Then you see that there was a motion passed against us, so you draw the conclusion that we must have done something enormously outrageous for this to have happened. So, in your eyes, we are extremely dangerous persons. The slightest hint of advocacy on our part must thus be fought with all possible means.

Then, how can we prevent this from happening? Clearly, not by staying silent. While we should agree to not do anything that others object to on rational grounds, what we should not do is let mistaken perceptions of past bad behavior pass unchallenged. This is a public Wiki-board read by many people, so your suggestions of misconduct on my part may be picked up by others, leading to further trouble in the future. Therefore, this very long reply belongs here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Guy

Guy writes below: "...the extension of the restrictions appears to have caused precisely the same issues of advocacy that were experienced previously"

And that's plain nonsense. Perhaps you didn't read the long text written by me above and only noted its length and concluded, without reading, that this text is an advocacy text for Brews. But if you take 5 minutes to read the above text, you'll see that I'm simply defending myself against unfounded accusations leveled at me.

Guy writes: "Obdurate refusal to accept a consensus decision is disruptive and a time sink for everyone else."

I agree, but this the case when process is abused. E.g. when someone repeatedly puts the same article on AFD despite consensus to keep it. In this case, if I were to email ArbCom every week, or email Jimbo every week or I would launch appeals to lift the topic ban against Brews every week, then of course, that would be disruptive.

But, I don't think there is any such repetitative abuse of process to push my view w.r.t. Brews. There wasn't any such problem with me the last time, although I had ben involved more with Brews then. This time, the main involvement has been one AN/I discussion and a discussion on my talk page with Brews, Jehochman and me. If you take the time to read that discussion, you'll see no trace whatsover of "advocacy". I adviced Brews to contribute to Wiki-Books or WikiVersity. Jehochman agreed with me that this would be a good solution, although by mentioning "original research" he hit a raw nerve.

What I do notice is the tendency of people to see things that aren't there. Take e.g. that template I made that I had to remove after an AN/I debate? At the end of that debate I said that I had replaced that template by an "invisible template". By that I meant that editors can always, by consensus, agree to stick to certain rules, without the template being there saying that explicitely. But some editors were so obsessed with opposing my template, that they panicked about my "invisible template". And what if an invisible template really had been added? I mean, it would still be invisible, right? So, what was all the fuss about? :) Count Iblis (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Guy

"Let them have a user sub-page where they rail against the unfairness of it all and leave it at that"

And how is that a good thing? That would exactly be something we should not tolerate on Wikipedia. Also, note that on the latest Enforcement Request against Brews, I could communicate that Brews is not going to edit Wikipedia for the coming few weeks. That's relevant information, that I would not be allowed to mention if the restriction is re-imposed. But I would instead be allowed to "rail against unfairness" on some userpage??? Count Iblis (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I would again ask for proof in the forms of diffs that Iblis or myself have engaged in disruptive or otherwise broke policy. I've asked several times but no one seems willing or able to do so. I see this motion as a retailatory response for disagreeing appropriately and not being willing to be lead around blindly. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@67.119.3.248, my question to you is what are we advocating? I've not been involved in Brews dispute until somone, I believe Sandstein had made a overstep on the Arbcom enforcement and he asked for clarification. After that it degenerated into accusations of bad advocacy. No one is telling Brews to do anything. My only concern was overstepping admin authority and the fact that while there is a vocal group of people that defend some of the things that happen for Brews there is a whole different group that howls for his head. I'm getting sick of it frankly on both sides. I was happy to see that some of those editors did come here and say this was a poorly thought motion. I do agree in principal that there should be someone who can govern these disputes that will be able to fairly look at both sides without making a full trial of it every time we go through stuff like this. Sometimes I think that wikipedia scorns experts, it's a love hate relationship though. We need experts to help with their expertise but the encyclopedia is also open to everyone so it doesn't always mix, inferiority complexes maybe? I'm not directing that at anyone just a general observation of possible issues here.

Reply to Georgewilliamherbert What message are you trying to send? To not disagree or that you will silence people? I take offense to your threats of a block and refusal to back up any of your claims that this was nec. Have you considered that while you may have been trying to help things there was no need to threaten or posture? All this does is make things worse, Iblis has been civil during this entire thing, I have not but I have made a hard effort to moderate my tone to focus on the issues I perceive, but comments like "there's no reason not to haul out the big gun again and point it" is not helpful in the slightest because it's clearly meant and insinuated as a means of intimidation imho. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

General Comment, It's not entirely helpful to say that the first was entirely not needed but it didn't go the entire way that was needed to fully resolve the problem. For my part I made several references that were not always civil. However the opposite side has a sense of right and sense of duty that does not help tone down the fire. I'm sorry but I really think is a problem here is the perception that everything we do and have done have always been wrong however I'm more concerned with this incident and show whether or not wrongs perceived or not can be brought to the light of day within this conversation and incidents scope. The finger pointing back and forth is really getting old and is entirely not working for either side. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Headbomb

I don't see why this is needed. The advocacy ban was needed a few months ago because of the constant appeal, re-appeal, wikilawyering, etc... Tombe hasn't said thing about a thing here, Likebox is indef banned, Ohare kept to the enforcement request and participate in the "discuss the motion" after the closure as asked some people some clarification (which is again fine and normal), and I don't see what Iblis did that kept pouring oil on the fire. Threads like this however, does pour oil on the fire. There was an AE, and some people were unhappy with the result, and discussed and protested, as is usual. IMO, there's no sign that the advocacy problem is resurfacing, so there is no need to "nip it in the bud" or whatever. In other words, what JohnBlackburne said. Close this thread and let's be done with it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dr.K.

I am disappointed with GWH whom I consider a thoughtful and capable admin. But in this case HiaB and Count Iblis have done nothing to merit such a drastic proposal, in fact they have been constructive in their comments and overall approach. The worst mistake in bringing this proposal here however is the case of David Tombe. As Headbomb and John Blackburne already mentioned, David Tombe has done absolutely nothing to merit this. He has fastidiously stayed away from Brews as if Brews did not exist. David Tombe complied with the advocacy sanctions and continued complying even after they were lifted. He has conformed in every possible way to these sanctions and then some. He actually fell silent. By going after him what message do we send to those who reform? That we'll get them anyway? Dr.K. ^?ogospraxis 03:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by David Tombe

I would agree with what Count Iblis says above. There was no behaviour in the first place that remotely warranted the original advocacy ban. It seemed rather like an attempt to give a free run to those who wanted to advocate adversely against Brews ohare by silencing those who had been speaking out in his defence. On my own part, I was very little involved in the period leading up to the original advocacy motion back in March 2010, and I was quite surprised that my name had even appeared on the original advocacy motion. I seem to recall that when I saw my name on the original motion back in March, that I said that I would support the motion if Brews's opponents were also named. But my perfectly reasonable compromise was completely brushed aside.

I think it's important, in order to prevent any distortion of history in the minds of readers, to remind readers that the original advocacy restriction was unprecendented and without any justification whatsoever, and in fact it was a matter of great shame for ARBCOM which I'm sure that they would all like to quickly forget about. It's time for everybody to move on from this unfortunate episode. David Tombe (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Nobody in the world has enough time to deal with these constant attempts to relegislate the Speed of Light case. The usual suspects have never accepted the outcome, and the extension of the restrictions appears to have caused precisely the same issues of advocacy that were experienced previously; therefore the same remedy would apear to be appropriate. Obdurate refusal to accept a consensus decision is disruptive and a time sink for everyone else. Let them have a user sub-page where they rail against the unfairness of it all and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For a wonderful example of blindly commenting and assuming bad faith, I think Guy's attitude towards this is expressed best in his own words. "Wolf! Wolf! Guy (Help!) 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC) " [[35]] How is this in anyway constructive or appropriate for a administrators actions. George William Herbert at least had the decency to discuss the situation rather then insult people. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

JZG has replied with a clear position on these proceedings [[36]]. I understand that each editor has a right to his own opinion and I have told him I will respect that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Collapsing to provide a shorter response. Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the frustration Georgewilliamherbert feels, but I think a different approach is needed here. I suggest that: (1) Brews tells those named above to stop commenting on the merits or otherwise of his topic ban or anything to do with his case; (2) Those who have commented this time around actually really try and help Brews by finding other (completely unrelated) areas he is willing to work in so he can come back to ArbCom in a few months with some quiet and productive work behind him to justify modifying the topic ban (I would go so far as to say if they were genuinely concerned with helping Brews, they would have done this in the first place); (3) Georgewilliamherbert and others also try and help turn things around here. Having said that, I agree absolutely that advocacy of the "this is a terrible decision, you must fight it tooth and nail" sort is deeply unhelpful, but advice (not advocacy) of the "why not work on this article here", directed at Brews, not at ArbCom, would actually be helpful. I should also note that responses to this suggestion along the lines of "no, we won't do this and we will advocate for whoever we see fit" will end with me supporting Georgewilliamherbert's initial suggestion. Finally, I am not going to suggest any articles myself, or pre-approve any articles, as Brews is quite capable himself of selecting articles to work on that have nothing to do with physics, but I would say be wary of sciences or disciplines that have a large overlap with physics. There are plenty of sciences that have little to do with physics, but have articles that would benefit from the attention of someone with a background in science. And there are also plenty of articles that have nothing to do with science. I would also point out that Brews (or those wanting to give him advice) could voluntarily impose on him(self) the talk page restriction he suggested (for all talk page whatever the topic), and come back in several months and say "look, it worked in other topic areas, can we try using this restriction on the talk pages of physics articles as well?". Creative solutions like this are good, but they all need to be done away from the area of the current topic ban. Provide concrete evidence that such restrictions on Brews work elsewhere, and we may then consider them for Brews for physics articles. Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've collapsed the above as I don't wish to be patronising to Brews. Both the above and the comments at the noticeboard talk page were a genuine attempt to advise him on his options here. Clearly the time is not right for this, but I hope he may consider it at some point in the future. Getting back to the topic here, my view is that nothing needs doing here, though GWH filing this can be seen as more of a warning than anything else. Not intimidation, though I can understand how it can be seen that way. Administrators need to be able to warn without being accused of intimidation, though equally they should be sensitive to being seen as acting in an intimidating manner. Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree in general with Carcharoth, don't think it's necessary at this time to reimpose the advocacy restriction. SirFozzie (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have asked that this be archived without action in 24-48 hours if there are no further actions from the Arbs on this. SirFozzie (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sounds fine. KnightLago (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Speed of light

Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: [[37]]

• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

There have been comments made about Iblis and myself being disruptive in recent discussions regarding Brews Ohare. While I do not deny I have civility issues and prior to the sanctions being imposed it was a fairly common occurrence. However since the sanctions were lifted I do not feel my actions or Iblis has crossed the line. On a recent mistaken block Risker made a comment saying that Iblis was reverting to disruptive editing habits and which was also eventually directed at myself. [[38]]I am concerned because this is not at all clear to me, I can understand blocking for incivility or attacks but this one escapes me. I've tried raising the issues with people making comments that were similar and no one is willing to answer the question. I understand this is and has been a huge headache for all invovled but some clarification here would be great, really not looking to be sanctioned again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Risker, I can understand the meatpuppet part of things. Hadn't really thought of it that way. This however is only one instance that the whiff of puppetry has been shown. Is there anything else? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to WGFInley Your blaming me for beseting you when clearly you did not research the issue fully and is pretty amusing. Maybe you should look, read then and only then block. You want to get to the nitty gritty you performed a poor admin action, poorly thought through and not at all researched. It is hardly meatpuppetry to contest a bad block. If this was the case every thread asking for a block review on ANI is meatpuppetry. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Georgewilliamherbert read what I wrote on the AE page and he didn't see any problems.

Detailed explanations and responses

Detailed explanation of AE involvement Obviously when asked by another editor to get involved in an area where you are normally not involved, one has to be very careful. I think I did act with care when Brews told that he wouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia for a few weeks and wanted me to keep an eye on an article. That was before any AE request was filed, the issue was merely the possibility of an article getting deleted without much input from univolved editors. I didn't get involved myself, rather I informed the person who Brews was talking to on the talk page that Brews wasn't going to edit for quite a while. saw that there was an AE request and I there that Brews wasn't going to edit Wikipedia. Saying that "I'm Brews advocate" was a bit of joke, but it is also to indicate that I'm bringing some information originating from Brews (the fact that he is absent and that he asked me t take look at certain articles). The AFD that I mention there was the previous AFD, the current AFD is different and has more participants. I got involved in neither of them. What I set out to do on Brews behalf was to merely monitor if there is suffcient review from math editors. In case there hadn't been, I would have raised the issue at Wiki-Project math. David did get involved in the latter AFD, but then he has a history of editing such articles together with Brews. I also mentioned on the AE page that I asked Hans Adler to take a look at the articles in question and give his opinion on Brews conduct. So, I think I did put all the information I had on the table, I didn't get involved myself in any disputes on Brews behalf, in the sense of putting forward Brews' arguments on which decisions are going to be based at AFD or AE. I clearly stated what is my opinion and what information Brews had communicated to me on the AE page, and I made an effort to get the issues reviewed by indpendent editors of good standing here. The latter issue was the main objective and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. There have been other recent incidents where people have been making accusations based on vague perceptions. I suggested to Georgewilliamherbert here a better way to deal wit this. Also, I explained what the relevant issues with Brews and me are as far as editing articles here is concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Reply to protonk: Protonk: "I'm not a participant to the case, but I have commented on the myriad requests for amendment, community intervention and other discussions spawned by this case." Good, that suggests that you are interested in this case. Protonk: "It is plain to me that Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are acting as advocates for Brews, though such an observation doesn't involve any inference as to their motives (or the actions of Brews to spur this advocacy)." How do you define "advocates" here? I have never advocated for Brews views as far as defending any edits he intends to make in Wikipedia. Advocating for Brews topic ban to be reversed was done by me a long time ago to a,imited degree, but I did later try to find compromizes which could hardly be called "acts of advocacy". Protonk: "I suspect this is plain to the committee as well, as they took the unprecedented step of creating an advocacy ban naming these editors." This assumes that ArbCom acted based on carefully examing the evidence. They didn't because I was restricted without having advocated to any significant degree, let alone in a disruptive way. So, you are wrong on this point as well. Protonk: "When that ban expired, advocacy continued apace, expanding to general haranguing of editors on physics related topics until Brews was topic banned from physics editors generally."" No, it didn't. You seem to forget that I am an expert in theoretical physics who happens to edit physics pages, who has some physics pages on his watchlist, who can happened to agree with Brews about an example with a figure being added into the centrifugal page, who found the charge that such an example is Original Research to be preposterous and inflamatory. I say then that Brews should find a compromize and make the example shorter, because other editors do have the right to "not like the figure", however frustrating that can be. I reverted to Brews's version once, because removing the example on OR grounds was nonsense. I took the matter to AN/I only after Brews was warned on his talk page because of the OR complaint and that only when Jehochman warned Brews becuase of that. The way the OR warning was given was entirely misleading (the editor in question made a link to the speed of light issues). The AN/I discussion led to a review by other physics experts (apart from generating the typical noise), all of the univolved physics experts agreed with me that the section Brews wanted to add was not OR, nothwithstanding other possible legitimate objections one could have ()article bloating, too textbook like etc. etc.. After that AN/I debate, Jehochman, Brews and I continued discussions on my talk page on a friendly tone. I suggested to Brews that he should consider contributing to Wikibooks, because the topics he likes to contribute to here in Wikipedia are edited by people who push back quite hard on edits that are a bit textbook like. This is unlike the areas I have been contributing to (e.g. I haven't experienced much problems in the field of thermodynamics here when making such edits). Conclusion: Protonk has a poor understanding of the details of this case, he doesn't understand what motivates me. The problem is that he acts in a way that suggest that he has looked into this case in detail (as per my first reply above), giving false credence to the positions he takes. More to the point (replying to Protonk was a huge diversion, but unfortunately it is necesary to waste a huge amount of time to not let false claims go unchallenged), the nature of the topic area (physics, not politics) and my contributions to this topic area (I have made many edits of a technical nature) should have made it clear that there cannot be any "advocacy" to speak of as far as editing articles is concerned. No hair on my head would even think of arguing for Brews topic ban to be lifted/shortened/modified or whatever, if I didn't believe that he can do something useful here. Lately, I've tried to convice Brews that he is the ideal person to make good quality contributions to WikiBooks. This whole overreaction about my actions doesn't bode well for the climate change case. If straightforward issues cannot be assessed and acted on properly, then there is zero chance things will go well after the climate change concludes and the discretionary sanctions regime comes into force. I predict the same mess as we've seen on the General Sanctions board. Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Obviously ArbCom has forseen the possibility of the trouble I'm referring to above and this is why Remedy 3 is being proposed also for good editors like Polargeo and KimDabelsteinPetersen, but I don't think that will matter much. Count Iblis (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The reality that many people see advocacy/meatpuppetry for Brews

That's perhaps the case, but it is always without evidence. The core part of Wikipedia are its articles, and there clearly haven't been any problems there. There are no brainless defenses of Brews edits, like reverting to Brews version without good arguments (I think I only made one revert to a verson preferred by Brews in the last few months for good reasons). Then on peripheral issues in meta discussions etc. one can get certain perceptions, but then that part of Wikipedia is similar to any other social medium where false ideas can easily spread and take hold. Compare to Obama not being born in the US, User talk:Orly taitz is quite sure about this. Count Iblis (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What Arbcom previously found

Please carefully read on the speed of light ArbCom file the Findings of Facts, the discussions and the final decision of the Arbitrators leading them to impose the advocacy restriction. What you find is.... well, uhm...... nothing, nada, zilch. ArbCom passed the moton without any discussions or any findings, they just did this to have a quiet period surrounding Brews. Brews topic ban as to be lifted in 90 days and in hat 90 day period no disputes should not escalate.

While I disagreed with being restricted, I also decided to stick to this and not try to contest it (which would have been rather difficult anyway, give that the restriction barred me from talking about Brews in any way). But, given that there was no normal case in which evidence was presened to motivate this decision and that no defense was mounted, one cannot now invoke the mere fact that the restriction was imposed as strong evidence that there had been improper behavior. You really have to point to diffs from late last year or early this year to directly point out bad behavior. That's also in general the right thing to do; I'm always willing to discuss and accept criticisms about specific things I am alledged/judged to have done wrong.

In general, I would say that on Wikipedia, simply agreeing to disagree and moving forward is a good thing. Typically, in ArbCom cases, ArbCom can decide that someone who hasn't actually done a lot wrong, should stay out of area X to keep the peace (the situation can be polarized and "being right" isn't always the same as "being helpful"). Accepting such a decision should be promoted, precisely because it goes against natural instinct not to "defend your rights". But if history is later going to be rewritten along the lines of: "There was so much disruption and bad behavior that ArbCom took the unprecendented step of barring that editor from being involved in area X", in order to argue that present behavior which is normal for any other editor is not ok. for the editor in question, then this will undermine the whole idea of editors agreeing to move on. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Brews ohare

The position of Risker echoed by SirFozzie is unsupported nonsense. As I was to be absent for several weeks, and expected Blackburne to recommend an article for deletion that I had created just prior to leaving, I asked Count Iblis to link my support for the article on its Talk page should the AfD arise. That is all that was meant by his "acting as my advocate", an unfortunate choice of words. He was simply a messenger. Brews ohare (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Risker & SirFozzie have decided to represent any support of myself in arbitration as "meatpuppetry", depicting dissent as a violation of WP policy. Now WGFinley adduces as "contextual" support the short response time of Dr K in drawing attention to Finley's unwarranted block, not of myself but of Count Iblis. Wow, what a generous apology for thoughtless behavior! On reflection, these administrators' "meatpuppetry" campaign sounds like a great precedent to bring up against my (speedy) detractors in these arbitration brouhahas, should these innuendos ultimately find traction. Brews ohare (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Although Protonk disavows any connection between advocacy and motive, it is apparent that the enforcement of a ban against advocacy would be unnecessary if it were thought that simple statement of of arguments supporting a point of view were involved. Rather, this ArbCom action suppressing advocacy supposes some objectionable disruption that must be stopped, which as it happens was never the case. This ban was censorship of dissent, not an action to protect WP. Brews ohare (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The recent comment by Shell accuses H in a B and Count Iblis of "routinely" showing up to "defend" Brews. That characterization should be examined more closely. The appearance of H in a B and Count Iblis in disputes involving me never has been "routine" (suggesting no thought went into it, it was just matter of course) and never has been a "defense of Brews" (suggesting that their entry is only because it is myself involved, and nothing else). In contrast to the incorrect claim that these editors say that "I can do no wrong", these editors have in fact often suggested to me means to reconcile my difficulties, ranging from leaving to go to Citzendieum or to Wikibooks, to other recommendations (like mentoring) should I wish to stay put on WP. Shell should re-examine the history of events.

I wish I could say that it is amazing that administrators, with important responsibilities to be accurate in their statements and to consider carefully the facts, often do neither. It is unfortunate to see once more a simple appeal for clarification being perverted to become a retrial of past behavior, and made into an effort to wedge open the door to extended sanctions. It is one more example of something I have come reluctantly to understand - never, never, never go to arbitration. Whatever you want to discuss or clarify will not be addressed: instead the occasion will be recast by old adversaries to extract another pound of flesh and enjoy old-fashioned revenge in a venue where fact, fairness and the good of WP have no bearing. Brews ohare (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk (talk)

I'm not a participant to the case, but I have commented on the myriad requests for amendment, community intervention and other discussions spawned by this case. It is plain to me that Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are acting as advocates for Brews, though such an observation doesn't involve any inference as to their motives (or the actions of Brews to spur this advocacy). I suspect this is plain to the committee as well, as they took the unprecedented step of creating an advocacy ban naming these editors . When that ban expired, advocacy continued apace, expanding to general haranguing of editors on physics related topics until Brews was topic banned from physics editors generally. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WGFinley

I was recently working on the AE case involving Brews referenced earlier. I saw Count Iblis' advocacy statement there and misread the status of the numerous sanctions on this case. I thought that Count was still prohibited from advocacy of Brews and I blocked him for 24 hours and notified him on his talk page. Within 20 minutes of this action my talk page was beset by multiple parties namely Dr.K and Hell In A Bucket. After things calmed down a bit I was able to determine the sanctions were lifted and I removed the block.

I wish to chime in for two reasons:

1. The decision page for this case is virtually impossible for an admin trying to do his job to follow. There needs to be a way to either rollup or break out sanctions that have been rescinded, modified, etc.
2. I am unfamiliar with the totality of this case and its numerous changes but one thing remains clear, it appears several users are acting in concert, whether that is to the level of being a meatpuppet for Brews I leave that for the committee to decide. --WGFinley (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Dr.K

First, my apologies for not notifying you I thought you were already mentioned and clearly you were not, that was my mistake.

Having done a lot of admin work in conflict areas like Palestine-Israel, a bit in Macedonia, you see patterns as I do here. In this case I blocked a user and two other users, very familiar with the status of various sanctions, came to his defense within minutes (the number, timing and Hell's initial demeanor inspired my choice of the word "beset") before he even spoke for himself. In and of itself it's not necessarily proof of anything. However, in context, it could further substantiate the tag team and meatpuppet concerns Arbcom previously found concerning Brews and thus levied sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dr.K.

I just read the statement above by WGFinley and I felt that I had to ask for a clarification. I was not planning to attend this particular activity but the statement above is sufficiently unclear in my opinion to require some explanation. So I ask, is WGFinley implying that I had some connection with HIaB in acting to alert him about Count Iblis' wrongful block? Did I do something wrong in trying to alert him? Am I somehow under suspicion? I thought that through my exchanges with WGFinley and after numerous clarifications between us and some apologies the matter was settled. Now I see that I am mentioned by him in some vague statements. I am disappointed to see this but I hope it is a misunderstanding on my part of the statement by WGFinley. I also hope that the vagueness of WGFinley's statements about me is not intentional. I also strongly object to WGFinley's use of the verb "beset" which has a primary dictionary definition of "to attack on all sides; assail; harass: to be beset by enemies; beset by difficulties." If informing an admin in good faith for the plight of a wrongfully blocked fellow editor is translated as "besetting" said admin this reflects very sadly indeed on good faith communication between editors on Wikipedia. I can assure him that if he thinks that I beset his talkpage by letting him know about the wrongfulness of the block that I will never visit his talkpage again. I am simply not interested in communicating with anyone who thinks that I beset their talkpage just by trying to correct an obvious error by leaving a brief and polite message. I hope that such use of the verb "beset" does not imply that there should be a class system under which the plebeian common editors are reminded they had better mind their own business and not upset the ruling admin aristocracy by trying to communicate with them, even in the face of wrongful blocks. Finally is it customary for a non-participating user to be mentioned in a hearing and not get a courtesy notice about it on their talkpage? I do hope I get some straight answers as much as I hope my forced participation in this hearing to be as brief as possible. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to WGFinley

Thank you for your non-reply. Unfortunately you just verified my worst fears about your incompetent and vague statements about me. First you seem to be making a lot of mistakes in your statements lately. You thought that I was part of this case. Well I was not and I expect higher standards of behaviour and cluefulness especially from an admin and one aspiring to get involved in Arbitration matters. You have not answered any of my concerns and you made things worse by insisting on weaseling ideas around about tag-teaming and meatpuppetry. I take this as a personal attack. You use the mere coincidence of the timing of my reaction with HiaB against me and you imply malicious things about me. But don't worry. I do not take your statements and insinuations seriously. Your behaviour thus far, full of mistakes as it is, is a clear indication of the quality of your scurrilous assertions. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition I know that I came in good faith and thinking I was performing my wiki civic duty to your talkpage to inform you about your mistake in blocking the Count. After some hesitation you appeared receptive and you undid the block while apologising "all round" to use your expression. Then you come here unbeknownst to me and not informing me to make all these weasel accusations against me. I content that in light of your all around apologies during the block incident your actions here are logically and morally inconsistent and your accusations against me way off the mark. You don't apologise to people that you think beset you and are tag teamers and meatpuppets. This paints a picture of inconsistent and incompetent actions not befitting someone with AE enforcement responsibilities. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'll repeat what I just said on my talk page: The fact that Count Iblis directly refers to himself as Brews' advocate in the recent arbitration enforcement request, and states clearly that he is acting on Brews' behalf, is precisely the type of advocacy that the prior sanctions were intended to address. Many administrators would consider it meatpuppetry, which is against policy. The fact that neither of you see this as inappropriate is a major part of the problem. Risker (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Echo Risker's comments above, and note the current AE request regarding this current area. Count's words may have been "unfortunate", as Brews Ohare as stated, but it reflects a reality that many of us see, that Count Iblis, Hell Inn a Bucket, and other editors act as advocates/meatpuppets for Brews Ohare. SirFozzie (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think what Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are missing here is that when they routinely show up to defend Brews, at length, in various venues, it begins to wear on everyone and regardless of their intent, looks like advocacy. If you have real interest in helping another editor, assisting them in resolving their problems is always going to actually help - pretending those problems don't exist and they can do no wrong just makes the problem worse. Shell ^babelfish 19:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Speed of light

Permanent link

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Speed of light arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 3: "Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum."
2. Motion 6: "Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months. "

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Brews ohare

Amendment 1

Renewal of remedy 3, either for another year or indefinitely.

Amendment 2

Expansion of topic ban in motion 6 to include, at a minimum, mathematics.

Statement by Timotheus Canens

In this AE report, concerns were raised that Brews ohare has now engaged in the same disruptive activity for which he was originally sanctioned, only in the fields of mathematics instead of physics, as explained in this comment by JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs). Multiple admins were of the view that sanctions in the form of a 1RR/week restriction or a topic ban was appropriate. However, as remedy 3 has expired, administrators were no longer authorized to impose such sanctions, and the report was closed with Brews accepting a binding voluntary restriction of one revert per week, per article, on any article in the natural sciences - which EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the closing admin, construed to include mathematics; naturally so, since the proximate cause was disruption on Pythagorean theorem.

Brews now [39] that his 1RR restriction does not include mathematics articles, something that is supported by our article on natural science but also means that the restriction failed to cover conduct for which it was intended. As it is now apparent that the restriction did not actually address the problem for which it was proposed, it appears that either a broadened topic ban or renewal of the probation provision is necessary to prevent further disruption. T. Canens (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If the committee is imposing a site ban, it may be preferable to include conditions on returning to editing, similar to what was done in thesecases, to ensure that disruption does not resume when the ban ends. T. Canens (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

• Why go through all this hooplah to keep disruptive editors around? We're not fucking babysitters, yet we're here every second week clarifying, expanding, tweaking the scope of Brews' ban, or explaining it to him. The only effect of imposing a 1RR restriction on Brews will be that the next time he violates his ban, or new restriction, is that we'll be debating technicalities about whether his last 132 edits to an article, and his 150 edits on its talk page really consist of a 1RR violation. Last time we failed to block Brews because he made physics/relativity edits on a mathematics article, which is complete bollocks.

  If it was not apparent by now that Brews endeavors to suck out time by wikilawyering every remedy, and debating everyone who wastes their time gives him pieces of advice, this amendment request should make it patently clear. On November 12, I told Ed Johnston he made a mistake by defining the scope of the restriction to be "natural sciences" since natural sciences don't include math, and that we'll be up at AE debating whether natural sciences include math or not within a month. And here we are three days later at AE doing exactly that. Let's stop beating around the bush, Brews had plenty of chances, plenty of explanations, plenty of time to improve. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, Brews ran out of AGF juice a long time ago, and there's no way Brews' contributions is worth keeping him around; for every hour he spends on Wikipedia, we sink a hundred hours of other editors' time in debating him, or being at some noticeboard.

  Indef block him. Or failing that, block him for the rest of his ban (which will just have the effect of giving people a one year break before this crap resumes). Headbomb {talk /contribs / physics / books} 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Count Iblis

• The whole point of the various topic bans was for Brews to get away from these problem areas. This never happened. Brews always hung around, and focused on fighting his bans, appealing them, debating commas, debatting whether he "really" was violating his bans, laying the blame on everyone but him, etc, etc, etc. Hell, there even was an advocacy ban so Brews would stop fighting the bans, and get back to editing non-contentious areas. Again, this never happened, he always kept fighting his bans, testing its limits, etc... Brews had his chances; a lot more than he deserved. There's absolutely zero reason to believe that putting him in a metaphorical straitjacket and under the supervision of official babysitters, would change any of it. And quite frankly, we're not a kindergarten. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Let's be clear about this: Brews only made a statement, he hasn't edited any articles since the last AE procedure, let alone violated the intended interpretation of the 1RR per week.

I recommend that Brews stick to 0RR on any edits relating to his own edits. If he writes something in an article and he is reverted on that, he can't undo that revert. He can then start a discussion on the talk page about the revert. Then, if he starts a discussion on a talk page and this is archived, he can't undo that archiving, nor can he start a meta discussion about this. On issues not related to his own edits, he can revert, but if his revert is undone, he can't revert again as that would fall under the 0RR restriction regarding his own edits. So, this amounts to 1RR on anything unrelated to his own edits.

My opinion is that this sort of restriction is what is called for, instead of topic bans. The problem with Brews was never caused by the nature of the topics (physics or math), rather with problems in editing together with people who don't like his proposed edits. On Wikipedia, you always have to take serious the opinion of other editors, however you disagree with them.Count Iblis (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternative to site ban

Restriction to his own userspace. Brews is then allowed to work on any topic when invited to do so by other editors. He can produce content on his userpage and the other editors can then copy this into article space. I note that some weeks ago Brews was asked to contribute to a math article, but because that was too much physics related, Brews had to refuse because of the topic ban. So, such topics where Brews would be asked to contribute do exist. Count Iblis (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis, you seem to have this presumption that the correct approach to take when an editor is topic-banned is to rehabilitate them by some of these schemes you come up with. Is it at all possible that these ideas of yours fail to recognise that sometimes a topic-banned editor needs a break from an area, rather than being "asked" to contribute by alternative means? It may be an inconvenience, but other editors do exist, meaning it is possible to ask other editors instead of the topic-banned editor. Wikipedia should never become over-reliant in any topic area on any single editors. You should alwaysbe able to turn to another editor instead and make the request you would have made of the topic-banned editor. And the topic-banned editors need to politely decline requests and point the requesters to where others can help instead.Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm proposing would still work if Brews is restricted from physics, my point is simply that the break Brews needs is from those articles were his edits are not welcomed in the article. The pushing and arguing about such unwelcome edits is what gets Brews in trouble, be it on physics, math or any other topic. Now, the articles where he was invited to edit in, e.g. geology articles, there wasn't trouble. Obviously not, otherwise he wouldn't have been invited to edit there.

The issue is then not per se that we can do without Brews. Of course we can. What I'm proposing should be thought of as a remedy for Brews. Brews will be editing in a positive atmosphere (edits are invited, no bickering about it). If he does this for a while, say half a year or a year, he won't want to go back to the previous disputes. Of course, this is then also good for Wikipedia as well. Count Iblis (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Headbomb

What you mention points to the remedies being ineffective. My thinking has always been that, on the long term, we are better off figuring out how editors like Brews can be used on Wikipedia. In 20 years from now, there may be many retired professors editing Wikipedia, some of whom may show the same kind of problem as Brews now. Count Iblis (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've posted comments on NYB's and SirFozzie's talk page

I made some comments there and I think I should declare here that I've done so. Count Iblis (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JohnBlackburne

As I noted hereI was skeptical that the sanction would have much effect for the reasons given. I was not expecting it to have none, or at least for Brews ohare to claim that it does not apply to him (he does not edit biology and chemistry, and is already banned from physics), an interpretation at odds with every other participant in that discussion. But I should not be surprised, as this is yet another example of his wikilawyering, followed with his usualblamingeveryonebuthimself for his repeated sanctioning.

On the wider point this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page –dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration. The current sanctions (including the latest one which it now seems does nothing) have had little effect, except to stoke his persecution complex and add yet more names to the supposed cabal against him.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied here in some detail to Brews ohare's accusations of stalking. If he seriously thinks I, Headbomb or any other editor has been engaged in anything other than a good faith effort to improve this encyclopaedia he needs to provide diffs of our actions. If he can't he should keep his unfounded accusations to himself.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dick Lyon

As I've stated repeatedly, the problem with Brews is not topic related, so a topic ban is a lame remedy. He needs a good vacation from Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In his statement below, Brews pretends that the problem started at speed of light; but in fact, as I had pointed out in that arb case, the problem was by then old and very tedious, just not always in physics. He had already been at the focus of numerous AN/I and other actions, and protracted edit wars in which he never found a way to contribute other than increase his rate of article bloat and talk page argument to swamp the other side in each dispute and support his idiosyncratic interpretations of things. His comments re "tacit" below are an example of how he completely misunderstands or misrepresents the pushback and the support that he claims is found in sources for his pov. His holding up D Tombe as an example of someone willing to listen and discuss is comical in the extreme; Tombe has been characterized as a "physics crank" and for some reason he has unlimited juice for engaging Brews, even though the result is not productive in terms of better WP articles. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Brews ohare

I'd like to digress a bit on a few highlights of my education at WP.

I came to WP in the area of circuits, and contributed what now appear to be very much too technical articles on devices and design, such as Widlar current source and Step response. They passed muster with little discussion because only other experts read them. Then I went to centrifugal force (I've forgotten how that happened) and discovered this rather technical topic was an interest of many with no concept of physics, and of others with very determined opinions on the subject. One of these was D Tombe, who was again unusual in that he was someone with opposed views who could accept arguments and respond to them. These discussions led to my addition of many examples to Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), some of which have survived DickLyon's campaign to delete "bloat". It also led to significant additions to several other articles onplanar motion, inertial frames of reference,fictitious forces, and to historical articles on Newton's famous examples of rotating spheres and spinning buckets. These contributions were accompanied as always by numerous figures, some of which are found here.

Unfortunately those long analytical discussions (which I found engaging because D Tombe was very resourceful and responsive) were totally outside the norm of WP, leading me to false expectations of the community as a whole. Similarly misleading were the very useful and prolonged interactions with Sbyrnes321 in articles like Faraday's law of induction. It was a huge contrast when I proceeded to Speed of light where I ran instead into a combination of religious fervor and viciousness that brooked no argument and soon landed me in court as disruptive. From that time forth I have been harassed by a few from those days who want more to bother me than to make use of my talents. I acquired a symbolical persona as a mad scientist that is still with me, and has nothing to do with me. See my resume here.

While under my physics topic ban I contributed substantially in the area of geology to articles like Low-velocity zone,P-wave, Lehmann discontinuity, Orogeny, Fold (geology) and so forth, again contributingmany images. This uneventful epoch indicates that where Headbomb and Blackburne are not involved, things go just fine.

At the moment, a band of administrators, those like Sandstein and now Timotheus Canens, are happy to support ill-conceived actions by Blackburne and Headbomb with knee-jerk sanctions. I attribute Blackburne's and Headbomb's animosity to a few arguments that stuck in their craws and offended their personal images as savants. I have made overtures to Blackburne, who steadfastly ignores them. The actions of these two editors, combined with administrator incapacity for assessment, have made my days here difficult, regardless of my actions or interests in contributing. Alisting of recent WP:AN/I and WP:AE actions against me shows that Headbomb and Blackburne instigated all of them, possibly except the present action undertaken by Timotheus Canens, although this too is a follow-up of an action by Headbomb.

The most recent events, which ostensibly led to the present action, can be summarized as follows.

Timotheus Canens has based this request upon the statement by JohnBlackburne, which is concerned with some edits on the page Pythagorean theorem. I will summarize that activity shortly. Headbomb has asserted a different basis, that I inserted physics edits on the math page Euclidean geometry, a claim disputed by most (including EdJohnston) in hisfailed actionto produce a judgment supporting a topic ban violation.

Below is a summary of the activity on Pythagorean theorem:

On the page Pythagorean theorem I inserted a single sentence about Euclidean motions which was reverted by DickLyon on the basis that it misused the phrase "tacit assumptions". I then rewrote the insertion to avoid this phrase, and addeda source discussing Euclid's assumptions. That attempt was reverted by JohnBlackburne, who said it was "bloat". I then returned to the Talk page to suggest that "bloat" was vague, and not a WP guideline. On that basis I JohnBlackburne's revert. This revert was the only one I made in this exchange of views. It was in turnremoved by David Eppstein, and that is how the matter ended.

There was accompanying Talk page discussion, as is recommended for such content disagreements. It was civil and confined to a dispute over what was "bloat", and settled on a majority rules basis.

Blackburne's comments used as the basis for Timotheus Canens' case provide no basis for extending my probation, now expired, over a concern that I might "repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". A single main page revert was made by myself. Talk page discussion was used properly and civilly and ended in acquiescence to majority rule.

Likewise, Headbomb's abortive attempt to transform this math insertion into a physics argument when I placed it in Euclidean geometry provides no cause to expand my topic ban to include mathematics, as there is nothing controversial or "idiosyncratic" about my suggestion that Euclidean motions are an underlying feature of Euclid's geometry, as was supported byimpeccable sources in my inserted text. (Also added were this and this). I made no attempt to intrude physics into a math article, despite Headbomb's insistence, and [40], EdJohnston and others have agreed with me on that point.

I do believe the proposed actions presented below are overkill if based upon what actually occurred recently. The more serious question of whether there is a more extensive history that requires consideration is worth exploring, but that has not been attempted so far in this hearing. Such a question requires an inquiry into the history of my pursuit by Blackburne and by Headbomb. Should that be undertaken with proper discovery of evidence and presentation of diffs, rather than using he-said she-said and vaguely acquired perceptions based upon gossip, I believe I will be found to be a useful member of the WP society who unfortunately has run afoul of some very determined editors.

Blackburne's comment: As Blackburne has noted, I've raised other issues with his behavior, like his nominating for deletion virtually any article I initiate, like Idée fixe, Vector algebra relations, Quadruple product; his ultimately denied but continuous invoking of WP:OR and WP:SYN on numerous edits, and so forth. Thelist of arbitration actions brought by himself and Headbomb is only the tip of an iceberg.

The way to get to the bottom of these matters is, as Blackburne suggests, to open a Case and request diffs and evidence. In any event, something as serious as a site ban for both myself and for WP itself requires due diligence, if only to demonstrate to all watching the willingness of administrators to faithfully accept their serious roles. Such a careful undertaking appears to exceed the appetite of this hearing. Brews ohare (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DickLyon's comment: Like everyone, Dick has his opinion. The way to sort out the facts is to actually do due diligence, and not rely upon golden-tongued oratory, not accept pronouncements by self-appointed oracles, and not to decide matters by counting how many say this and how many say that, or rely upon history reconstructed from foggy memories. Get down to an organized assessment of diffs and documented facts.

If this hearing is not up to that degree of scrutiny, it should adopt a less draconian choice of actions. For example, if the problem here is all about what "natural sciences" mean, then propose that I adopt a voluntary sanction worded differently instead of reinventing the definition of natural science.. Brews ohare (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect's comment: Indeed, you are correct about the thirst for further draconian actions. AlreadyRoger has second thoughts that this "vacation" for me is insufficient, and he is looking forward to further action after the year is up, when Blackburne and Headbomb return to assert renewed "conduct issues". Brews ohare (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth's oppose: Thanks for the willingness to discuss alternatives. Brews ohare (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth's go-between: I heartily support Carcharoth's suggestion of a go-between, particularly if it is an administrator. I'd suggest an immediate trial period with this suggestion in place. My prediction is that Dick Lyon and Blackburne will immediately back off their nit-picking WP:OR, WP:V, "bloat" onslaughts and automatic RfD's for articles when they are faced with an automatic conflict with an administrator, and Headbomb will stop his wiki-hounding persecutions over nothing for the same reason. Harmony will reign, and these three trivia mongers will be forced into retreat and will vanish from the scene. I will be able to proceed like any other editor without their nonsense at every turn. There is no need to wait to implement this idea. It can be done immediately. I will draft any contribution on my User pages and if an admin agrees they will be implemented. There will be no restrictions on content or subject area. The administrator will have full authority in the matter. Brews ohare (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrators: I have read your observations and statements of supportand find nothing substantive. Remarks like "this needs to end", "not everyone is meant to edit Wikipedia" and other vague generalities typical of political squawk ads are beneath the dignity of this hearing and simply add to the already general dissatisfaction with proceedings like this one. Can't this matter actually be examined? Can't alternatives be discussed? Is this proceedings a hearing or an excuse, mere window dressing for a decision reached in the shadows off-line? Brews ohare (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Disregard for WP process: Picking a group of jurors at random, it seems that a variety of opinion and a variety of suggested solutions would pop up. Instead, the action here sparked by a question about a voluntary restriction, and nonetheless proposing a very serious sanction, is actually diverted to propose a more serious sanction, and that proposal is agreed to instantly by administrators with only one dissent, without discussion, without regard for various recommendations for moderation, and without consideration of a variety of proposed alternatives.

My plea for looking at the facts, and not taking accusations at face value, is not only not acted upon, it is not even dismissed upon some pretext. Not only is due diligence declined, but the incontrovertible facts already established are not considered.

A solid unquestioning escalation of sanctions and deliberate disregard for process is odd, I think. What is going on? To parallel by Coren in a different matter: this action that has been taken far beyond an amendment to the old Case: Speed of light needs to be filed as a full case request. Brews ohare (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

statement by Collect

Again we see that draconian solutions only evoke more desire for further draconian solutions from those who felt they did not go far enough. In the case at hand, the Arbcom limitation was clearly thought out and discussed - extending this to "permanent vacation" or the like is simply a matter of seeking what was not done in the first place. And mathematics isnot sufficiently related to the Physics issues educed before as to fall under the initial motions. Time to tell folks that asking for more bites at the apple is "not done." All the other argumentation above is really of tangential relevance to this sort of spandex motions. Collect (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I personally think this is a overreaction. I would note the irony of the same people being here asking for the same things. Recently a sanctions was not carried out due to a restriction voluntarily accepted. This wasn't far enough and so we get the request to indef ban brews? Maybe the committee would like to consider the cool calmness that was observed during the advocation motion and extend that to those who constantly howl for Brews head. Again I'd be willing ot completely butt out if there is a level playing field. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Awickert

Like this whole saga, this set of incidents seems to be a string of little things blown way out of proportion and wasting everyone's time. Let's put Brews on 0RR and let him know that while his early contributions (diagrams, etc.) were fantastic, engaging in arguments over trivialities and definitions is counterproductive and cannot continue. 'Course, this case seems fairly settled already, so I'm really just making a note of where I stand. Awickert (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[Add]: Since geology is mentioned: there was some debate over Brews' understanding of the terminology there, as in other areas, and some mistakes were made, but I will vouch that once Brews got what was going on, the volume and quality of his contributions more than made up for the time lost in discussion. Awickert (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by CBM

I realize that it may be somewhat late for me to comment, but I'd like to make a few remarks.

1. As Headbomb also pointed out, few scientists would consider mathematics to be a natural science. I am one of the majority of mathematicans who would not consider mathematics a natural science. But a blanket 1RR per article per week, regardless of topic, would have resolved this sort of wording issue.
2. One difficulty with topic bans is that a person's interests are unlikely to change simply because of the ban. So, since he was banned from physics, it is natural that Brews moved to similar areas that were not in the scope of the ban, such as Euclidean geometry, Pythagorean theorem, and Seven-dimensional cross product. Again, a broader topic ban would have resolved this issue.
3. Most editors who stick to esoteric articles such as Seven-dimensional cross product and vector quadruple product, which are mathematical topics of very minor importance, would encounter very little drama if any. Brews is editing under a spotlight – but he was, or should have been, aware of that fact based on the previous arbcom case.
4. I am not familiar with the previous arbcom case, nor with previous editing by Brews. On the mathematical articles where I encountered him, my impression is that Brews means well but is not very familiar with the topics he is editing, and so makes the same sorts of minor mistakes that any editor working outside their field of expertise would make. Also, at times, he seemed to be reluctant to look up the necessary sources. But Brews did make many useful contributions to these articles as well, and (at least on the articles I saw) there was nothing in the edits that related to the speed of light.

I do accept that, from time to time, some editors simply don't mesh well with the Wikipedia system. But I'm not convinced yet that a year-long ban is warranted here, since the edits to math articles would not be particularly bad if viewed with no eye on Brews' editing history. I think that a combination of broader topic and 1RR restrictions might be able to resolve the issue.— Carl (CBM · talk) 16:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I agree with Headbomb: we have spent enough time—more than enough time—catering to Brews' incessant attempts to argue his way around restrictions, and tolerating his perpetual conflicts with other editors on nearly every topic that he touches. Wikipedia is neither an experiment in online debate nor a game of Nomic; it's well past time for Brews to find himself a new hobby.Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Waiting for other comments here, but I'm largely in agreement with Kirill. Shell ^babelfish 21:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• I have to think on whether a full year's ban is the best solution here, or if we can come up with something lesser that will have the hoped-for affect. SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Am reluctant to support a ban of a full year, but agree that something needs to be done here. I see that Brews ohare has been editing since he was notified of this amendment request, but I will leave him another note as he has not been formally notified that the response to the amendment request was the proposal by an arbitrator of a full one-year ban. I would like to hear from Brews ohare before voting on this. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Notificationleft.

Motions

1) Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

There are 11 active arbitrators, none of whom are recused, so the majority to pass is 6.

Support

1. Proposed; this needs to end. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
2. With regret, but as I have come to realize, not everyone is meant to edit Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Risker (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
4. I think this is one of the rare cases of an editor who is simply unable to work within the constraint of a collaborative environment. It is no reflection on Brews ohare; not all personalities are compatible with the way Wikipedia works. — Coren ^(talk) 04:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
5. I'm not usually a great fan of fixed-period site-bans because a return to editing is guaranteed on the expiry of the ban, without establishing whether the banned editor has in the interim addressed the conduct issues that led to it. In this instance, I may be pleasantly surprised: I hope so.  Roger ^talk 06:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
6. After further thought, and reading Brews Ohare's statement, have to reluctantly support a full year ban.SirFozzie (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Sadly. - Mailer Diablo 05:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
8. KnightLago (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. After reviewing the contributions Brews ohare is capable of in areas where he does not run into conflicts (conflicts that are in large part due to his own nature, lest he or anyone else misunderstand that), I don't think a one-year ban is a proportionate response here. Brews ohare's statement above is the problem in a microcosm. He correctly identifies electronics, geology, and images as three areas where he is capable of good work, but then undoes all that by refusing to move on from the other areas where he runs into conflicts, and to seek to lay the blame with others, and not himself. The golden rule when topic banned is to seek clarification before others object, and to acquiesce if there is any doubt (neither of which happened here). I would support a shorter, six-month ban, and a gradual return to editing in the areas outlined above, with a go-between to aid the production of any images for physics articles, along with a long-term topic ban on physics and maths articles. But that is unlikely to win the support of other arbitrators, or even the support of Brews ohare himself, but I offer it here for consideration for the day or so (or less) that this amendment request is likely remain open. Carcharoth(talk) 01:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Initiated by Jayron32 at 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Notification of discussion

Statement by Jayron32

My request for clarification is two fold. First, does motion 4 (Brews ohare advocacy restrictions) expire with motion 6, or motion 5? If it DOES expire with motion 6, then does this page: User:Count Iblis/Speed of light, which is pretty much exactly the point-of-view that Brews ohare tried to push into the Speed of light article, count as advocacy, and more to the point, does this use of said page count as advocacy of Brews ohare's POV, something expressly forbidden by motion 4. --Jayron32 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Count Iblis: For the record, I have never, once, had an interaction with Count Iblis on the Reference desks, on any article, on any article talk page, or any discussion board ever as far as I can tell. If I have, it has been so fleeting as to have been insignificant. The first time I even interacted with him was to notify him of this clarification. This is a request for clarification, not an accusation of any sort. I have no idea if his edits are a violation of any restriction, I was asking if they were. If not, no harm no foul. As to my editing history, it is open for view by anybody, I have nothing to cover up or explain or answer for. I make mistakes, I own up to them every time they are pointed out, and everytime someone shows me to be mistaken, I apologize for my mistakes and thank the person for helping me understand better. I never claim to know anything about anything, least of all physics, of which my knowledge is pretty much zilch, which is why I am asking for clarification here. I know so little about physics that I needed to file this request for clarification for someone to clarify if Count Iblis was violating his sanction, not to actually accuse him thereof. --Jayron32 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

@Xeno: Absolutely, and that's why I request a clarification in this case; the greater issue to me is the ambiguity regarding motion 4. Even if this wouldn't normally count as "advocacy" for the purpose of enforcing motion 4 (and as I have said once, I don't even have enough physics background to tell if is or is not anything close to Brews O'Hare's position. Seriously. I can't tell whether or not this is Brew's position, oblique to it, or 100% the opposite of it. I simply don't have enough physics or mathematics knowledge to make heads or tails of either person's position on the speed of light.) Motion 4 needs clarification regardless. The fact that motion 6 came into effect means, to me, that it is unclear if the advocacy stipulation was supposed to expire or not. If it actually has expired, then the second question becomes completely irrelevent, and frankly, I could care less at that point. So, if motion 4 has expired, then I couldn't give a shit what Count Iblis does. If motion 4 has not expired, the rest of the questions then become relevent. And then I would care. --Jayron32 02:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Two remarks:

1) The link on my userspace is the view supported by many theoretical physicists, which was completely the opposite of the view taken by Brews Ohare. Basically, I'm with Michael Duff on this issue (I've actually had private communication with him about this issue a long time ago). While I know that this view is a bit controversial, it is still a fully mathematically consistent view and any objections are thus of a purely metaphysical/philospical nature (therefore completely irrelevant as philosphy is not a real science). What I've done on my userpsace is given a derivation of the usual equations of relativity containing c starting from natural units. This is never done in textbooks, because it is awkward and it goes contrary to how beginning students think of dimensional quantities. What happens is that later on theoretical students learn that dimensional constants are just conversion factors and not fundamental at all, however, one then never revists the elementary stuff and does the derivations without invoking any dimensional constants (because it is waste of time).

To give a more familiar example, comapre e.g. partial fractions. When professional mathematicians or physicists have to do this, they usually use Laurent expansions, instead of the standard textbook techniques. When students learn this for the first time, they don't know anything about complex analysis. When they later study that subject, they don't need to revisit partial fractions, as they already know how to do it, albeit it in the awkward way.

2) I have observed that Jayron often makes misleading comments on the Ref Desk about modern physics, e.g. on gravitons, Quantum Field Theory etc. I can tell from his answers that he bases his reasoning on popular books, not on real textbooks. I doubt he has ever worked through standard textbooks like this or this one, because his reasoning is easily debunked from what one can read in these books. Also, he argues a lot defending his personal views, e.g. on gravitons that go counter to the thinking in modern physics; the way he does it is misleading, as to lay persons it looks like he speaks from some authority.

Conclusion: Clearly Jayron is behaving a lot like Brews was perceived to behave. He is wrong about a lot of things on modern physics and pushes his views on the ref desk. He has now used this board while the disagreement seems to lie with a statement about the role of the speed of light which is a normal view held within theoretical physics (as opposed to the view held by Brews). Clearly he is unaware of the fact that it is a normal view held by many. He should have known that Brews's view is the complete opposite had he taken the time to check this out. Clearly he hasn't done that, so he is making a statement of a fact when he doesn't know what he is talking about. Presumably, all he has done is check that I was once (wrongly) restricted for "advocacy" and that Brews was topic banned, and then "concluded" that my view posted on my userspace is the same view held by Brews.

Count Iblis (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

Count_Iblis is certainly entitled to keep wikipedia-related text in his userspace.Biophys (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other users

Just looked through Count Iblis's user page on the speed of light. The math is a pretty standard deviation of classical Newtonian mechanics from relativity based on first principles. I'm not seeing any fringe advocacy here. The text is a little confusing, but looks to be a decent way of explaining some of the differences between Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sailbystars reading of Count Iblis's page looks about right to me. Brews's stuff was completely different and was nonsense. While the page might technically run afoul of NOTWEBHOST, I myself wouldn't bother kicking up a fuss about it. One idea might be for Count Iblis to transfer the content to Wikibooks:Special Relativity. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Added: yes, my understanding is that the advocacy restrictions are no longer in force. There was an incident last August that led to some talk of renewing them, but the renewal didn't happen. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Sailbystars. It's an interesting approach I haven't seen before, but on a quick read appears to makes sense (I did not read carefully). I'm not sure it would be the most helpful approach to present to a casual reader, so I am happy it is a user space essay and not the text of our article on the topic, but there seems to be no need for arbcom involvement or clarification - unless they want as individuals to engage in interesting discussions on physics. Martinp (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• On a plain read, and unless I've missed something, the advocacy restrictions expired at the end of June 2010 and were not renewed with the subsequent motions. –xeno^talk 03:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

  To be clear, I've only answered the first of Jayron's question. The second question (which I'm woefully ill-equipped to answer) only requires addressing if the restrictions are still in place (and I don't believe they are). –xeno^talk 01:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have a decent layperson's knowledge of physics, perhaps even above average, but that's all. I can try to opine on this issue, but am willing at least for now to defer to those who might know more of what they are talking about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it's become apparent that there is no issue requiring our intervention here, and that this request can soon be closed out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• I see nothing wrong with Count Iblis's user page (it it, indeed, an unusual but entirely uncontroversial derivation of Newtonian mechanics), and the restriction did end last June. — Coren ^(talk) 12:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• In general agreement with those above. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Xeno - the restrictions have expired. Otherwise, the restriction was clearly intended to prevent disruption, and a page in userspace isn't especially problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Clarification: Speed of light (Brews ohare)

Case link: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Initiated by JohnBlackburne^words_deeds at 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notification

Statement by JohnBlackburne

It seems the sanctions under this case have expired with his block, but Brews ohare has returned to the articke talk page of one of the articles that was the subject of that case, Wavelength (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because of his attempts insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths and physics. He has in the last few weeks tried to get rewritten but identical material added, then soon after that was rejected started an RfC on the same material. The RfC even more clearly rejected his additions, but he has today proposed a version of it yet again, as if the previous RfC, discussion in early April and of course arbitration case on his previous disruption of this talk page never happened (so objections can be dismissed because the previous discussions and arguments don't exist, and every other editor is expected to explain the problems with his insertions yet again).

My question is: is this behaviour covered by the arbitration case ? Or has that now fully expired and this should be taken to another venue (and if so which)?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews ohare: the RfC was the place to discuss content. This is neither the time or the place. I made my comments on the content during the RfC, there is no point doing so again. You closed the RfC, after only a week, so it seemed you were happy that the discussion had run its course and consensus had been reached. It's your continuing to argue again and again after that that's the problem. It was the RfC that drew me in, as a site-wide notice on a topic I'm interested in. As always if you find fault with my contributions please provide diffs not vague accusations. The link to find them is in my signature.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews ohare You do know that posting off-wiki information about editors that they have not volunteered themselves is considered harassment, don't you? If I cared to keep my identity private I would not use my real name here but it is still strictly forbidden.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: the problem is suggesting something to Brews ohare doesn't work. Asking politely doesn't work. Asking pointedly with links to relevant policies doesn't work. It's not that he doesn't understand such suggestions and requests: he just refuses to accept them, and has instead written essays saying how it should be done and how editors like him should be properly respected. Even arbitration didn't work. The only thing that stopped him disrupting talk pages and wasting many editors time by creating multiple RfCs ([41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46], all this year) and forum shopping was a block.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@AGK: I would like to clarify that this is not a content issue, though it would suit Brews ohare if it were. My presentation above is perhaps not clear on this, so here's the detail again, chronologically:

[47] Brews ohare first proposes an addition. Two editors object, discussions ensue

[48] Not accepting that the consensus is against him Brews ohare starts an RFC referencing the previous discussion. More editors join in, including myself. The text is rewritten multiple times ([49]), breaking other editors replies. The consensus turns even more clearly against the additions, however phrased.

[50] Brews ohare closes the RFC, presumably happy with the result or at least resigned to not convincing other editors

[51] He continues to argue with other editors over the article

[52] Dicklyon asks him to stop

[53] his reply blames Dicklyon

[54] he continues to argue about the RFC content

[55] and again asks for "reconsideration" of the RFC content

[56] I, [57] Srleffler and [58] Dicklyon ask him to stop

[59] [60] he dismisses these objections as "cheer-leading" and "missing the point".

The text went through multiple revisions but is the same material throughout: even Brews last attempt says it is for "reconsideration", and the text can be compared with the last version in the RFC. I've not tried connecting this to the 2009 discussions that Dicklyon mentioned as I was not involved with them. It's also hard to find them: Brews ohare made over half the edits on this talk page, more than twice that of the next most frequent contributor, often rewriting his own contributions.

This reminds me of my observations here: this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page – dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration. Only a few months after that block ended and exactly the same is happening.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: That was the subject of the RFC, which is now closed as noted above and archived since, so it's too late to participate. Though even if you had it seems very unlikely given the overwhelming consensus against including it that it would have made any difference.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews ohare: You haven't provided diffs of my supposed improper behaviour, or at least not here. Diffs look like this one, [61], in which you imply some unnamed editor is 'an idiot' and suggest another or others of 'cowardice'. You can link them like above or link them with text describing them, such as this where you accuse me of 'efforts to embroil (you) in many contexts' (whatever that means). Please provide diffs of my supposed disruptive behaviour so I know what I am being accused of and can respond. Without such diffs your accusations are baseless and do nothing but make your own arguments weaker.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon

The problem is not so much "incorrect material", but tangential, poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information, and a few bits wrong, too, combined with refusal to hear or understand objections. When I was defending the Wavelength article against his bloat and nonsense in the summer of 2009, I thought he was probably an overreaching grad student; turns out he's a prof emeritus and fellow of the IEEE, so no dummy. But in the years since, he demonstrated repeatedly an inability to collaborate, or to even understand the objections of other editors to what he is trying to do. This blew up more at Speed of light because there were plenty of other serious editors there. I'm very happy that JohnBlackburne and a few others have been recently helping out at Wavelength, because I don't have the time or energy to take on that defense again. I have no idea how to convince Dr. Brews to take on a workable style, but this is a drag. The arbitration was supposed to help put him back on a tolerable track; I hope the arbs will look at how to help here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the technical argument is Brew's claim that "the Fourier series is the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that". That's nonsense. The Fourier series is one tool used to analyze periodic functions, primarily in the context of linear systems for which a decomposition into sinusoids allows easy solutions and characterizations of behaviors. This is not the case in the situation where he is introducing the Fourier series into the wavelength article; none of the (relatively few) sources that mention the connection show any way that it is useful. It is a red herring, a dead-end tangent. Decomposition of waves into sinusoids is indeed important, but least so in the context of periodic-in-space waves; the wavelength article is hardly the place to get into this. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

Not this crap again... that's all I have to say. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Brews_ohare

The gist of Blackburne's complaint is that I have attempted to insert "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths". The text so-described is presented on Talk:Wavelength as a proposed addition as follows:

The wavelength, say λ, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself. Sinusoidal waves with wavelengths related to λ can superimpose to create this spatially periodic waveform. Such a superposition of sinusoids is mathematically described as a Fourier series, and is simply a summation of the sinusoidally varying component waves:

.. "Fourier's theorem states that a function f(x) of spatial period λ, can be synthesized as a sum of harmonic functions whose wavelengths are integral submultiples of λ (i.e. λ, λ/2, λ/3, etc.)."

References

If the direct quote from the cited source fails to convince, here are three others:

• Ariel Lipson, Stephen G. Lipson, Henry Lipson (2010). Optical physics. Cambridge University Press. p. 94. ISBN 0521493455. Fourier's theroem states that any periodic function f(x) can be expressed as the sum of a series of sinusoidal functions which have wavelengths that are integral fractions of the wavelength λ of f(x){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Andrew Putnis (1992). An Introduction to Mineral Sciences. Cambridge University Press. p. 65. ISBN 0521429471. Fourier analysis is a mathematical method of expressing any periodic function with wavelength λ as a sum of sinusoidal functions whose wavelengths are integral fractions of λ (i.e. λ, λ/2, λ/3, etc.)
• Alexander McPherson (2009). "Figure 4.1". Introduction to Macromolecular Crystallography (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 78. ISBN 0470185902. This source is cited in the article already, and this figure shows periodic waveforms in space. This source refers to Fourier series in the same context proposed for the suggested insertion in the green box.

I believe this sets aside Blackburne's claim that I attempt to "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths", and also Dicklyon's claims that this text represents "poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information" or of inserting "bloat and nonsense". It also refutes mistaken arguments by Dicklyon that "wavelength" is not applicable to functions periodic in space ("And your statement that ‘The wavelength, say λ, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself ’ is contrary to typical usage of the term ‘wavelength’ " Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2012).

At this point, it is established that content is not the issue here, and smearing this proposal as an example of bloat, flawed understanding, and idiosyncrasy is wide of the mark, and reflects poorly upon the grasp of the text by its critics. As Dicklyon is a self-professed "research engineer in Silicon Valley" and Blackburne a declared mathematician, one may wonder how these basic misconceptions have arisen. On any other WP article a minor sourced quotation making a connection between one topic (wavelength) and others (Fourier series) on WP would attract no attention whatsoever. I am forced to speculate that the primary source of the extreme response here is that Dicklyon and Blackburne have a prior history with me, and it is their lingering objections to my contributing to WP that drives them to bizarre claims contrary to sources, not this particular content. Brews ohare (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If further support for the content presented is required, I can supply an unending list of texts describing Fourier series and its application to periodic functions, and a case can be made that Fourier series is the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that.

What remains is the general claim that my Talk-page discussion insists too much on adding this aside to the reader, over "objections" of other authors. I'd suggest that these objections have been largely based upon misconceptions about the content of the proposed text and its purpose. My attempts to explain that this is an aside pointing out the applicability of the mathematical machinery of periodicity to the topic of spatially periodic waveforms has been addressed by Dicklyon using the argument that Fourier series is not useful for this purpose, which seems to me to be patently absurd. The entire history of functional analysis begins with Fourier series applied to periodic functions, and it is the subject of innumerable textbooks.

My interchange with Dicklyon on Talk:Wavelength extends over several topics, and not just this particular point. Sometimes such discussion gets somewhere, and sometimes it doesn't. That is what Talk pages are for. Brews ohare (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As an example of a fruitful outcome, a discussion on Talk:Wavelength led to my authoring of the article Envelope (waves) when it appeared that this topic could not be addressed within Wavelength itself. Other discussions led to the inclusion of the topic of local wavelength and a figure, the inclusion of the section on crystals and the notion of aliasing with another figure, and to the sections on interference and diffraction with two more figures (all figures created by myself). In fact, seven of the figures in Wavelength were contributed by myself and accompanied by additional text and sources arrived at through discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read the comment by Count Iblis. I believe he has a point in a way. I recognize that most of my interactions with Dicklyon prove difficult, and the proposed text was clearly one of those. I modified my proposal several times to make it a more and more minor addition, hoping to get some recognition that Fourier series in some form should be mentioned in Wavelength. Some formulation of this point could be acceptable to all if the point were developed jointly in a constructive manner. But the practical approach is for me to keep in mind the limitations upon what is possible with Dicklyon and Blackburne, and recognize that Blackburne will adopt every opportunity to drag AN/I or some Administrator into what would otherwise settle itself. Brews ohare (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: Thanks for the added remarks. Dealing with Dicklyon at length has succeeded sometimes, but Blackburne's intolerance makes this more unlikely than in the past. My efforts to widen opinion using RfC hasn't worked. Your recommendation of Wikiproject physics as an alternative mechanism to get other editors involved, and to limit my own participation, is worth trying in the future. Brews ohare (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: You raise the very practical question "how can you actually get something done here while facing opposition?", and suggest an approach bases upon aggressive revision of the article Main page that, if properly crafted, will force Talk page objections into a productive framework. It is unfortunate that so often Talk pages must be viewed in this light as struggling against opposition, instead of joining collaboration. In particular, if some of the editors interested in a page perhaps do not share even the same concept of what a WP article should be, or view exchange of ideas as survival of the fittest, or see WP as a venue to establish who counts, that is the result. Brews ohare (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: I believe you are right that where I have made new articles or added large sections I have been more successful. For example, Envelope (waves) developed when arguments by Dicklyon and others prevented exploration of periodic envelopes on Wavelength. By creation of a new article, these editors were faced with a wide open argument about deletion, which they did not attempt. Likewise, with Blackburne on Idée fixe, as you mentioned. In that case he tried for deletion and lost in the wider community. Also, Length measurement avoided the controversy portions of this topic caused on metre. Any approach that widens the number of editors that might become involved in a dispute proves beneficial. Brews ohare (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

@Count Iblis' proposal. Count, can you explain your proposal more? Here is my confusion. You propose a list of only 3 articles where I can edit. It isn't clear to me what the list is about. Immediately after introducing a maximum of 3 articles, you go on to say that there are many articles where I can contribute without problems. So I suppose the list refers to 3 articles where problems have shown up, and that seems opposite to what you have said. I'd take it that a complaint to the mentor about Brews ohare's Talk-page participation by an upset editor leads the mentor to review that Talk page and decide whether it goes on the list or not. It is the mentor's job to look at the discussion and decide for himself if it is too extended, based not upon content, but upon how much back and forth has occurred. Once listed, I have to abandon that page, but I am unclear how a page becomes removed from the list unless it is has to be removed because another one is added, and the limit is 3 pages. If I have got this right, or otherwise, can you extend your presentation to make these points more transparent? If I've got it right, I'd say this proposal is workable for me. If instead I am allowed to work on only 3 articles altogether, I don't find that acceptable. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to My very best wishes, I gather that you pose a query to me that can be narrowly expressed something like this: "Assuming that Brews_ohare is completely correct in stating that a sourced quotation has pertinence to the article Wavelength, and assuming further that opposition to its inclusion is not well founded, would you, Brews_ohare, nonetheless agree to desist from pursuing this particular attempt to include this material in Wavelength?" I'd answer that the posited assumptions reflect how I think about this matter, but, as stated above in my response to Count Iblis, I also see that there is little point in pursuing the issue on Talk:Wavelength under the prevailing circumstances. So, yes, I'll move on. Your question, however, is posed more broadly, not restricted to this episode on Talk:Wavelength. In a broader context, regarding discussion in general, I'll have to consider carefully to what extent Dicklyon is open to discussion should he appear on another Talk page. I'd point out the paragraph above detailing positive outcomes for Wavelength in interaction with Dick. These were the result of useful but difficult discussions with Dick. Now a further difficulty to weigh in future is that any extended discussion with Dick will draw in Blackburne, who will use any detailed discussion as an opportunity to invite Administrator attention, even using a pretext such as this supposed query about "clarification" of an expired sanction. I will doubtless be more careful in the future. Brews ohare (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Thanks for the remarks. Yes, there is no general answer to these kinds of problem. The answer appears in this case to depend upon my exercising more care in dealing with these two, regardless of the topic or the merits. Brews ohare (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I interpret your added remark as a suggestion that I be topic banned to reduce clamor on Talk:Wavelength. If your suggestion is a page-ban, it is hardly necessary, as it is clear to me that the present discussion is over. If your suggestion is more general, I would strongly object that such a serious action goes far beyond anything suggested by Talk:Wavelength. Brews ohare (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I'd add to these remarks that many past prolonged discussions on Talk:Wavelength have proved productive, as evidenced by the discussions attached in Wavelength to the seven figures I have contributed there. Not all prolonged, and even heated, discussions are useless, although they may not generate a glow of satisfaction. Of course, the atmosphere on Talk pages is not always ideal (to say the least), and results often stem from debate as much as from collaboration. However, if the discussions on Talk:Wavelength had been inhibited by the threat of sanctions, the article Wavelength would not be as good. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Srleffler, the proposed text in the green box is not merely rehash. The proposal narrowed in scope and purpose over time to become what it now is, a simple cross-reference between Wavelength and Fourier series, a much more limited reference than that found in the four sources cited above. However, your objections never addressed this change, as explicitly pointed out to you. Brews ohare (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Blackburne's objections to my "outing" him: I was unaware that referring to a link to your photo would prove upsetting, as it is immediately available from the link posted on your WP User page. My apologies. I also was unaware of any policy in this regard. I have removed the link. Brews ohare (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@Blackburne: I'm gratified to see you read my two essays 1, 2 though surprised at the tone of your reaction and your invented titles for them. You now are using this "clarification" as a foot in the door to squeeze in a smear campaign. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Jclemens: Although it may appear from Blackburne's perspective that simple head-butting took place on Talk:Wavelength, in fact the discussion did evolve. It ended with the text in the green box that makes the connection between Wavelength and Fourier series. As pointed out by direct quotes from published sources, objections that this text contains improper content are wrong. The objections actually are only a matter of taste: the value of a digression. Nonetheless, at this point I recognize that even this limited proposal has been rejected.

You have advised "all parties to work together toward improving the articles in question". One might wish that interactions between myself and Dicklyon, with occasional participation by Srleffler, were less confrontational. Nonetheless, improvements to Wavelength have resulted from our past interactions, leading to eight figures contributed by myself and their related content. One such discussion led to the new article Envelope (waves). So, although our relationship is imperfect, shall we say, it can have positive results, and it does not require Arbitration. Brews ohare (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Kirill: There is nothing complicated about this case at all, if you look at it closely. The proposed text in the green box is nothing more than a straightforward quote from a reliable source, backed up by further sources for the purpose of this case. Bringing it forward here as a "clarification" of a dead sanction is only pretext, as you have noticed. This action simply is harassment by Blackburne, who was involved only peripherally in the discussion of this proposal. The real discussion was between Dicklyon and myself, and we frequently disagree about how a topic should be presented or even whether it should be presented. These differences are often just a matter of taste, as in the present case where the actual content is beyond reproach, and the only issue is evaluation of pertinence to the topic. Our joint history shows that we can sort these matters out without the intervention of Administrators. See, for example, this, this and this as an example of one of our extended discussions that ended equably with positive results for WP. This whole matter should be thrown out in its entirety. Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary remarks

If I weren't the subject here, it would amuse me to see how a lengthy dispute between two editors (Dicklyon and Brews ohare) over including a reference to another WP article could be blown up to such proportions. The original object here of a so-called "clarification" of the Case:Speed of light, an expired sanction, has been completely put aside. By accepting the possibility of a topic ban, the matter is now, in effect, a case or a review with no name and no discovery, settled by a show of hands without open fact-finding.

Were it the case that the issue of noncontroversial or valuable edits were a factor in Arbs' thinking, the matter would be settled in my favor already. Since my return, among other articles Wikipedia now has Envelope (waves) and Length measurement and p-n diode and field effect (semiconductor) that were written by myself without controversy. Wavelength contains multiple figures by myself with associated discussions fashioned amid controversy with Dicklyon, when Blackburne was not about. When Dicklyon is not involved, my editing history is full of non-controversial additions to articles, the most recent being a history section for Dirac delta function.

A real question is why a gadfly like Blackburne is given credence when he sticks his nose into something he has no interest in, and doesn't take time to understand. Apparently, he is appreciated for other reasons.

Blackburne has made numerous appeals to arbitration since my return to WP from a ban of a year that was instigated in response to a request by Blackburne at that time. He has pursued me across Wikipedia, even to articles like Idée fixe (psychology) and several essays of mine, like Wikipedia:Formal organization that have no relation to the topics of physics or math. Prior history shows this will continue with increased intensity should the topic ban be imposed, allowing claimed violation simply by raising content issues that formally lie outside Arbs' jurisdiction as spelled out in WP documentation. A topic ban takes any claim that the ban has been violated to AN/I, where content is moot, or allows any Administrator to institute reprisal by themselves, without discussion with anyone else.

Some Arbs have pointed out this matter is not a "clarification" at all, and if any action is to be taken at all, it involves some complex history that needs sorting out by a review or a full case. I hope that sense prevails. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see an about-face by Arbs who now contradict their initial reactions, for no stated reasons. Disagreement between a very few editors on a Talk page? Despite Elen of the Roads' observations that Case:Speed of light was over and a new case was necessary, AGK's comments that the matter was too specialized for a motion, Krill's and PhilKnight's agreement with that, Jclemens' exhortation that all parties work together, and SilkTork's seeing no problem with Talk page discussion? What happened, one might ask? Why were all of Roger Davies' motions against Brews ohare, and none for other alternatives? What has the pretext for this action of a "clarification" of a dead Case:Speed of light got to do with all this? The dead Case:Speed of light has decided things, after all, it seems.

There isn't any sign my remarks were considered, nor those of the community at large.

It's too bad. Brews ohare (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Elen of the Roads: "Everyone else is quoting textbooks, Brews ... has his own interpretations. There's your problem." Elen, that is nonsense: it is my text in the green box that cites sources. There is no interpretation by Brews, and the claims by the critics is not sourced at all, and in fact contradicts four cited sources. Brews ohare (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides, this is not a content dispute, but a dispute over whether I am allowed to protest on a Talk page over spurious allegations contrary to sources. Apparently that rebuttal has limits, and my behavior in many other cases shows that I am aware of this fact, and have desisted. Were a full review opened, these matters could be properly explored, and my behavior properly assessed. Brews ohare (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens: "This [a topic ban] seems a more appropriate way forward when only one previously-sanctioned user's conduct is being questioned." Two questions: Why is a topic ban preferable to the proposed motion limiting Talk-page interaction, which has obvious advantages for easy Administrator enforcement and eliminates murky decisions about content? And, why is it that only the actions of one editor, Brews ohare, is under consideration when it is clear that Blackburne has pursued Brews ohare all over WP, and Dicklyon has been the major partner in long discussion wherever he has shown up? Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens: You say "you may be questioning the conduct of two other editors, but I didn't--and still don't on a quick re-read-through--see anyone else doing so here". That seems to be the case, no-one else has dwelt upon this issue. That doesn't mean it isn't there. In my comments I have linked diffs by the score showing Blackburne's efforts to embroil me in many contexts. And there are also diffs above showing Dicklyon's engagements with me can be very extended, so their length in itself is not a cause for alarm until Blackburne capitalizes upon it.

I am aware having looked at statistics that Arbs have a lot of stuff to deal with, a mind-boggling amount in fact. So the time to look at things is limited. However, in this case these pressures have led you astray.

In any event, the proposal I have offered to limit my Talk-page interactions fixes all this, regardless of the brou-ha-ha and regardless of why it all came to be, or who is at fault. Brews ohare (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Way forward

So far the motions under consideration by arbitrators are limited in nature. The goal of all of them is to limit what is seen as my disruption of Talk pages.

A much simpler way to do this than the proposals, and one that does not eliminate my ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way, is a motion imposing a limit on how many times I can attempt to rephrase a proposed addition to the main page without censure of some kind.

A motion of this form has two advantages: it eliminates my causing long Talk-page discussions while allowing me to contribute non-controversial material such as Envelope (waves), history of the Dirac delta function, and figures, and at the same time it is easy to administer. Instead of judging whether or not a contribution of mine on (say) 'Pythagoras' is biographical, mathematical or physics-related (an undertaking difficult for Admins with no technical background) an Admin has only to be able to count how many times I have attempted to explain a proposal of mine.

It seems probable to me that by working under such stricture I would develop habits of discussion acceptable to the community, and eliminate pretexts for arbitration.

There is no need for Admins to keep an eye on matters: if no editor complains about Brews ohare, there is nothing to worry about. If an editor does complain, that will trigger Administrator attention, and a count of Brews ohare replies will result. The criterion of three replies is so easy to implement that it seems likely to be a rare occurrence that Brews ohare will overstep. Brews ohare (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A different motion has been advanced by Count Iblis and My very best wishes. That proposal involves appointment of an intermediary who would decide when and whether a suggestion of mine was ready for prime time, and serve to interface between myself and other editors. Some version of this proposal could work, but I feel that it is a burden upon the mentor that might make it hard to find a volunteer.

In any event, the present motions do not address my Talk-page discussions in the best way, and some more creative measure, like the two suggested here, would be better for the future of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To limit Talk-page discussions

Brews ohare is advised to limit his Talk-page discussion of topics to an initial proposal and three or fewer responses to rejection. Follow-up proposals or new threads initiated by Brews ohare concerning the same topic do not re-initiate the count. Introduction of a new thread by another editor does reset the count. Brews ohare may reintroduce a topic on a Talk page after a lapse of time set as six months, which resets the count upon Brews ohare's ability to respond. These strictures upon Brews ohare will be reviewed in one year to see how things are going.

The penalty for violation of these requirements will be a page-ban for one year from the page and its Talk-page where the violation occurred.

@Roger Davies: Roger, you have indicated on your Talk page that this proposal to limit my Talk-page activity cannot be proposed as an alternative here because you "do not feel sufficiently confident in the outcome to propose it as an alternative." You go on to say that a topic ban is a great approach because an editor (like Brews ohare) will have no trouble steering clear of any edits that could possibly infringe upon the ban.

Of course, history shows that to be nonsense: who can anticipate that some editor will call it an infraction of a physics ban to cite an author in an unrelated connection who also happens to be a physicist. Or that an idiot will confuse geometry with physics? All of which have happened, as the diffs I showed you substantiate.

Your timidity regarding presenting this alternative to your peers speaks well neither of your common sense, nor of your opinion of their abilities as Arbs.

Inasmuch as a perfectly fine solution to the supposed difficulties here cannot be discussed out of cowardice that it may have possible but unimagined pitfalls (which, of course, always could be corrected in another action of "clarification"), this entire proceeding is now perfectly crowned for all to marvel, a WP wonderment. Brews ohare (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: You've obliquely criticized this proposed Talk page restriction as allowing trouble before it is detected. Apparently the idea is that a topic ban will prevent disruption altogether, and not just react to it. Your criterion for a viable sanction is that it stop any disruption before it begins.

One way to insure no trouble is to make a very clear sanction. Brews ohare and everyone here can count to three, so the likelihood of a transgression of the proposed Talk-page limitation is very small.

In contrast, the likelihood of a topic ban leading to Administrator intervention is very high, based upon WP history. The reason for this dismal record of the topic ban is that a topic ban necessarily involves assessment of the content of edits, and both Administrators and editors cannot make the necessary technical distinctions. What is worse, they tend to push a topic ban far beyond the need to limit issues for WP, and instead wikilawyer the thing beyond any reasonable interpretation, as when a topic ban against physics is construed to be violated by citing a published source in a physics-unrelated matter simply because its author happens to be a physicist. Brews ohare (talk)

A further factor to consider is that the difficulties on Talk pages occur primarily with Dicklyon and Blackburne. This proposal should stop that problem effectively, because I will be unable to carry on long discussions with Dicklyon (even profitable but lengthy discussions like those on Talk:MOSFET 1, 2, 3) regardless of their utility. The brevity of future discussions and the clarity of this sanction will provide Blackburne with no future occasion to request "clarification". Brews ohare (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

These remarks are intended to assist in the consideration of methods to limit Talk-page activity, and I am happy to see that SilkTork is open to such a discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved My very best wishes

I am not quite sure why the overall atmosphere in Physics is significantly more hostile than in Biology and Chemistry. It could be that articles in this area are better developed and therefore more difficult to improve, or it could be that some editors want everything to be described exactly as in their favorite textbook (although there are alternative interpretations) and in their favorite version of article, so they should be reminded of WP:NPOV and WP:own. What I mean is not the editing by Brews, but the overall opposition to making changes in this area (including changes proposed by Brews). Actually, editors in the area of Physics and Math (including Brews) made an outstanding work. Now the real challenge is to make some of these articles more understandable and even interesting for students and general public. This can be done by using introductory textbooks and good books on popular science that prove scientific concepts by explaining them. Unfortunately, such RS are frequently and unfairly dismissed merely on the grounds that they are not "academic" (even if written by experts with PhD degrees), and not only in the area of Physics.

In this particular situation, I do not think that returning to old subjects was a problem because consensus can change, but Brews must carefully avoid to be engaged in WP:DE. I do not see any proof of WP:DE by Brews at the moment - agree with Silk Tork. My very best wishes (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews. Please consider the following situation. There is certain perfectly sourced information that you think must be included, but there is also a couple of other people who do not want it to be included, and they are wrong. Would you agree to drop the issue and edit something else? Please read WP:TE before response. (Just to clarify, I am not telling here that "opponents" of Brews are wrong). My very best wishes (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews. Thank you. I think there is no general answer to this, and it well could be that the "other guys" are engaged in WP:DE, paid advocacy, or a personal crusade against an editor, even if they form majority (once again, I am talking generally here, not about people in this particular incident). This is a situation when WP:Consensus sometimes comes in a contradiction with WP:NPOV and improving the content. But unfortunately, there is no other choice, but to follow WP:Consensus if we do not want to be sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews. No, I do not have an opinion that people who continue civil discussions even when they are in minority should be topic-banned. But I am not sure about our policies in such cases and therefore asked to clarify. In a couple of cases I looked at (Pythagorean_theorem and Wavelength), I think that your suggested changes do not significantly improve these pages (although there is nothing wrong with your materials to be included), so you could spend your time more efficiently by switching to other articles in the area of Physics, as you did during the initial period of your editing here. However, in another case, you were absolutely right [62], and there is now a constructive discussion on this article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• This looks to me as prolonged disputes on numerous talk pages, such as here some time ago and now here. The arguments by Brews are not unreasonable, and he provides some valid sources. At the same time, I can agree that such discussions are frequently fruitless, distract people from making productive contributions, and therefore can lead to sanctions. But we have much longer and even less productive discussions in many other subject areas, for example here. Should we just look who contributed most in such discussions and topic-ban the leader? Please clarify. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• @ I think this is an excellent point by AGK ("I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea"). Indeed, an administrator frequently can not judge if a user contributes positively to the project or makes a disservice to reader (as Helen said [63]), unless he knows the subject. Actually, the biggest mistakes can be made in cases when an admin thinks that he knows something (because he follows "common sense" or read about it in newspaper - usually in the areas of history and politics), but he actually does not. Unfortunately, not knowing the subject is an official policy: all admins are prohibited from ruling in the areas where they edit and therefore read a lot about. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  @JohnBlackburne. I did not read the entire discussion (too long, did not read, sorry), but the question that Brews asks in the beginning [64] is this: "Comment is sought as to whether a reference to Fourier series is appropriate under the heading general periodic waveforms". Yes, it is. Certainly there is nothing wrong here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Brews would be much better off by immediately dropping any issue that meets opposition, and I am sure he realizes this by now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps my problem is that I did not see the previous disputes with Brews. Sorry, I am not interested. It is enough that I looked at his content contributions and found them good. But to ban a user for conducting civil discussion on a talk page of one article is over the top. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork. I respectfully disagree. Yes, the list of previous sanctions for Brews looks convincing to me. The only relevant question now is this: did he made any serious policy violation this time. I think he actually did not. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• @AGK. Yes, I agree. There are no problems with article Wavelength or with content changes suggested by Brews. Neither I see any serious problems with discussion by Brews. In fact, the only action needed on the part of other editors was to firmly say "no" one time (if they are so strongly opposed to the change by Brews, and I am not opposed to his changes), and peacefully leave the page. There was no edit warring about this. And if other editors continued discussion, it means that discussion was meaningful, exactly as Brews tells. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Srleffler. Yes, I agree that Brews is a very knowledgeable contributor in Physics, Engineering and Math, and it would be shame to loose him. I also agree with proposal by Count Iblis. Of course I did not mean that someone just tells "no" at article talk page. I mean that someone comes to an RfC, tells his opinion, justifies it by sources, and leaves. But if he wants to continue discussion, this is fine too. And it is not uncommon that someone wants to have "last word" and makes a long post, but remains in minority and looses the dispute (no matter if he was right or wrong), like Brews. But considering this a sanctionable offense is over the top. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Count Iblis

Brews is making the mistake of trying to get his way by posting more RFCs. Thing is that being right on the issue doesn't give you the right to edit your way. The first time, I did see the RFC Brews posted, and I wanted to comment, but I abandoned that due to lack of time. I did not agree with Brews' proposal, but I had an idea about an alternative text that would mention Fourier transforms.

What struck me also was the lack of such contructive efforts, because obviously, Fourier transforms does in principle have a place in an article about wavelengths, regardless of how flawed Brews' proposal was. So, there is also something wrong about the general editing climate if the issue isn't properly debated. If editor X raises an issue and he has a point, then one should discuss the point that does exist and steer the discussion toward that, and not focus on opposing by ignoring the real points that exist and only focussing on where the editor goes wrong. Because then that editor will eventually correct himself and you end up dancing around the central point for a long time, causing everyone to get irritated.

So, I would suggest Brews to limit the time he spends online here editing and arguing on the talk page. Try to get it (almost) right the first time you propose something, or when you edit something in an article. To the others, I would say that they should be more positive about any proposals. This doesn't mean that you have to accept something that is bad, just that you would in that case end up rejecting in a way that would more likely conclude the debate. E.g. on the Tachyon page I see too much opposition for proposed edits while in the end you had to accept the proposal. Surely, that could have been agreed to weeks earlier by acknowledging that the proposer did have a legitimate point here? Count Iblis (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Brews, by limiting the time spend here, what I meant was the time you spend here in some uphill effort to get something into the article. I would recommend that as soon as you experience any difficulties like in this case, you drop a line at Wikiproject physics instead of letting the issue fester for many weeks. But then, after briefly explaining your point, you should let others take a look while you reduce your input significantly. There is, of course, nothing wrong with spending a lot of time editing and arguing constructively on Wikipedia.

Don't think that everyone at Wikiproject physics is going to oppose you, because of the past history. I remember that Headbomb asked for input there because he was having difficulties editing the Planck law article last year. He got support on some points, but on some other points he did not get support. So, this isn't some rubber stamp procedure where the people who you got difficulties with in the past, always get their way.

I think this is better than posting RFCs, because this is more likely to lead to new editors actually getting involved in the article. What matters in the end is if some text is going to be seen to be appropriate for the article by the larger community and eventually by the readers of Wikipedia, not by any particular editor. Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne, you have been de-facto patrolling Brews edits the last few years. You do this with the best of intentions (and that not necessarily actively, you may simply see Brews' edits on your wachlist), but in practice this leads to problems of the same type we've seen in quite a few other ArbCom cases. Your Wiki-philosophy is too much at odds with Brews'. Where there are two completely opposite but legitimate points of views regarding edits, you two end up preferring the different options, see e.g. this editing history and this AFD discussion of that article. If you then also find yourself having to cite Wiki-policies to Brews on other occasions when its more serious and you intent to go to a noticeboard if he doesn't listen, he may not take you serous, even though the issue may now not ambiguous, i.e. Brews is wrong and you are right.

I guess Brews also needs to see examples of how you can actually get something done here while facing opposition, instead of only being told not to do something here whenever there is opposition. The example given by My very best wishes is a good thing to explore. So, the lede of the Fourier transform article now says that: "The Fourier transform is a mathematical operation with many applications in physics and engineering that expresses a mathematical function of time as a function of frequency, known as its frequency spectrum; Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done."

I have to say that I find this definition mentioning time completely unacceptable too. The question is then how to go about changing this definition, without having to fight some uphill battle on the talk page. If I imagine how things are likely to go wrong with Brews insisting on the relevant issue on the talk page, it's actually because Brews will be "too nice" at the start. He will make the most minimalist of proposals you can imagine. He thinks by doing that he can avoid stepping on people's toes. But then, because he went out of his way with such a proposal, he will argue fanatically for it, ending up annoying people after a while.

My style of editing is completely different, I would completely rewrite the introduction of the article to make room for a more general definition. That creates far more room to deal with legitimate opposition than some minimalist proposal affecting only one or two sentences. I would not engage in arguments with people who oppose me but have no good arguments, who have WP:OWN issues. I gave them less room to exploit other issues to argue about. So, my starting position is much stronger than that of Brews. But this does require more work, as you have to rewrite a lot more of the article. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews, for the articles you have been involved in it looks like that way. Now, I'm not saying that you have always been right in disputes, just that you have ended up being opposed with what you wanted to do quite often. Then, you can look at what you have been successul at doing here. I think that the larger editing efforts by you have been more productive, like the large sections of some classical mechanics articles (e.g. about curvelinear motion). I have the impression that whenever you engage in editing well developed articles here on more minor points, that this leads to problems.

So, perhaps you should think about creating new articles, or edit complete new sections in articles. That will automatically move you toward articles that are not well developed yet, and then you are less likely to encounter editors with strong WP:OWN feelings, plus you have all the benefits I wrote about above. My editing here is more focussed on these sorts of articles, see e.g. my recent edits to Gaussian quadrature.

If someone were to object to these edits, and start a discussion about that, then the ball would be more in his court than mine, because the formula and the proof should be in either this article or somewhere else. So, simply reverting and deleting the edits because, say, it is too textbook like, or because no sources are given, isn't really an option. These are issues that can be fixed by including sources or rewriting to make it less textbook like. But such discussions are less likely to happen in the first place.

Note that when you created the Idee Fixe article, it was put on PROD and then on AFD, so the opposer of that article had to argue with the larger community, not you, and he lost his argument. While you also argued a lot on the AFD page, you could have left only a brief comment there and then completely ignore the opposer. Count Iblis (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban will lead to more problems not less. I've explained that and suggested an alternative on Roger Davies' talk page. Basically this is a ban on editing any article or talk page unless given permission to do so by a mentor. Count Iblis (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Motion

Brews restricted to work on an approved list of articles

The previous time there was topic ban, the same problems manifested themselves in some of the math articles Brews was working on, leading to a site ban for a year. So the problem is not topic related. While the present topic ban mentions "physics related", the problem really hasn't got one iota to do with physics. The nature of the problem is that when opposed, Brews will tend to try to talk his way out of that opposition. That he makes a proposal that is wrong in some case (i.e. his own interpretation that is not fully supported by a source) isn't actually the fundamental cause, because we can all make such mistakes. If you are right but the proposal is not welcome, you still have to accept that.

Then, because Brews has been able to work productively in many articles without friction, I would aks the Arbs to consider this proposal:

Brews is restricted to work on a list of articles, the list is determined by a mentor and is limited to a maximum of 3 articles. A link to the list is posted on the Speed of Light ArbCom page. Should Brews edit any other article than the listed ones, Brews will be blocked as part of the regular ArbCom enforcement procedure, and that block will be logged at the relevant ArbCom page.

There are plenty of articles where Brews can work without there being much friction on the talk page. But suppose that the mentor would need to intervene, how would that work? Note here that the perceived disruption caused by Brews is typically a slow moving one, where a discussion goes on and on and on and on. This means that a mentor who monitors how Brews is doing has ample time to intervene. The mentor can also be contacted by editors who feel that Brews is starting to engage in an argument that will likely lead to nowhere, allowing the mentor to cut that short and remove the article from the list.

What the mentor won't do is try to see if Brews has a point. So, suppose that I'm the mentor and Blackburne contacts me to notify that he has reverted an edit by Brews and Brews has explained his edit on the talk page, then I would remove that article from the list. Clearly, Brews has then made his point, and if he really has a point, any other editor can continue from there. Whether I agree with Brews' point or not is then neither here nor there. My task is to steer Brews toward articles where such discussions to defend edits are not necessary in the first place (of course, engaging with constructive criticism would not be a problem).

So, this isn't a burden on the mentor. Admins can easily check if Brews is sticking to editing the 3 listed articles. Brews also prefers to work within these constraints instead of the physics related topic ban. Count Iblis (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Brews, you would only be allowed to work on 3 articles. This looks very restrictive, but note that the list is flexible. You have to consider this as an alternative to the complete physics topic ban and presumably also a very difficult editing experience in math articles, where your editing can be construed to be physics related or otherwise problems can occur and you then find yourself at AE frequently and perhaps eventually site banned for a year or longer. Also, for any restriction to have a chance to be accepted it must be practical to enforce. That's not difficult to do for a list of just a few articles.

Then about you feeling restricted a lot, in practice, that may not be a big deal because you can only ever edit at one place at a time, and looking at your conributions, you can see that you tend to stick to editing a few articles a lot. If you want to edit somewhere that is not in the list, you just propose that to the mentor, and you can get approval for that. But then another article will be removed, you then choose which one. If we limit the rate of changes to the list to one mutation per week, this will not be a burden to Admins who patrol AE.

Count Iblis (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Srleffler

The fundamental problem here is Brews' persistent, tendentious style. In June 2009 Brews introduced some weak material relating to nonsinusoidal waves and Fourier series decompositions of them. After much discussion, some of his ideas got reworked and put into the article and others did not. He just can't let go of the concepts that didn't make it in, though. No matter what arguments are raised or how many other editors object, he just keeps bringing forward the same ideas over and over and over again, with slight variations of form. Every now and then he files an RfC, and when his proposal is rejected he immediately resurrects it in yet another slight variation and starts all over again. It is tiresome, and a waste of time that could be put to better use editing other articles.--Srleffler (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Count Iblis' proposal should be considered. I agree with him that this issue is not really about physics; it is about Brews' editing style and method of interacting with other editors. A topic ban seems likely to be less effective and less appropriate than something that might help Brews to adjust how he approaches editing on Wikipedia. Also, Brews is extremely knowledgeable about physics and mathematics, and it would be a shame to lose his ability to make constructive edits in this area. --Srleffler (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To "My Very Best Wishes": you write "the only action needed on the part of other editors was to firmly say "no" one time ... and peacefully leave the page." That is not how Wikipedia works. We (the other editors) don't own the article; editing is by consensus. Simply telling another editor firmly "no" is not acceptable. Everyone who is making a good faith effort to contribute is entitled to an explanation when others disagree with their edits, and if the original editor is not convinced then a discussion is necessary to either change one side's mind or arrive at a consensus. The problem is just that Brews keeps coming back with the same issue again and again and again, neither convincing anybody nor being convinced, and not letting the matter drop. He compromises, but I'm often left feeling that the compromise versions are just the Camel's nose for a further attempt to introduce the rest of the material (some of the interactions in 2009 worked out this way, if I recall correctly). --Srleffler (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To Silktork: a talk-page-only restriction is clearly not going to work, unless it is tied to an article-space editing restriction. The problem is not bad talk page behaviour per se, but rather unending attempts to insert material into articles—not knowing when to give up and move on. What is required is something that limits his ability both to insert material into an article and to keep trying over and over and over to argue for that material on the associated talk page. To work, any solution has to not be prone to wikilawyering. Brews' proposal above concerns me in that regard, since I can see it leading to arguments over the definition of "the same topic" and "a new thread by another editor". (Brews tends to re-introduce the same ideas in slightly different form and insist that the repackaged material is altogether new.[65]) Also, of course, article-space edits related to the talk page discussion would have to be prohibited: if he can't discuss a topic on the talk page, he should not be able to insert material related to that topic in the article. Count Iblis' proposal would be simpler to implement if a suitable "mentor" can be found, and it will be less prone to wikilawyering. The mentor could even implement something similar to Brews' proposal, but with the benefit that the mentor then is the one who decides whether a new thread is on "the same topic" or a different (but possibly related) one.--Srleffler (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496

I am a bystander with no involvement other than being appalled at how much disruption one editor can cause. I would like to note that Remedy 2 of the case was Brews ohare is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.. If that remedy has any specific meaning at all, it ought to mean that Brews ohare is subject to sanctions via some sort of expedited process. Looie496 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification by Dr.K.

AGK made a supplementary statement on 21 May 2012 at 10:42 (UTC) as follows:

Additional comment: This amendment has become absurdly specialised. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar. I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea. I therefore default to decline this amendment request. AGK [•] 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet almost a week after AGK issued his supplementary statement, arb after arb quote AGK in wanting to open a new case or review the existing one. But in his additional statement AGK essentially nullified his original statement and declined the amendment request. Why quote AGK then in conjunction with reopening or reviewing a case? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies: Thank you Roger. I was suspecting that much. Hopefully this incongruence may end now. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements, particularly from Brews Ohare. At first (brief) sight, any sanctions have expired; no discretionary sanctions were authorised; and the original case was sufficiently long ago (autumn 2009) to be left to lie. If there is misconduct, and if it very closely mirrors the 2009 case, and obviously I'm not expressing an opinion on either of those points, it might be possible to persuade arbitrators to re-open the 2009 case as it is within ArbCom discretion to re-open any prior case at any time.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I too am happy to see this as either a case or a review, and (unless someone else beats me to it) will put proposals with the options.

  @Dr K: I suspect people are picking up on the first, rather than the second, of AGK's comments.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have concerns that Brews is returning to WP:DE, but if that is the case, we can probably resolve this with a motion re-restricting him from the topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Having reviewed this dispute, like SirFozzie I am concerned. However, I am minded to open a review of the original case, and would be uncomfortable with remedying this dispute by motion. We need a proper case (if an abridged one) with suitable mechanisms for evidence submission—not a Pop-Up Hearing on this page. AGK [•] 15:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment: This amendment has become absurdly specialised. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar. I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea. I therefore default to decline this amendment request. AGK [•] 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Too soon for another case or motion, and would encourage other dispute resolution first. If via dispute resolution there is clear consensus of Tendentious editing, and Brews Ohare is warned and clearly ignores the warning, then it could be returned to us and we might be able to deal with this by a motion rather than a full case. I would suggest to Brews Ohare that it is OK to raise an issue once, but if consensus is against him, then he needs to wait 12 months before raising the same issue again. I think all of us will admit to having areas where we feel our views are the right ones, but consensus is against us. It can be frustrating, but it would be very damaging to the project if we all repeatedly raised the issue, so we move on, in the greater interests of the project as a whole. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is sufficient evidence of recent tendentious editing to open a case, then - given Brews Ohare's history - there may be sufficient evidence to deal with this by motion. It is not a complex case as far as I can see, and relates to whether or not a single user - Brews Ohare - has engaged in problematic editing. At this point I don't see raising questions on article talkpages in itself as problematic; though, in one case, the Wavelength article, Brews Ohare has been problematic by persisting in pushing a point. Without further specific evidence of problematic editing, however, I doubt I would support a ban, but I can see myself supporting a warning which would give admins at AE the power to block Brews Ohare if he repeats the tendentious editing evidenced at the Wavelength article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at the Speed of light case I note that Brews Ohare has a warning which appears to be still in place. Though, given his history, it appears that the warning wasn't sufficient then, and even a site ban hasn't moderated his behaviour. In the circumstances, a ban of some sort appears to be appropriate, and as the Wavelength incident appears to be an isolated incident I'm thinking that a topic ban would be more appropriate than a site ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm of a mind that if previously sanctioned editors cannot return to a topic and garner consensus for specific content modifications, and, upon failing to do so, cannot even take "no" for an answer, there is a small likelihood that their future interactions in the area will be constructive. I would encourage all parties to work together toward improving the articles in question, appropriately representing minority views represented in RS'es per NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• The response to the clarification request is clear as far as I can see - the sanctions have expired, discretionary sanctions were not put in place. If Brews is returning to the behaviour that occasioned the first sanction, then he is in the position of a man up once again before the beak, charged with the same offense he was sent down for last time. I can see no merit to reopening the original case - he did his time for it. He's (continuing the metaphor) charged with breaking into a different house this time, and needs to be "found guilty in accordance with the law." At that point, his previous offence will undoubtedly be taken into account in sentencing. I apologise for the extended legal metaphor, but I hope it makes it clear. John Blackburne/other parties will have (in my opinion) to either open another RFAR or potentially make a case at AN for a topic/siteban, if they believe it is possible to evidence the problematic behaviour without requiring a knowledge of post-doctoral physics. The community generally has little sympathy with a previously sanctioned editor who returns to their problematic behaviour, so Brews might be well advised to take the counsel of Kenny Rogers and "learn when to walk away, and learn when to run."Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Per AGK, I think that the best way to proceed would be to hold a new hearing, either as a full new case (which I prefer) or as some form of review of the original case; the dispute here appears to be sufficiently complex that simply resolving it by motion will likely be impractical. Kirill ^[talk] 15:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with Kirill and AGK. Risker (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• On further consideration, I would much prefer trying to address this by motion if we can. I can't see any value in forcing everyone to go through even an entire review, let alone a new case. Risker (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am not happy with this situation in which an editor who was banned for disruptive behavior in a topic continues, by all evidence, to continue to edit disruptively (albeit perhaps a bit less disruptively) on that topic. I do not believe that other users should be required to go through the entire dispute-resolution process, from beginning to end, all over again, to deal with such a situation: that strikes me as a sure-fire recipe for driving editors away. Hence I would support either a motion or a review here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Similar to Risker, Kirill, and AGK, I'd prefer either a review or full case. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• After going through the R&I one, I think the difference between a review and a new case is almost purely one of terminology, so, fine with either. Courcelles 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Motions: Speed of light (Brews ohare)

I've extracted the main three options from the arbitrator discussion above and put together motions for each of them,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To open a full case

The Committee authorises the immediate opening of a full case ("Speed of light 2"), to examine all aspects of the the conduct of JohnBlackburne (filing party) and Brew ohare (party) in relation to the Wavelength article and the Speed of light topic since the expiry of earlier sanctions on 21 November 2011.

Support:

1. Third choice. It seems to me that, as we do not make content decisions, the dispute that needs to be resolved is whether Brews ohare is repeating the earlier inappropriate behaviour that lead to his sanctions or whether he is responding reasonably to the unreasonable conduct of others. Given the comprehensive nature of the statements, we probably do not need a full case to resolve this.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Second choice. AGK [•] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Courcelles 16:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Equal second choice, but I would prefer not to mention the names of any individuals in the motion. It is frankly obvious that the initial focus of the case will be Brews ohare, although the editing of other parties will be examined as the evidence may warrant. I see no reason in particular to mention Johhn Blackburne in the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The information we need to make a decision on this is already in front of us. A full case would have no purpose other then to use up time better spent elsewhere.SirFozzie (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. The information is available for a decision to be made. Despite a warning, a restriction, and a topic ban, Brews ohare received several blocks until he was site banned for a year. The consideration is if this behaviour is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history the decision appears to be topic or site ban, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work. We have that as a motion, so a full case is not required. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
3. He's repeating the behaviour of the last case. It doesn't need another case to establish this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Motion: To conduct a Review

The Committee will conduct a Review, ("Speed of Light/Review"), focusing on the conduct of Brews ohare in relation to the Wavelength article and the Speed of Light topic since the expiry of earlier sanctions on 21 November 2011. The Review will follow on an expedited timetable, to be set at a later date by consensus of the Committee.

Support:

1. Second choice. Again, given the comprehensive nature of the statements, we probably do not even need a review to resolve this issue.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Very weak second choice, again, I feel that the information we need to handle this is already in the history with the previous cases, its various amendments and clarifications, and this request.
3. First choice. AGK [•] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. First choice. Courcelles 16:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Equal second choice for now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The information is available for a decision to be made. Despite a warning, a restriction, and a topic ban, Brews ohare received several blocks until he was site banned for a year. The consideration is if this behaviour is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history the decision appears to be topic or site ban, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work. We have that as a motion, so a review is not required. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. I believe the problem is self evident and not requiring of a review. Everyone else is quoting textbooks, Brews ... has his own interpretations. There's your problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Motion: Topic ban for Brews ohare

1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources.

2. It follows that preventative action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. After a minimum period of at least one year has elapsed, Brews ohare may ask the Arbitration Committee to reconsider the topic ban, giving his reasons why the Committee should do so.

3. Should Brews ohare violate this topic ban he may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the clock for any lifting of the topic ban restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Appeals of blocks may only be made by email to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. First choice. Arguably the core issue has now been examined in statements, and Brews ohare has taken the opportunity to respond robustly and amply to what has been said. We are probably therefore in a position to deal with this on the basis on the statements already posted alone.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. First choice, very nearly only choice. SirFozzie (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Despite a warning, a restriction, and a topic ban, Brews ohare received several blocks until he was site banned for a year. This behaviour is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history a ban of some form is appropriate, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work, given that such a ban will be able to be enforced by AE admins. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Pretty much only choice. The community is not very sympathetic to editors who return from sanctions to repeat problematic behaviour - we should respect the desire of those editors who just want to get on with life. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Only choice. I do not see value in putting everyone else through hoops to come to this obvious conclusion. Risker (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Third choice. I share some of AGK's concerns here, mainly that the wording of probabilities is poor, and that Brews is likely not the only problem in this topic right now, but the conclusion of the topic ban itself is, IMO solid. Courcelles 16:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Currently my first choice, but I will consider this a tentative vote; I'm be open to persuasion (by AGK or anyone else) for another day or two that there is more to the situation than currently appears. I also agree with the suggestions for copyediting of the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
9. This seems a more appropriate way forward when only one previously-sanctioned user's conduct is being questioned. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. "From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively": By our own admission, we are meandering blindly. Guided by conjecture and statements by parties to this dispute, we are proposing a topic-ban without a proper review of Brews' edits or the articles in question. Such a specialised dispute needs a proper examination, not a quick motion to eliminate the noisiest editor, and we ought to find out what is the real problem with this article. My own suspicion is that there is more to do here than topic ban Brews ohare, and I implore my colleagues to reconsider. AGK [•] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• @Brews, in reply to my above comment, you may be questioning the conduct of two other editors, but I didn't--and still don't on a quick re-read-through--see anyone else doing so here. So you can mentally change my commentary to read "... questioned by the community." if that improves things. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• As it has been pointed out that Brews ohare's article contributions are valued and non-problematic, the suggestion that we consider some form of talkpage restriction seems worth considering, as that is the area of concern. It would be inappropriate to create a restriction which waits until Brews ohare becomes a nuisance, so it would need to be a ban on the talkpages of the topic. Is this workable? Would he also need to be restricted from the talkpages of editors in the topic area? What happens if Brews ohare makes an edit, which is then reverted. He would be unable to discuss it anywhere. Would he be able to accept that, or would he become frustrated? Given that his history has shown that he finds it difficult to accept consensus, especially when he feels he is in the right, I suspect a talkpage restriction would lead to problems. But I would be willing to discuss it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Speed of light

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} at 06:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Heimstern Läufer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [66]
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [67]
• Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [68]
• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [69]
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [70]
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [71]
• JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [72]

Arbitration case or decision:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Statement by Seraphimblade

Brews ohare is subject to a topic ban as follows: "...the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed.", as passed by motion in WP:ARBSL.

This topic ban is more difficult than most to interpret. Everything that occurs in the universe, from a sunspot to biology to art to music to digestion is, however indirectly, related to fundamental principles of physics. I presume that the Committee did not mean the topic ban to be interpreted that broadly, as this would amount to an effective site ban, and if that were the intent, presumably the Committee would have simply imposed a site ban.

Recently, a request for arbitration enforcement was brought by JohnBlackburne on the grounds of an edit made by Brews ohare to free will [73], and subsequent discussion of this edit [74]. The opinion of myself [75], and three other uninvolved admins [76], [77], [78], was that this edit was a violation of the topic ban. However, two other uninvolved administrators disagree and do not find this a violation: [79], [80]. As there is significant disagreement here in good faith, it would be appreciated if the Committee could clarify the following:

• Did Brews ohare's edit to free will violate the topic ban?
• More generally, regardless of the answer to the above question, how broad is "broadly interpreted" in the physics topic ban, given that a sufficiently broad interpretation covers everything in the known universe? Or to rephrase, how close must an edit of Brews' be to fundamental physics to breach the topic ban?

Help on this question would be most appreciated, as it is an unusual case, and it would be helpful to both Brews and the administrators tasked with enforcing this restriction to have clarity on where exactly the line is drawn here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Brews ohare: Please don't think of this as a referendum on your character. I don't know you, and while I recall having seen your name before, I don't recall in what context, nor have I interacted with you during editing. I don't know a thing about your character. What we do know is that when an issue comes to AE, it is a reflection of disruption to the project serious enough that the ArbCom had to draw a bright line. The only thing we ask there is whether the edits in question stepped over that line.

Newyorkbrad: I would agree myself that common-sense interpretations should work in this case. However, I've seen both NuclearWarfare and Coren around many times, and found them to be reasonable and intelligent. If both of them disagree with me in good faith, that's certainly enough for me to request more input on the matter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by brews_ohare

As stated by Seraphimblade, the sanction as formulated covers a lot of territory.

One can take the view of some that brews-ohare is generally a problem, and any action to curtail his activities is a plus for WP. On this basis, a broadly worded sanction is ideal as it allows action to be taken for any reason. From this position, a clarification is exactly the wrong thing to do. Taking this view, the issue really is not what happened in this particular incident, but whether this is an opportunity to further curtail the activities of brews_ohare. Those seeing the matter in this light are not interested in the particulars of this incident, nor even whether they are actually an example of a pervasive pattern in brews-ohare's activities on WP. The assumption is that the mere fact that Blackburne has (again) brought brews-ohare before Enforcement is ipso facto sufficient evidence that brews_ohare is a problem and should be be disciplined.

My view is that Blackburne is the problem. He exhibits a strange fascination with making my activities on WP difficult, and this particular incident is only the latest example. I wish to assure all Administrators involved here that I am not interested in disrupting WP nor in thumbing my nose at Administrators. My participation here is strictly aimed at improving existing articles and writing new ones.

Rather than assuming brews_ohare is bad character, one can take a different view, that this particular incident should be looked at specifically, and it should be decided whether action has to be taken in this instance. Those seeing the matter in this light seem to think nothing need be done.

My view is that this view is closest to the truth. To support this view, some details of this incident might be helpful. Here are the details:

A paragraph was contributed by Richardbrucebaxter to the philosophical article Free will in this edit. I found the paragraph irrelevant to Free will, and removed it with some talk page discussion. Richardbrucebaxter disagreed, and reinstated the paragraph, where it remains in the article since.

There is nothing unusual about any of this activity, except it came to the attention of Blackburne, who was not involved with Free will, but likes to keep tabs upon my activities. He noticed that the paragraph in question contains the words quantum mechanics and so could be brought to Arbitration Enforcement as a violation of the "speed of light" action forbidding me to make physics-related editing.

Of course, physics was never discussed by myself. I simply found the paragraph turgidly written and not pertinent to free will. Here is Richardbrucebaxter's paragraph for your own judgment in this matter as to its clarity and as to its pertinence to Free will:

"Fundamental debate continues over whether the physical universe is deterministic. Physical models offered at present are both deterministic and indeterministic, and are subject to interpretations of quantum mechanics - which themselves are being constrained by ongoing experimentation.^[10] Yet even with physical indeterminism, arguments have been made against the feasibility of incompatibilist free will in that it is difficult to assign Origination (responsibility for "free" indeterministic choices):^[11]"

Clearly the paragraph mentions quantum mechanics, albeit vaguely. Clearly I had nothing to do with its content and did not discuss its physics.

So this hearing has a decision to make: how will the sanction be interpreted - in the harshest light requiring action to bring under control what is seen by Administrators as a flagrant and continuing disrespect for his ban by brews_ohare indicative of his bad character? - or in the light of what happened here, in this case?

@Blackburne: The philosophical subject of Determinism is not a physics topic, as you and some others here seem to believe. It is the case that some physical theories can be classified according to one or another of a dozen or so meanings of determinism, but others are not. Application of this descriptor is a technical judgment in philosophy, not to be confused with physics, and having nothing to do with the considerations of this hearing. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this kind of confusion is impossible for Administrators to avoid without spending time they do not have to educate themselves about things like the differences between philosophy and physics, or mathematics and physics, or neuroscience and physics, and on and on. Consequently a "physics ban, broadly conceived" becomes a hunting license for those seeking pretexts, amounting to a near site ban. Brews ohare (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators: I do apologize for this flap, and will be more cautious in the future. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators: By the way, I am unable to find the exact wording of the present topic ban. Can someone provide a useful link to this information? Brews ohare (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe this information is found here. A clear statement of its adoption and date of adoption is not provided, but appears to be June 2 or June 3 2012. The wording is:

"Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed."

This topic ban can be revisited June 2013 at the discretion of ArbCom. It was the response to a "clarification request" by Blackburne 00:15, 16 May 2012 regarding my Talk-page activity on Wavelength, incorrectly asserting that I exhibited "a flawed understanding of maths and physics", a position later backed away from as "not a content issue". Brews ohare (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I recognize your point, also raised by My very best wishes, that I tend to become involved in long discussions on Talk pages. Sometimes these are contentious, but in this case of Talk:Free will things have not become heated. Nonetheless, Blackburne has intervened there, even though he is not involved at Free will, a part of his continuing dedication to watching over me for bogus opportunities to bring in Administrative attention.

Long ago I suggested simple restrictions upon my Talk-page activity limiting my discussions. However, ArbCom ignored this useful approach to treating the real problem here, and instead applied a bogus topic ban which they had to make so wide as to encompass every conceivable topic so they can intervene at any time under incorrect premises, namely that it is the topic that matters, not the discussion.

The topic-ban approach was an outgrowth of confusion between my contributions to Speed of light and the support of David Tombe, considered at the time to be a radical, although his support of my position was entirely rational. From that point on, I was labeled as a screwball with odd views on some topics, a view still held by SirFozzie and some others. That despite perfectly sensible articles I created like Envelope (waves), p–n diode, Length measurement, Widlar current source, Step response, Idée fixe (psychology), Field effect (semiconductor), Numeric precision in Microsoft Excel, Low-velocity zone, etc., accompanied by numerous illustrations drawn myself, and completely uncontroversial contributions to many other articles. Some have remained pretty much unchanged and others like Mountain formation have been built upon by others ever since.

I would favor a removal of the topic ban, which is completely archaic at this point, and instead allow me to edit any page but with some clear guidelines about Talk-page engagement. I'd be happy to discuss some proposal in this direction. What do you think about this suggestion? Brews ohare (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@Elen of the Roads: You have said: "all the evidence is that he removed the section from where it was because of factors to do with the physics - his opinion appears to be that these physical models are not a good fit, something that there appear to be several opinions about." I'd like to clarify that is not my opinion. I've tried to be clear that my removal of this material was completely unrelated to its physics content. My view in removing this material was that it was a digression in explaining Free will, did nothing to clarify Free will, and merely dragged in a rather murky explanation of matters inessential to the topic of free will. This removal was not a physics matter, and neither was Richardbrucebaxter's retention of this material. We simply disagreed about its pertinence to the topic of free will. Brews ohare (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators: A question of the role of such "clarification" hearings.

From the comment of Newyorkbrad below, I am led to think that role of a clarification proceeding is to determine whether a ban in force has been violated. If that is found to be so, then the results of the clarification hearing are to be forwarded to Arbitration Enforcement. If that is correct, then the results of the present deliberation should be referred back to the originating 13 December 2012 AE action filed by Blackburne. Is that so?

And to follow up upon this point, Blackburne's present 13 December 2012 AE action was brought on the basis of his previous May 16 2012 clarification action.

That May 16 2012 clarification action found the ban for which Blackburne had requested "clarification", namely Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, had in fact expired.

Having found there was no ban to clarify, the use of a "clarification" hearing was uncalled for. However, ignoring its illegitimacy, the clarification proceeding carried on, and continued directly to draft and impose an entirely new ban where no ban previously was in force. The May 16 2012 clarification action entertained a series of motions, one of which suggested the present ban that is now being "clarified" here.

No formal transmission of the May 16 2012 clarification action to AE occurred, because there was no ban in effect to report a violation of. Bypassing AE and ArbCom review, the results of that "clarification" were then simply tucked into the expired Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light as a "Motion #7" added to a dead case. Appending the motion to an expired case was done because there was no authority for a clarification hearing to draft a completely new case. Thus it was made to appear as though a case was in force to clarify, although that was pure fiction.

So far as I can see, all this was highly irregular. The preamble at the beginning of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment states that: "Requests for amendment are used to: ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions" Likewise: "Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case." Neither of these precepts were followed. Of course, WP is not about rules. Nonetheless, a better approach would have been to ask Blackburne to formulate a charge that could be taken to WP:ANI and proceed from there. However, there was no actionable issue formulated that could be taken to WP:ANI, and the "clarification" process was diverted instead.

As a result of this convoluted series of events, the origin of the ban being clarified here is not fundamentally Wikipedia:ARBSL as stated at the outset by Seraphimblade, but actually just another clarification proceeding. It begins to appear that there are serious questions about the present process going back to May 2012.

There is a mess here, and I have no idea how the Arbitrators sort this out. Perhaps some statement of what constitutes due process and the chain of authority could be outlined for future reference? Brews ohare (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@Heim: You say, "But an edit like this one that explicitly mentions principles from physics does seem to fall under it." Your remark gets to the point of this clarification: What is the intention of the ban anyway? There are many possible answers, and sorting through them would achieve the Arbitrators' goal of "clarification". Brews ohare (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@CountIblis: As SilkTork, My very best wishes, and myself have indicated above, some modification of the rules governing my behavior is desirable, both because the present vagueness of the ban is too easily abused as a hunting license by those like Blackburne, and because it severely limits my ability to contribute to WP in areas where I could be most helpful. Whether Arbitrators are more open to such changes today than in the past is unclear. When that discussion takes place, if it ever does, mentoring could be examined. Personally, a much simpler approach would be something along these lines: "Brews_ohare is advised to explain on Talk pages that his participation in discussion can exceed the patience of some editors. If this should arise, a majority vote by those involved to the effect that Brews_ohare should desist is taken to be sufficient warning to Brews_ohare that continuation of that discussion point is considered tendentious editing that can be taken to WP:AE for sanction as follows: etc.." Brews ohare (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

When the Arbitrators consider the intent of the present ban, they might ponder whether the objective of the present very broad and vague ban is exactly that, to limit prolonged discussion on Talk pages. It is not a topic issue, and that is why the topic ban is framed so vaguely that it refers to almost anything that I might participate in. Therefore, the topic ban should be dropped and a guideline for Talk-page activity adopted in its place. Brews ohare (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators: So far, only SilkTork has responded to any of the discussion here from other editors, or any of the points I have raised above. I do hope that the early observations by the Arbitrators expressed so far might be re-examined in the light of what has happened in this hearing, and that they will not feel their initial opinions have locked them into positions they cannot modify. Brews ohare (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Coren

I still think that by itself, the edit is so tenuously related to physics that it should not be construed to fall under the topic ban clearly enough for a sanction. That said, if the related behaviour on the talk page falls within the old problem patterns (something which I have no opinion on), then there is cause for concern. — Coren ^(talk) 16:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TC

I have explained my views in the AE thread, and have nothing more to add at this time. T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by JohnBlackburne

Thank you to Seraphimblade for bringing this, it seems from the enforcement request that 'broadly intepreted' is perhaps not as precise as it could be, as there seems to be some disagreement over its interpretation. I think Seraphimblade has stated this very well so don't have anything to add to that.

I would also note that this is a very narrow question as the number of pages that are not physics pages that refer to it must be very small. Whole subject areas will have nothing to do with it and even in philosophy there are very few intersections. But the relationship between free will and physics is clear, with free will being closely related to determinism which is also a fundamental question in quantum mechanics. This does mean though that there is no danger that such a broad interpretation of 'broadly interpreted' makes it effectively a site ban, as it affects the physics content of very few pages.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Comment by Johnuniq

While I have scanned several pages related to WP:ARBSL in the past, and have occasionally commented regarding Brews ohare's editing and talk page conduct, I am not familiar with the precise nature of the ARBSL sanction (I've read the words, but not the background). For those who are familiar with the history, wouldn't NOT BUREAUCRACY resolve the current request by considering whether the current activity is of the same nature as that which ARBSL was intended to prevent? If it is, an in-spirit violation would have occurred—that would warrant a very strong final warning, although perhaps not a sanction. I just scanned Talk:Free will and it is obvious that some kind of relief is required. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Heim

I'm one of the three administrators Seraphimblade alludes to as believing that these edits were indeed a violation of the topic ban. My rationale: Yes, of course it's possible to bend everything to fall under a physics topic ban. For example, I wouldn't support blocking over an edit concerning the motorcade in which Kennedy was travelling when he was assassinated because cars moving falls under the laws of physics. Even "broadly construed" doesn't go that far, in my opinion. But as edit like this one that explicitly mentions principles from physics does seem to me to fall under it. So I guess my understanding, at least, is that any edit that concerns actual principles from physics is out of bounds. Of course, I will defer to what the committee agrees on in terms of how it should be enforced. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes

I think Brews made good faith effort to edit something unrelated to Physics, such as "Free will". But his problem is not related to Physics, but rather to his tendency to continue very long discussion on article talk pages, even when two or three people happened to disagree with him, instead of simply dropping the issue. If he could stop doing this, he would be able to edit just fine anywhere, and especially in the area of Physics and Engineering where he is an expert. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with comment by NE Ent (just below). First of all, this is not a page about Physics, hence there is no violation. Second, I do not see any evidence of disruption by Brews at talk page of Free will. I have seen much longer discussions, and no one was blocked like here. Maybe that's because there is nothing wrong with long discussions? My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did not check this Free will discussion in all detail (tl;dr), but I saw a number of previous discussions with Brews about physics (e.g. just before his topic ban) and must tell: he always discuss in a good faith, his suggestions to improve articles are reasonable, and he has no strong biases. This is all very different from some discussions in more contentious subject areas where some participants may discuss to stonewall, to discredit their content "opponents", to discredit sources they do not like, or even to force their "opponents" to loose their cool and then report them to AE. If that happens, one should run away from such discussions where some participants make literally thousands comments because of their POV, COI or whatever. However, Brews obviously do not do anything of this nature. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by NE Ent

Please review Talk:Free will slowly and in detail. There's no evidence of disruption and no personal attacks, rather robust but polite discussion among 2 to 3 editors trying to come to consensus. Yes Brews ohare has pretty horrible wiki-political instincts and could've / should've made his rhetorical points without using forbidden words. Yes, he has a tendency towards long windedness that's not doing him any favors.

And yes, the current wording of the ban is weak: the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. (emphasis mine). If ya'll want a wiki-wide topic ban, the original wording from 2009 topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed is much clearer on scope. NE Ent 19:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Boodlepounce

Boodlepounce is puzzled. The sanctions states the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed Boodlepounce does not see why this needs clarification. It seems clear to Boodlepounce that this is a ban from certain pages; that the ban extends to all spaces not just article space; that the pages are defined by being about physics and physics-related mathematics; and that the construction of the the defninition of physics and physics-related mathematics is to be broad. If the Committee had intended a topic-ban on content about physics, they could and would have said so -- Boodlepounce assumes that the Committee meant what it said and said what it meant. Boodlepounce has commented on the present request for sanctions in the appropriate location.

Boodlepounce is equally unpersuaded of the need for amendment. The conduct complained of seems well within the scope of normal editing behaviour and if not Boodlepounce sees no evidence here that other mechanisms for dispute resolution have been tried. Boodlepounce suggests that there is no need for the Committee to consider this request further. Boodlepounce (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Count Iblis

I ask ArbCom to pass a motion to modify the topic ban into a mentoring set-up where Brews can edit any page after approval by a mentor. Brews has made contributions within the physics and math topic areas that are valued where the collaboration was without problems. In fact, he is sometimes asked to collaborate but then has to decline due to his topic ban. With this mentoring set-up, it's less likely for Brews to get into the problems. E.g. if Brews wants to spend all day on editing the various wiki-pages that give the explicit expressions for the acceleration in different coordinate systems including the derivations, most likely there would be no problems. In fact, by spending his energy this way, it's not used in fruitless talk page debates. As things stand now, the latter is "legal" as long as the talk page isn't that of a physics related page, while the former is illegal as it would violate his topic ban.

So, just do away with this topic ban and replace it by the mentoring set up that precisely addresses the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Clerks, I think this clarification can be closed. Risker (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• During the Speed of light case, three years ago, Brews ohare was found to have engaged in tendentious debates. When looking at the talkpage history of Free will, I notice that Brews ohare has dominated discussion in the past four months. I also note that this edit involves removing mention of physical models such as quantum physics, which is at least touching on the borders of the topic bans, but when challenged Brews ohare defends his actions, even though it has become a contentious issue. Given that Brews ohare's editing of Free will was contentious and tendentious and that he has been previously warned about his behaviour, I am concerned that he has not apologised and walked away from this issue. None of us are indispensable to any article, and when reasonable concerns are raised about our involvement in an article, it is perhaps wiser to either step back and edit elsewhere (there are over four million articles to edit) or ask for an independent third party to get involved.

I'll wait for further comments to see if sanctions and/or adjustments to the topic ban are appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@Brews ohare - I had wondered if some talkpage restriction would be appropriate. I did ponder it last time the Committee discussed your behaviour. I have briefly looked at the content of Free will to see the value of your contributions to main space, but haven't made any kind of analyses - it is a big article on a complex topic and would require an investment of time that I'm not sure I'm willing to make. The Committee has been criticised a number of times this year for wandering from the exact point of a clarification request, so this may not be the time and place to consider such a restriction nor the lifting of your ban. This request is to establish if you have violated your topic ban, and if the wording of your ban needs adjusting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think Johnuniq makes a good point here. Had Brews removed a joke about quantum uncertainty from the article on English muffins - ie where no-one could reasonably argue that it had a place - then that might have been unproblematic. However, all the evidence is that he removed the section from where it was because of factors to do with the physics - his opinion appears to be that these physical models are not a good fit, something that there appear to be several opinions about. As such I would have said that it goes over the border into the topic ban, particularly given the tendentious behaviour as well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed that this is a violation of the topic ban. Considering Brews ohare's history, the decision previously was to restrict him from these topics in the broadest sense. We are seeing why now. SirFozzie (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• This edit involved article content on a physics-related topic and therefore falls within the topic-ban. The scope of restrictions and bans needs to be construed reasonably, but I agree with the others that the material that Brews ohare removed here was at least arguably relevant to the article it was contained in, and therefore he should not have removed it. (I would not have been as concerned if Brews ohare had merely questioned on the article talkpage whether the material belonged there—although a separate issue is that no one editor should monopolize a talkpage to the extent of making it useless for everyone else, compare Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question). The situation is clear enough that I do not see the need for a formal clarification or amendment of our decision. If the AE administrators believe Brews ohare's violation of the ArbCom remedy is established, he may be blocked in accordance with that decision. If the AE administrators believe that Brews ohare may have been acting in the good-faith belief that his edit was proper, and he now commits not to do the same thing again, then perhaps only a final warning for the infraction should be given and logged; that is a decision for AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • To Seraphimblade: I have no issue with clarification having been requested. My point was simply that the arbitrators' comments here should give sufficient clarification, as opposed to a formal motion to clarify or amend being made and voted upon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• I see the AE report as a pretty much unambigious violation of the topic ban. Courcelles 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Broadly per Brad,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have nothing particular to add to what others have said before, which seems to be sufficient clarification to me. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Concur broadly with Newyorkbrad. While the inherent subject of the page is not physics-related, Brews ohare's edit to the page attempted to make it physics related. I agree this is a violation of the ban. Risker (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.