Request to amend prior case: Ryulong (February 2010)

Initiated by — ()at08:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 1: Ryulong desysopped

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ryulong (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (initiator)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong desysopped
• Adminship reinstated

For the past eight months I have been working on the encyclopedia portion of the project almost exclusively, working on articles, contributing to the manuals of style that I most often encounter, and trying not to cause a scale of the problems that I had encountered with administrative tools. Other than removal of rollback rights after a dispute with Mythdon prior to his ban from the project (I cannot find where the discussion that resulted in this took place) and a couple of 3RR blocks (#1,#2) that were placed hours after the edit wars died (and were later lifted) I have done nothing that requires administrative action to prevent me from doing anything.

With the Twinkle rollback I have used the function to give reasons along with the rollback less than the vandalism tagging one (I have used it and then realized the edits were not meant to deliberately cause damage, but these are rare) and the undo button more to leave comments as to why I am reverting edits.

I will admit that my communications withPowergate92 (talk ·contribs) have been getting strained, but I doubt that the issues will escalate to what occurred between myself andMythdon (talk ·contribs).

When I have the administrative tools back, I will use them for what they were intended: maintaining the project, dealing with speedy deletions, blocking vandalizing users, helping settle disputes that show up on ANI and the related boards, etc. I will not use administrative rollback in my primary topic area unless it is blatant vandalism (as a few long term problem users have been cropping up lately within it). I will not threaten to block as a scare tactic. I will convene with other administrators before I perform what may be controversial actions.

If it is requested, I will agree to a form of some period where I am watched to make sure I do not fall back on the methods I used in the past and I expect to be placed under scrutiny once more. I mean the best for this project and I would like to help out once more with the extra buttons available.

To Jtrainor

For one thing, RFA has changed a good deal since I was given the extra buttons 3 years ago. Second, this option has always been available for me to use per the motion in question.— ()18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason you can't use RfA?Jtrainor (talk)16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No view as to the merits of this particular appeal, but entirely supportive of Arbcom having the lesser power of temporary desysop as well as the power of permanent desysop. The implication of that being that "or by appeal to ArbCom no less than 6 months after the closure of the case." means that Ryulong has the right of appeal to Arbcom in this case. So Arbcom should resysop him if they feel that he has done what Arbcom wanted him to do last May when they desysopped him but gave him leave to appeal after 6 months.

For the future I would suggest that when doing temporary desysops Arbcom should make it clear whether the right of appeal is for a fresh look at the case, or for a resysopping based on particular changes in editing activity.ϢereSpielChequers18:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If a good case can be made for returning Admin rights to this user, this case should be made to the community. Even if I were to concede that there may be reasons for Arbcom to restore adminship without a new RFA, that reason needs to be more than concern that the community would not support the RFA. If the user has avoided returning to RFA for this reason, than this proposed restoration could be seen as an attempt to over-rule community concern.--Cube lurker (talk)18:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The above is my general comment on process. I've done a little more research on this candidate. I'm a little unsure how much more to say. Some recent edits i've found concerned me. It's a resolved situation so I'd say it's not worth mentioning here if this is going to be refered back to the community. On the other hand I don't want to come back tomorrow an find out that Arbcom has restored the bit on the reasoning that the only comments were about process, not specifics. I will await some sort of guidance on the question, should I discuss this here further.--Cube lurker (talk)20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I know of RfA, I doubt that Ryulong would be judged by the editors there solely on the reason his tools were removed. My opinion is that he should be judged in context of his arbcom case, as the community has already judged him worthy of the tools. RfA has changed, and if Ryulong had not committed the infractions he was found guilty of, he would still have the tools. Because of this, all of his editing skills and judgement should be considered acceptable except for those brought up in his arbcom case. The community should still have input on this decision, but RfA is not the correct venue from what I can see.Malinaccier (talk)02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

While ArbCom certainly has the right to restore the sysop bit to Ryulong if they wish to do so, I feel it would be better in this case to require a new RFA. I think the sysop bit should only be restored in cases of clearly temporary desysoppings; this one wasn't temporary, but rather indefinite, until such time as ArbCom wishes to overturn it. Unless there are reasons to think the original desysopping was flawed, Ryulong's status should stand, and he should try to regain the tools through the usual process of gaining community consensus in an RFA. (Yes, RFA is unfortunately different from how it used to be - it seems a lot harsher these days - but that's not really relevant here.)Robofish (talk)18:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with WSC. This avenue for resysop was explicitly stated in the previous ruling, thus it is an option for resysopping. IMHO, it is up to the Committee to determine if time served justifies restoring the bit. The only way that an RfA should be required would be if ArbCOM didn't feel that his actions have changed or improved---eg refused to act in a manner previously indicated in their past statements. Should that happen, then ArbCOM refusal to act would almost definately hurt his chances at an RfA. As per WSC, I have not looked into the particulars of this case, so this is a general support of ArbCOM's rights and responsibilities as laid out in the initial motion.---Balloonman^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)@Knight, I think your point is exactly why WSC and I worded our comments the way we did. Neither of us are taking a position related to the case in question, but rather upon the Committee's obligation to do so when the Committee made the option to appeal to them a possibility. R- was desyssopped at Committee behest, with the caveat that he could go through another RfA or apply to the committee. These were the options presented to him at the time. IMO, it is within his right to make this request, and the committees right to reinstate the tools. It is also appropriate for you to refer this to RfA, but I don't think the default should be that. IMHO, moving in and out of adminship should be easier than it is. That is the only way that aminship will ever live up to the monicker, no big deal. Sending cases back through RfA, does not make it easier, but harder.---Balloonman^{NO! I'm Spartacus!}18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been ongoing discussion about the ever-increasing standards applied to editors at RfA. For good or ill, these standards are the ones accepted by the community at this time. The level of scrutiny given to most editors in that process is likely much higher than that which could be given by the small number of ArbCom members who will render this decision, and applying that community standard is particularly appropriate in this case. Resysopping this editor will necessitate a higher level of monitoring than is the norm (as the editor concedes), and I believe that there is no reason to place that decision on so small a number of other editors, even ones given a high degree of trust.I am generally opposed toany resysopping without a new RfA, and specifically opposed to it in this instance.--otherlleft15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

• @Carcaroth/Fritz: Generally agree that some community opinion should be sought. Why not simply make a section atWT:RFA inviting comments here? –xeno16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

• RecusedMBisanz^talk16:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Input requested atWT:RFA#Input requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment ~17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• In keeping with my position that correctly de-sysopped users about whom there is no relevant non-public information should use RFA if they wish to regain adminship, I do not support this request. However, my views on this do not seem to be shared by most of ArbCom, so a motion to amend is certainly a possibility.Steve Smith (talk)16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I believe this is a case where an RfA would be most appropriate. The motion indicates several problems that led to removal of the tools and the community should have a chance to weigh in on whether or not to return them.Shell^babelfish23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Recused as a participant in the case.Hersfold^(t/a/c)04:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm recused in Ryulong's case (a borderline recusal, at the request of a party to the case, but I'll stick with it), but I'll offer a general comment on the practice of the committee's reserving the right to restore adminship without an RfA to an editor who's be desysopped under one of our decisions. This practice is best read as an unspoken caveat to any decision in which we desysop an editor: "X is desysopped" (or, what is equivalent, "X's administrator privileges are revoked") can often mean "X's administrator privileges are suspended indefinitely." In other words, unless conduct is so outrageous that we would never restore adminship, we retain the inherent right to do when we think developments (usually, continued good work on the project without repetition of the types of issues that led to the desysopping) warrant, just as if we used the alternative wording. Our alternative otherwise would be to impose time-limited suspensions, which would end automatically whether or not the editor seemed suitable for re-adminship, and I don't see how that would be better for anyone. Thus, I see no problem with our existing practice of entertaining requests to amend decisions imposing desysopping. As indicated, I offer no view on whether the request should be granted in this instance.Newyorkbrad (talk)22:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Recused in a similar way as is Newyorkbrad. I largely concur with his other comments.Risker (talk)00:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Undecided - my guiding principle is normally that adminship should not be a big deal, and should be removed and returned far more easily than it is at the moment. However, the community and those at requests for adminship (RFA) often do make adminship a big deal (and are also very slow to forgive, sometimes), and there should be some way to get community input, so not quite sure what to do here. In principle, not opposed to granting this request, but am wondering is there is a way to gauge community feeling on the matter short of an actual RFA?Carcharoth (talk)03:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Seek community input: RfA is such a den of horrors that I am personally reluctant to cast any former admins in its general direction. Suggest a temporary community input process where the community is invited to comment on whether this former admin should be resysopped. Arbcom can then base its decision on the consensus there. Open to thoughts on this idea, which we can enact by motionFritzpoll (talk)16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose in favour of RfA. This should be up to the community to decide.Fritzpoll (talk)16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose in favor of RFA. The community's remit is to grant rights in controversial circumstances. We are essentially asking the community to do the same thing in these "discussions", with us judging consensus instead of the crats. Why not just go all the way?KnightLago (talk)16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Noting RFA is an option. —Rlevse •Talk •23:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Rlevse and others.  Roger Davies^talk21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose amendment. I generally do not favor ArbCom adminship restoral, and see no exceptional case for it here. RFA is open to you.Cool HandLuke15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: EEML (3) (February 2010)

Initiated byMartin (talk)at03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 7

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Martintg (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• NA

• [1]
• The topic ban applied toMartintg (talk ·contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listed below solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article. Martintg may also create a category for unreferenced Estonia-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia.

This request is an extension to Radek's previous request[2] concerning the sourcing of Polish BLPs. There are a number of Estonia related BLPs also lacking references. Steve Smith suggested[3] that if Radek's request passes I should identify specific BLP articles in need of sourcing. I have amalgamated the two amendments (BLP sourcing and category creation) into one since they are both related to the list of articles mentioned below.

I've returned from vacation and have now gone through all the BLPs and the following require sourcing:Natalja Abramova,Allan Alaküla,Toomas Altnurme,Maire Aunaste,Toomas Frey,Piret Järvis,Ülle Kukk,Teet Kask,Ülo Kaevats,Kaur Kender,Vilma Kuusk,Malle Leht,Andres Lipstok,Leiki Loone,Sven Lõhmus,Ene Mihkelson,Helle Meri,Kristine Muldma,Sulev Mäeltsemees,Ester Mägi,Sulev Oll,Birgit Õigemeel,Reet Priiman,Tiit Pääsuke,Kuno Pajula,Aarne Ruben,Martti Soosaar,Peeter Torop,Endel Taniloo,Taimo Toomast,Indrek Toome,Hannes Võrno,Mart Ummelas

{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.

Response to Risker: The way that I understand the wording of this proposal is that the onus is on me to step back from any article that may become contentious. Basically, if somebody reverts a source I put in an article for whatever reason, or brings up some other objection, the plan is to completely leave that article alone and let the other person(s) deal with it. In other words I take the proposal to specifically state that it is on me not to let myself be baited into battlegrounds or edit wars, if this is attempted. However, I don't think is likely to be a problem; the sourcing of the first 26 articles went smoothly and I see no reason for why this shouldn't continue.

Having said that I do want to note that I very much doubt that these articles will get sourced by some other means. Even after an announcement on Wiki Project Poland (per last amendment) not that much help has been forthcoming. So, very likely, absent my efforts most of those BLPs are going to end up just sitting there unsourced or end up deleted (and some of them consider very notable people).radek (talk)06:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• Noted. Please be patient and allow time for discussion and voting. Could be anything up to a week.Carcharoth (talk)07:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Topic ban narrowed (Radeksz)

The topic ban applied toRadeksz (talk ·contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit articles inCategory:Poland related unreferenced BLP as of February 8, 2010, solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

Enacted ~18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Proposed. The last round seems to have gone off without a hitch, and this really isn't an enormous category.Steve Smith (talk)23:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]}01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk)01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Fritzpoll (talk)12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Cool HandLuke04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

    Roger Davies^talk04:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

6. KnightLago (talk)14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. I am concerned that we may quickly see the return of the battlefield mentality, if not in Radeksz then in some of the editors on the other side of this issue, which may lead Radeksz into difficult-to-manage situations. I hope that administrators will consider any behaviour that could be considered baiting of Radeksz to be serious violations of our user behaviour policies (such asWP:GAME) and the prior decisions of this Committee. Particular attention may need to be paid to removal of newly inserted reference sources, or any other signs that a BLP is becoming a battlefield.Risker (talk)23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Recuse

1. Shell^babelfish00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
2. I recused on the case, so on second thoughts I'll recuse on this.  Roger Davies^talk05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

2) Topic ban narrowed (Martintg)

The topic ban applied toMartintg (talk ·contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listedhere solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

Enacted ~18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Proposed. It worked well with Radek, and there seems little reason not to try it with Martin.Steve Smith (talk)23:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]}01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk)01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Fritzpoll (talk)12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Cool HandLuke04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

    Roger Davies^talk04:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

6. KnightLago (talk)14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. I have similar concerns about altering this topic ban as I do for altering Radeksz's topic ban.Risker (talk)23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Recuse

1. Shell^babelfish00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
2. I recused on the case, so on second thoughts I'll recuse on this.  Roger Davies^talk05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification:C68-FM-SV (February 2010)

Initiated byCla68 (talk)at00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• Cla68 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (initiator)
• Guettarda (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)notified

Guettarda has accused me of making off-wiki threats to out Wikipedia editors[4][5], apparently in reference to finding E.2here. Guettarda hasmade this accusation before, after the case closed. I have two questions about this:

1. Since the original question was already addressed by an ArbCom finding, is it ok for Guettarda to continue to make the same allegation?
2. If not, what would be the appropriate corrective action to take, or proper venue to request it; ArbCom enforcement board, ANI, or another venue?

• Cla68 (talk)00:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Steve. I have no further questions on this issue.Cla68 (talk)00:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing which forbids editors from mentioning past arbcomm findings. If there is some such policy or guideline, I am unaware of it.Guettarda (talk)00:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@Mackan: The arbcomm concluded that Cla68 had posted the comment to which I referred.

As for the other stuff - attributing claims to sources which are not in those sources is a always problem. When the article in question is a BLP, and the material allegedly included in the source (but not actually present) is negative and potentially damaging to the subject, it's a serious problem.

In response to my removal of the content, Cla68 removed the BLP violation, but continued to attribute claims to the source which were not supported by the source. When I raised that issue, Cla68 responded by using an offline source. Given his previous actions, I tracked down the source and was amazed to realise that he had copied material from the source, verbatim. Copying material from a copyright source, even with attribution, is a copyright violation. It's a seriously problem - it's not like we can run edits throughTurnitin.Guettarda (talk)05:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@Steve Smith: My comment was made in response to Cla68's comment/question in the context of "science-related articles" that "Many of the GW editors claim to be or really are scholars and scientists, yet their behavior in Wikipedia is absolutely reprehensible and shameful. Why?" My response to the "why" was that controversial science articles are often subject to outside agitation. I drew reference to Cla68's statement (which I considered a threat, and still do) both to point out that his behaviour has been no better than what he had complained aboutand, more importantly, to draw reference to the fact that the forum in which he made the statement was one of these outsider fora which are, IMO, responsible for the very poisoned atmosphere about which he was complaining.

Had I re-read my own comment to see how translates from "in my head" to "in writing", I would have realised that the order of my statements was inverted. Of course, if I had any sense I would have stayed out of the conversation entirely; it caught my attention because it was entitled "copyvio", and dealt with the issue I mentioned previously.Guettarda (talk)07:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@Mackan#2: Yep, I must have missed that. That said, of course I looked up the original source myself, to see the context. And yes, I'm always leery of the choice of offline sources when equivalent online sources (in this case, an expanded article by the same reporter, on the Telegraph's website) are available.Guettarda (talk)07:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a good faith request for clarification. Cla68 is involved in a content dispute with Guettarda, and has been harassing him at his talk page.[6][7][8][9][10]. This is just an extension of that harassment.Hesperian00:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There are realated problems. First, Guettarda sees fit to be continually antagonistic in content discussions.[11][12][13][14] Second, Guettarda seems to think this is justified by something he says Cla68 did in 2008, that has already been evaluated by the Arbitration Committee.[15][16] Both of these need to be addressed. On the first point, any disagreement about the meaning of these sources is well within the bounds of good faith disagreement, and does not entitle Guettarda to make personal attacks about "smears" and "dishonesty." On the second, Guettarda should well know that after the Arbitration Committee evaluates a claim, editors cannot carry on with the very same allegations, least of all to support continued incivility on unrelated matters. Finally, Guettarda's claims are seriously inaccurate, including his claim that ArbCom said Cla68 had done the same as Guettarda says he did.[17] In my view clarification would be a minimum here, though it may be a reasonable start.Mackan79 (talk)01:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Guettarda: I'm not sure why you'd be amazed, unless you missed that Cla68 had already posted the exact text on the talk pagehere, and said, "Okay, I'll make it say exactly what it says here." Perhaps you should retract the claim that he used an off-line source in order to obscure something, then, and well,yeah. Also I don't believe it is a copyvio to include two sentences nearly verbatim with specific attribution in the text any more than it would be if you quoted them. It's considered bad form in some circles, though under the circumstances that's a rather unnecessary interpretation. Regardless, there is no reason to be so combative throughout the discussion, rather than working cooperatively. That's also besides the dredging up of other events, which shows that the hostility is intentional, and the false statements about what ArbCom did or didn't find. Really, you only meant that ArbCom confirmed Cla68's comments were his own?[18] I'm sorry but that's weak, and is not what you said.Mackan79 (talk)06:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Steve Smith: I would have thought that editors could discuss a finding, but not that they could just continue to make the underlying accusation, particularly where it involves something scandalous that's said to have happened off Wikipedia, and where evidence is not provided. That isn't necessary; perhaps then it's just up to others to point out that it has already been resolved.Mackan79 (talk)19:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Clerk note I guess we can archive this in a day or two.MBisanz^talk18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure this is actually a request for clarification (the findings in C68-FM-SV don't seem to be in question), but here's my best shot: it is true that there is no prohibition on mentioning past ArbCom findings. Guettarda, could you clarify what you're hoping to accomplish by doing so here?Steve Smith (talk)06:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply, Guettarda. Since the findings in the case are clear, and since there is no apparent need for sanctions against anybody (at least as it pertains to C68-FM-SV), may I suggest that we're done here?Steve Smith (talk)16:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• It seems from Cla68's comments that this is now resolved.  Roger Davies^talk06:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree this can be closed.Newyorkbrad (talk)15:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Close —Rlevse •Talk •18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Speed of Light (March 2010)

Initiated byLikebox (talk)at05:02, 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

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

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

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify thatUser:Brews ohare made many pedestrian edits on other physics pages, in addition to more contentious edits atspeed of light. This amendment seeks to establish that the edits ofUser: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 overBrews 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 HandLuke: 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 HandLuke: 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 HandLuke: About the science--- the question is not whether the speed of lightdoes change, the question is whether the speed of lightcan 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 factdoes 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 shouldstay 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 HandLuke: 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.

Aboutthisamendment: 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. [19] -- if you follow this link, you are led to the following diff as evidence of bad faith arguing:[20] 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 isnothing wrong with this commentin any way.
2. [21]--- this leads to a series of diffs showing thenumber 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. [22]--- 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 inthis case Brews was unambiguously right on every single point. This is not only garbage evidence, but it is evidence the other way.
4. [23]：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. [24]): You say this isespecially 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 upagain, 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. [25]--- 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. [26]--- 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. [27]--- Ok, this is the overlong talk-page discussion. I agree this was a problem, and so does Brews.
4. [28]--- Oh, Ok, you linked to it once again. I guess you made a mistake.
5. [29]--- Oh, the same thingagain? 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 wasfound guilty of tendentious and disruptive editing andincivility", 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.

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 hisbehaviour 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 toLikebox 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 ([30],[31],[32],[33] and particularly[34]), the related brouhaha at ANI (such as[35],[36],[37],[38],[39]) and Brews' block log (for edit warring and declaring his intention of edit warring). There's a reason why Brews wasfound guilty of tendentious and disruptive editing andincivility you know.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics}17:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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 andhere, 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_deeds00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

to Likebox, thelink 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 ofasequenceofedits 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 seenhere, 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 isthis link. These edits were all made after my warning and since the arbitration case. The arbitration casespecifically 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_deeds00:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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[40]. 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, thespeed 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[41]). 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[42]. 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 toavoid joining WikiProjet Physics, and contributing technical matarial.

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 letFinell 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 2010Time 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 ofthis).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, thevalue of the speed of lightin SI units is fixed. Also, we defined the second to be "1/x" wherex is a certain number of hyperfine transitions of ceasium-133 in its ground state, at rest. Note that acompletely equivalent definition of the second is "the frequency of the hyperfine transitions of caesium-133 isx. Assuming that either the second, or the speed of light, were not the same today as they was yesterday, themeter changed. So in the equationc = 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 theBIPM 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 inAGF-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)

More than three months after the arbitration closed, editors arestill finding nonsense inserted by Brews into a wide range of physics articles in support of his idiosyncratic views: seethis discussion atTalk: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 overthis 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 articlesby the same editor, to the point that an arbitration case had to be brought against himto 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Count Iblis notes that Brews has started editing geology articles. There was a halfway-protracted discussion about the meaning oforogeny 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)

I note below that Cool Hand Luke states that Brews ohare argued for months at thespeed 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 atWT:PHYS to try and establish the degree of the knock-on effect that the new definition would have onelectric 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)

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.

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'sown 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^talk09:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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^talk18:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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 preciselybecause the definitions arepartly circular that they were adopted by theBIPM, 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^talk19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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^talk00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 toCosineKitty: 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 toCool 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 atTalk: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 "probablywould 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 onSpeed of light that led to the Case: Speed of light and to my sanctions are being discussed still atTalk: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 byBrews ohare to D. Tombe'sstatement 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 thatnothing 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 toSirFozzie:

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 atUser: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 toSteve 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 toRisker:

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 inAGF-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)

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)

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)

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,[43]. 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)

• 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 aSpanish 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)

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

• 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 theoriginally-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 tospeed of light seems much too drastic—this was a much broader problem, and I see no evidence that user has improved.Cool HandLuke03:16, 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 HandLuke04:18, 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 isWP:FRINGE. I don't believe Brews O'Hare himself has suggested that the speed of light isnot 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 themeter. 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. Itis odd, however, when a Wikipedian inserts lengthy andWP: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 atspeed of light, but these could have easily occurred in many other articles—and probablywould have occurred if other editors had been able to keep tabs on Brew O'Hare's prolific output in this area. Thediscussion 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 HandLuke 15:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)added box to elaborateCool HandLuke04:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Or more succinctly: he argued formonths atspeed 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 HandLuke16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Brews O'Hare, this is not about the content. I was simply responding to Lifebox, who was andis 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 atTalk:Second was not (and you were not participating). Rather, I cite it as an example of how your problematic editing was not confined tospeed 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 suggesteddrastically reducing the size of your topic ban, why are you apparently opposed to this?Cool HandLuke04:07, 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 HandLuke16:53, 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^talk00:52, 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^babelfish03:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline to modify per Shell Kinney. -Mailer Diablo20:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Footnoted quotes (March 2010)

Initiated byNcmvocalist (talk)at07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Footnoted quotes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ncmvocalist (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (initiator)
• Good Olfactory (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
• Postdlf (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
• Alansohn (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[all listed users are aware]

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Alansohn restricted
• to remove the "for one year" part, and in addition to that, impose a ban, probation, or any other remedy that will put an end to the problems, and subsequently act to ensure that they do not recur.

ArbCom's finding in 2008 stated: ""Alansohn has repeatedly engaged in unseemly behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith". Unfortunately, this finding continues to hold true today. The remedy that was enacted at the time of the finding was invoked several times as the case log indicates; Postdlf and Good Ol'factory whom invoked this remedy in 2009, have since been repeatedly subject to uncivil and unseemly conduct by Alansohn, including personal attacks (including in the form of very serious yet unsubstantiated allegations), as well as other inflammatory commentary and assumptions of bad faith. Allegations made in the heat of the moment is one thing, but this involves repeatedly making the same allegations, yet refusing to provide any evidence to substantiate them (despite being requested to do so).

Good Ol'factory has in good faith, followed the dispute resolution process - opening a WQA which summarises one of the main incidents[44]. During this WQA, I also provided input as an uninvolved user. However, Alansohn has now attempted to involve me in his conflicts by filing a retaliatory WQA over something for which he was not a party to. The community is reluctant to say any further, when this intimidation tactic shall be employed by Alansohn against any user whom strongly makes a finding against him. The improvement in his conduct has, therefore, been so marginal that it has dismally failed to adhere to Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Plenty of evidence is available to substantiate this atWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence/Alansohn's_conduct_post-case, which should also paint a clear picture of any further voluntary dispute resolution on the matter. I request ArbCom to put an end to the unfortunate effects of Alansohn's disruption and gross misconduct.Ncmvocalist (talk)07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A CFD restriction would address the first type of problematic behavior that Good Olfactory has pointed out; but if that's all that ArbCom is willing to do, the other two types would still remain a problem...?Ncmvocalist (talk)13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Kirill

Well, looking at Alansohn's lack of responsiveness to the clerk's request, I'm not sure if there would be sufficient evidence from both sides for the case to proceed. I don't have anything further to contribute myself, except possibly at workshop-pd stage. My primary concern was Alansohn's conduct during WQA, and the evidence I had to submit has already been submitted in the links in my initial statement here.Ncmvocalist (talk)09:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The most recent incident is just the latest in a long history of incidents involving Alansohn's behavior atCFD and CFD-relatedDRV discussions. As a regular participant at these discussions, I can attest that Alansohn's behavior has not substantially improved since the conclusion of his editing restrictions. I would classify the latest incident as relatively minor in isolation, but the accumulated history of his behavior makes it perhaps the straw that is breaking the camel's back.

(Parenthetical:I will state that prior to the editing restrictions being lifted, I did block Alansohn twice for incidents of trolling, assuming bad faith, and making personal attacks. The first block was made in response to this personal attacks and feuding withUser:Kbdank71 andUser:Otto4711:[45],[46],[47],[48]. The second block was made in response to a continuation of the behaviour, and in particular the following attack onUser:Jc37, which was made after he had been warned to temper his comments:[49]. Since these blocks were imposed I have been one of Alansohn's more popular targets of attack, so I have not considered blocking him further, but have made good faith efforts to discuss with him some of the problems that continue.)

Since the editing restrictions were lifted, I would categorize the general problems with Alansohn's edits into the following types of problematic behavior:

1. He users his opportunity to present arguments in CFD and DRV as a vehicle for personal attacks against editors who disagree with him (or, often, against editors who have attempted to intervene with him or have blocked him in the past, including me andUser:Postdlf);

2. He repeatedly mischaracterizes arguments he disagrees with and claims that users who choose to propose deletion for categories are engaging in "disruption" (recent e.g.);

3. When concerns about his behavior are brought to his attention, I have found he uses one of three approaches to avoid taking responsibility for his misbehavior:(a) he accuses the person who is bringing the behavioural problems to his attention of "trolling" or of manufacturing a problem in an attempt to get him blocked or disciplined;(b) he suggests that the complaints are invalid because the user bringing it to his attention is in a conflict of interest;(c) he attempts to shift the focus of the discussion to what he views as procedural deficiencies in Wikipedia processes (which apparently are intended to act as a justification for his behavior). These methods can be observed in the following recent discussions and the most recent WQA, where a number of users tried to make progress on dealing with some of his problems:[50];[51]

I have and I have seen other users attempt the following ways of dealing with the problems:

1. Engaging in good faith discussions in an attempt to resolve the disputes;

2. Using humor to point out the absurdity of his behavior;

3. Ignoring it, in the hope that it would cease;

4. Issuing warnings that continued behavior could result in sanctions against him;

5. FormalWQA.

From my perspective, no progress has been made with any of these approaches. The problems associated with Alansohn's behavior have been consistent and relatively unrelenting, with the diffs provided by Ncmvocalist just the latest examples from months of similar behavior. I didn't encourage the filing of this request for amendment and I wished this latest incident could have been resolved via regular dispute resolution channels. The only solution that I personally think would solve the CFD/DRV problem completely would be banning Alansohn from CFD/DRV participation (though I do worry that he would then create the same problem in another discussion area of Wikipedia). It's gone on a long, long time and many editors have shown a lot of forbearance. It needs to be resolved. —Good Ol’factory^(talk)22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: Normally I wouldn't have minded doing this, but I think I'd better not in light of his recent reaction to my posting on his talk page:[52]. It might be more likely to promote a response if a non-involved user were able to remind him.Good Ol’factory^(talk)21:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@Orderinchaos:User:Orderinchaos's comment below contains some interesting allegations that suggest to me that he may not be assuming good faith about those who have already posted here. I'll let most of his comments suggesting conspiratorial undertones and sneaky cabals speak for themselves. However, it's probably necessary that I respond directly to the following:"Good Olfactory's admission above that he has used his admin tools to further his position in a dispute to protect friends - something which he should most definitely have taken to AN/I instead - is also an issue." I want to be clear that I made no such admission, and that is Orderinchaos interpreted my comment in this way, he is mistaken. At the time the blocks were performed, I hardly knewUser:Kbdank71,User:Otto4711, orUser:Jc37. The only one of those three that I would even currently consider "a friend" would beUser:Kbdank71, but it is purely a Wikipedia association and is entirely the result of our interactions at CFD that have taken place since this time. This is exactly the same tactic that Alansohn has adopted in alleging that I had a conflict of interest in performing those blocks—he has taken events and relationships that have developedafter the block was performed to retroactively assume that such a relationship pre-existed and thereby created a conflict of interest. It's cute, but it's a misrepresentation.Good Ol’factory^(talk)21:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And yes, the blocks were in 2009, not 2008. My mistaken dating/typo on your talk page in that regard doesn't change anything I've said above.Good Ol’factory^(talk)06:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

@Kirill: I understand the concern regarding the "dregding up" of an old case—if nothing had happened regarding the case for 18 months, I would agree. But this is not the first time a user has brought the case before the Arbitration Committee again for clarification or further action; seehere. This is because the problem with Alansohn's behavior has been consistent. It didn't end during his year-long sanction period, it didn't end when the year-long sanction expired in June 2009, and it hasn't stopped since. In the June 2009 clarification linked to, when concerns were expressed that Alansohn's behavior had not improved, the arbitrators strongly encouraged Alansohn to render moot the question of how this case should proceed by improving his behavior. Other than saying that, no one answered the question of what we do next, and no one clarified the question of what should be done if the behavior doesn't improve:[53]. The behavior has not improved, and I feel that multiple requests to the committee by different users should be a signal that something further needs to be done. The question has not been rendered moot, as hoped for.Good Ol’factory^(talk)21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that Alansohn has a recurring problem with turning content disputes into personal ones, by making attacks on contributors in the course of disagreeing with their arguments or policy/guideline interpretations. I have tried repeatedly to address this with him through explanations and pleas, assuming his good faith throughout, but he has turned his sights on one contributor after another at CFD, and those who try to change or sanction his behavior in turn get subject to his attacks as well.

I've been personally trying to address Alansohn's incivility at CFD for over a year and a half now (for example,this thread, involving his feud againstUser:Kbdank71, then a frequent closer of CFD discussions). Alansohn was civil and even complimentary towards me at the time (though persisted in attacks on others). I even tried to address others' incivility towards him as well.[54] Though in my view, Alansohn generally bore more responsibility for initiating the hostile exchanges and escalating and continuing them bybaiting. In that particular instance, Alansohn was continuing a feud with yet another frequent CFD contributor,User:Otto4711.[55],[56] And I went out of my way to be nice to Alansohn when I saw him doing good things in other contexts.[57]

His conduct towards me changed starkly once I blocked him myself, in January 2009, for his comments towardsUser:Good Olfactory.[58],[59]. I have always been reluctant to block someone for conduct other than repeated vandalism. But given Alansohn's very clear editing restrictions, the extreme nature of his comments, and the fact that this was part of a pattern on his part that I had already tried to address with him on multiple occasions, I thought (and still think) a block was very appropriate. I logged it pursuant to his editing restrictions.[60] And I politely explained the block to Alansohn on his talk page.[61]. Alansohn responded with even more incivility and personal attacks, now towards myself as well.[62] Another admin reviewed and denied Alansohn's unblock request, finding that even that request itself contained further incivility.[63]

In the year since, I have periodically tried to bring his uncivil conduct to his attention, and Alansohn has periodically accused me of having abused my admin powers, alleging a conflict of interest on my part as some perception of his that I was acting only pursuant to a "friendship" (as he stated at the time in his response to my block notice). He has never elaborated or supported this accusation. Alansohn has gone so far as to take my words entirely out of context right below my own post, claiming that I myself had described my block of him as "taking the side of a friend";[64]; I corrected him[65] and still have not seen any acknowledgment of this.

Often Alansohn's most inflammatory comments do not expressly identify individuals, but are still understood as attacks on others with whom he disagrees. At a minimum, the heated rhetoric is disruptive.[66],[67],[68] As before, I tried to point this out to him, losing patience.[69] His response was to blame others for starting it.[70] I told him this was non-responsive and pointed out, again, that it was part of a longstanding pattern.[71] I did not receive a further response.

The most recent incident between Alansohn and myself began with me addressing his incivility towardsUser:BrownHairedGirl, yet another regular participant at CFD that Alansohn has targeted,[72],[73] and who has also tried to address the tone of Alansohn's comments at CFD.[74] Alansohn responded by attacking me out of the blue in a completely unrelated CFD,[75], and by calling me a troll when I asked for an explanation,[76] and by calling me a troll again when I posted a question about a comment of his at yet another CFD (in which he had been uncivil yet again towards BrownHairedGirl.[77]

I responded on his talk page, in which I complimented him as an editor, and pointed out exactly what I had a problem with and what I hoped for going forward.[78] As that thread shows, his response was to call the incidents "trivial," again accuse me and Good Ol'factory of trolling, and of trying to "manufacture knowingly false disputes." WhenUser:BrownHairedGirl also joined in that thread as well and asked Alansohn to explain a comment about policy violations, he responded not with anything relevant to the conduct issues, but rather with issues of policy and guideline interpretation at CFD.

I was shocked recently to realize just how long this was going on, and I am disappointed in myself for not being able to bring about a resolution. But I cannot make any progress with someone who dismisses complaints as "trivial," and labels responses to his personal attacks as "trolling." Anyone who cannot participate in a forum without turning discussions personal, and who cannot respond to complaints about their own conduct without escalating the hostility, does not belong there.postdlf (talk)23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Noting that I have been a past focus of his attention in 2007, and supported all of the previous ArbComs, RfCs, etc as a strong opponent of Alansohn, my observation was (and is) that his behaviour significantly improved after the original ArbCom limitations were put in place and any time I have seen him on the project since, he has been contributing constructively and, in particular, making useful contributions to CfD and other areas. On looking at the evidence in this case, I am not seeing the problems which led to the Footnoted quotes case manifesting themselves, so it should not be treated as a "request for amendment" of the previous case.

On the other hand, my observations of some of the editors Good Olfactory names in his statement above are quite negative indeed - they have acted at times in a hostile, inflexible and provocative manner towards good faith editors in the CfD area at times, and if this goes to an actual case, I'll be happy to spend some time at that point finding examples of this for the evidence pages as it would be a great opportunity to fix CfD. It's an area of the encyclopaedia which has been a problem for a long time, mainly due toWP:OWN problems associated with a very small number of editors who have very strong ideas on How Things Should Be around here - some of the ideas are good, but others are utterly illogical, and these guys brook no criticism and carry grudges, sometimes for years, against editors who take them on. One could be forgiven for thinking this amendment motion, and the stages which led to it, are an orchestrated campaign by the members of that group to silence an opponent.

Good Olfactory's admission above that he has used his admin tools to further his position in a dispute to protect friends - something which he should most definitely have taken to AN/I instead - is also an issue. (Read in connection with 2nd note below)Orderinchaos12:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ncm: I certainly didn't have you in mind in my comments above - I apologise if I gave that impression. I think you've likely been caught in the crossfire actually - there is a lot more to the disagreement between these parties, in my view, than first appears. The CfD crew's modus operandi is clear to anyone who gets in a dispute with them. Granted, it appears Alan did not handle this particularly well, but thereal aggressors should be targetted for action here, not someone they provoked into a predictable response given his past history.Orderinchaos14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Olfactory has asserted to me, and may well be right, that he was not friends with those involved at the time he made the block on Alansohn, which was April 2008. My project's first run-in with the CfD group waspossibly (by memory) in August or September 2008 23–30 September 2008, by which stage they were a functioning and tightly-knit group of coordinated editors and any action taken would in that context be thoroughly compromised as per above. Were it a year rather than a few months I'd strike my comment; as it is I'll leave it, with this qualification attached.Orderinchaos21:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed thatthe blocks were performed in 2009, not 2008 (I had been led astray bythis comment by Good Olfactory). There may be argument for a reprimand with relation to abuse of admin tools here - it was a clear conflict of interest situation in the terms I outlined in my first post in this comment.Orderinchaos05:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• For the record, in line with Roger Davies request below, Alansohn was reminded at 03:35, 16 February 2010, by one of the clerks.[79].

• I am seeing some problems here. I would be willing to see a motion which partially or fully restricts in the areas of CFD and CFD at DRV.SirFozzie (talk)09:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Could Alansohn be reminded that this is underway? I'm seeing lots of edits from them but no input here and I'd like to hear their side of the story.  Roger Davies^talk21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not particularly enthusiastic about dredging up a two-year-old case (and a remedy that's been expired for the better part of a year) to sanction someone, even if they do need sanctioning. This would be better framed as a new case request, in my opinion.Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]}05:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• If there is enough substantive matter to justify it, then a new case request might be appropriate. Otherwise, a dead case resuscitation doesn't seem appropriate. — Coren ^(talk)00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse due to involvement in first case. —Rlevse •Talk •22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• I've got to agree with Kirill and Coren, if there are continuing problems that haven't been resolve through the usual channels, a new case might be appropriate, but I don't believe that this can ride on the tailcoats of the old Footnote case since even the restrictions have been expired for most of a year.Shell^babelfish02:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm also not very excited about resuscitating a really old case where the area in which the dispute took place had shifted (from BLP to deletion process) - particularly so when there is a landmark decision right above it. I recommend filing a fresh new case if necessary. -Mailer Diablo20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification:Ireland article names (March 2010)

Initiated by Rannpháirtí anaithnidat 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (initiator)

Notice has been posted toWikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Membership as follows:

• Masem (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA) (Moderator)
• Xavexgoem (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA) (Moderator)
• SebastianHelm (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Snowded (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• HighKing (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Bastun (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Evertype (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Nuclare (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• BritishWatcher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Kittybrewster (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Rockpocket (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Ddstretch (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• PhilKnight (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Edokter (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Red King (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Jeanne boleyn (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Waggers (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Mooretwin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• MusicInTheHouse (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Grollum (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• ClemMcGann (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• RashersTierney (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• FlyingToaster (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• BrownHairedGirl (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Lucian Sunday (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Redking7 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Bogger (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Fmph (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Footyfanatic3000 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Ww2censor (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Daicaregos (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Scolaire (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Cuchullain (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Sswonk (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Valenciano (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Sir Ophiuchus (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Snappy (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

The above case proposedfour remedies to the dispute over how to refer to the island of Ireland and the state of Ireland on Wikipedia. The first of these were:

The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement.

That was discussion was opened ata designated centralised location. It was undertaken in good faith but failed to reach a decision. A back-up procedure was as follows (2nd remedy):

If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.

Thatback-up procedure was initiated. Over the subsequent months, consensus was unattainable among the participants of the process on the matter of the titles of theIreland andRepublic of Ireland articles. In light of that, a consensus decision was reached to hold a community wide vote on that matter (inspired by theGdańsk/Danzig vote). Thatvote took place. The outcome was to have the articles on the state atRepublic of Ireland and the articles on the island atIreland (with a disambiguation page atIreland (disambiguation)). The result was confirmed bythe moderating administrator.

Subsequent to that vote, the outstanding matters related to how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (e.g. in articles). Agreement was reach on those matters by consensus. The result of that consensus has been added to theIreland manual of style.

The titles/locations of those articles has been stable since the vote took place (September). The style guidelines have also been stable since their addition (December) and have been upheld on article discussion pages independent of it.

The final remedy related to the binding nature of the process:

Once the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

Since the result of the vote became there was a substantial drop off in participation in the process and several editors formally withdrew from the process. Owing to this, some say that because of the process became derailed and thus is non-binding/non-completeable. Can we please have confirmation on the following:

• Have all of the procedures outlined in the request for arbitration have been fulfilled?
• Are the outcomes of the procedures now binding for the period outlined in Remedy 4?
• Is the process arising from this request for arbitration now complete?

--RA (talk)19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd simply like to affirm Rannpháirtí anaithnid's request, above. We are in a period of relative calm, which probably reflects ade facto appreciation that the community consensus has been established even if many are unwilling to acknowledge it. Nevertheless, it would be helpful for ArbCom to officially sign off on this process, if only to preempt the inevitable arguments - at some point in the future - about when this debate is permitted to be rehashed.02:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that there is a moratorium on "page move discussions", as stated below by Coren, does that further imply that there's a two-year moratorium on arguing that the poll was invalid/rigged/not binding/etc., and are persistent attempts to claim the above blockable under this decision? --SarekOfVulcan (talk)13:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies that this is a bit late posting here. I didn't realize that it was allowed. Hopefully the committee members that have already posted below will take the time to read this.Agree that we have a period of relative calm, but it is procedurally incorrect to state that the process can be signed off, and that all procedures have been followed. The key timeline points are:

• Last 10 years - multiple edit warring and hundreds of pages of discussions and debates, mostly heated, around the name of the article dealing with the sovereign state named Ireland - i.e. the articleRepublic of Ireland.
• August 2008 -first time a proposal involving multiple articles created and got people talking. Followed up with support from both sides after a compromise packageinitiated by Mooretwin.
• On 4th Jan 2009,Arbcom issued a ruling. It simply statesThe community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority viewon the appropriate names forIreland and related articles.. (my emphasis) Note that Arbcom specifically linked to the article on the island, not the article dealing with the sovereign state. Note that Arbcom states "and related articles" indicating that a multi-article agreement is being sought.
• A vote was proposedaround Feb/March 2009 - note it was multiple articles, etc.
• It was questioned and re-clarified in March 2009that the process scope was multiple articles according to the wording of the Arbcom decision.
• Lots of discussions, and variations on how to deal with this:March 2009April 2009
• In April,User:PhilKnightanalyses and summarizes progress and statesAt first sight, we can deduce that the following options have too much opposition: Ireland as state and Ireland as island AND state (basically a merge). Further, the option Republic of Ireland is a tie and cannot be considered as having consensus.
• Towards the end of June, Masemsuggested a comprehensive multi-article solution. Due to opposition he states

Since I've got the major opinions of the parties involved, and the "oppose" positions are pretty clearly not a position that can be made compatible (two different directions in which to name the 26-county state), I will consider that any chance of consensus happening to be beyond measure. In otherwords, any attempt to achieve normal, discussion-driven consensus on this matter is not going to happen in the immediate future. This means that polling is our next best solution. Unless anyone has anything contrary to this to offer, I will propose a revised schedule for the STV in a day or so (it won't start Sunday) and we will go from there. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the introduction of the idea of polling.

• Sometime after between this proposal and the poll opening in August, after more than 6 months of work and at a time when most editors were on holidays or away, the entire process turned into the same old single-issue that we'd played out 100's of times before. Many of us took the view that this poll was just one part of a bigger process. Many of us believed that the comprehensive agreement that had been nearly agreed many times over the preceeding months would now be agreed point-by-point. Unfortunately, the flaw was the "winners" of the first poll had no incentive to compromise (with the risk that a concession at this point might not result in a concenssion in their favour later on).
• Even immediately after the poll opened, the questionWhat happens in 2 years time was asked, and it was never seen as a locked-in result. In fact, at this stage, people were beginning to realize that voting on single-issue-at-a-time would not work, as there was no incentive
• Just before the poll closed,it was acknowledged that many more steps were required in the process.
• Immediate after the poll closed this was further demonstratedby Masem's comments announcing the vote result where he also acknowleged that the result of the vote may not be binding.

Today, 6 months after the process fell apart, we have a small number of editors trying to rewrite the history and context of this issue, and attempting to turn the original Arbcom process into validation of the time-worn majority imposed single-issue of the name of the articleRepublic of Ireland. This is wrong, and should be actively discouraged by Arbcom members as failing to develop comprehensive procedures to deal with the larger issue.A factual summary:

• The Arbcom remedies specifically statesThe community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. This has not been done. A procedure including the articleIreland has not been discussed, and only one related article -Republic of Ireland was included in a vote, settled by the same-old British majority that keeps the article at this title. Indeed the majority-vote situation is the reason why we ended up at Arbcom in the first place. After the vote, no procedures were agreed as the process broke down due to multiple disagreements related to the vote.

Finally, I understand and accept that this issue is old and that most people are fed up with it. But that is no excuse for threatening sanctions against editors for being "argumentative" for pointing out that the Arbcom request has not been fulfilled. The reason the process failed was because over a very short period of time, with input from only a small handful of editors, there was a movement away from a multi-article comprehensive package solution to a single-issue majority vote with no connection to the "bigger picture". So we've learned something.I don't believe there's anything to be gained by rewriting history and making out that this single-issue majority vote was what Arbcom charged the community with doing. I also believe that more can be learned and gained by understanding where the process went off the rails. Sheer mental exhaustion and perhaps more than a modicum of reflection have kept things quiet since September, and I question why some editors have now tried to impose the result of the poll as the Arbcom sanctioned result, complete with lock-in, when it is pretty clear that we're nowhere near reaching an agreement covering multiple articles as instructed by Arbcom. I believe that there's everything to be gained if Arbcom instruct the community to revisit this process sometime in the near future and to continue to work on creating a collaborative solution. --HighKing (talk)01:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Arbcom Members who have voted

I'd like to ask the Arbcom members to discuss in a little more detail the motionThe Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction with specific emphasis on explaining which specific conditions were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction. Because I have followed the process closely, and I'm at atotal loss how this decision has been reached. I've outlined above what the remedies were, and what has been achieved, and the gap between. Can someone please help me understand why the Committee believes that where we've ended up is satisfactory? All I can see is the Committee taking this opportunity to sweep the issue under the carpet with vague threats of silencing or sanctioning anyone who doesn't go along with it. --HighKing (talk)16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello?

Anyone care to respond please? Can someone from the Arbcom Committee discuss this please? The process and remedies have not been fulfilled, yet the Committee appear to have decided that an aborted partially fulfilled process where the result was skewed by a British majority POV on a single issue of naming a single article. There is no record of the Committee examining and agreeing that the process was fulfilled, and there is no record of the Committee matching the result against the remedies. Can the Committee examine each remedy, and comment on the fulfillment of each please? --HighKing (talk)12:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the one who started the arbitration process.It has failed. I quit the collaboration project because of the bad faith on the part of many participants, and in particular because of the lack of effective leadership in arbitration from Masem.

And I no longer edit Ireland-related articles. In fact, I edit the Wikipedia a lot less than I used to.

Well, done, Arbitration Committee, for doing nothing positive, or pro-active, or helpful. I hope you appoint better arbitrators in 2011. --Evertype·✆15:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I applaud Arbcom's 2-year freeze on the naming issue. The dispute was becoming a headache & needed a time-out.GoodDay (talk)18:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• While I do not think this has been formalized by motion, the committeedid examine the result of the procedure as outline and endorsed the conclusion of the panel as satisfactory. Specifically, the procedures have been fulfilled, they are binding per remedy 4, and the committee now considers the matter to be closed. In practice, this means that the two year moratorium on further page move discussions is in force until September 18 2011. — Coren ^(talk)20:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've posted two motions to clarify the matter "officially". — Coren ^(talk)03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Recusing due to administrative actions I have taken in this area, but I generally agree with Coren.SirFozzie (talk)22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Recused as I voted in the Ireland naming poll.Steve Smith (talk)22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Try the method used for settling this sort of thing inWP:ARBMAC2 —Rlevse •Talk •22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced the troubles with The Troubles, Ireland naming, etc have been solved. —Rlevse •Talk •00:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Coren, everything seems to have been handled properly and the conditions fulfilled. If someone is still arguing or editing disruptively after having been informed of the decision then the community can deal with that disruption as they see fit.Shell^babelfish03:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during theIreland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.

(There being 16 arbitrators, four of whom are inactive and two others are recused, the majority is 6)~16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Enacted ~16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. In particular, further disruptive editing or argumentation is very much unwelcome and can be brought toArbitration Enforcement or to other community venues. — Coren ^(talk)03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Per CorenShell^babelfish08:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Per CorenKnightLago (talk)19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]}04:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk)05:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies^talk12:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo13:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
8. —Rlevse •Talk •03:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Recuse.Steve Smith (talk)02:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Recused due to involvement in the area.SirFozzie (talk)08:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of ade facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of theIreland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

(There being 16 arbitrators, four of whom are inactive and one of whom is recused, the majority is 6)~16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Enacted ~16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Given the potential for acrimony and the hard-won current stability, I for one would view disruption in this area with a very poor light. It might be wisest to create a structure similar to that used to fixate the naming of the articles rather than dispute endlessly on talk pages if there remains serious concerns. — Coren ^(talk)03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Settling the large dispute wasn't license to continue the arguments in other places.Shell^babelfish08:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
3. KnightLago (talk)19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]}04:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk)05:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies^talk12:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo13:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
8. See my post of a few minutes ago about the endless issues of Ireland related issues coming to arbcom. In this motion the emphasis is on "enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes". To quoteRodney King with a pertinent twist "Can the editors in the Ireland topics all get along?" —Rlevse •Talk •03:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Recuse.Steve Smith (talk)02:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Recused due to prior involvement in the area.SirFozzie (talk)08:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)